Harshman says successful reproduction is natural selection
backspace
Harshman:
> But the ones that successfully reproduced
> best are those with the advantageous traits.
>................
>..................
>..... This is natural selection .......
Zoe:
"....is good health an advantageous trait? Or is it that new good
mutations are the only source of successful reproduction?..."
Both Zoe(ID, creationism proponent) and Harshman failed to notice the
tautology:
1)... those that successfully reproduced best are the ones with the
advantageous traits..
2) Those with the advantageous traits , produced the best.
This tautological thinking from Harshman, ID and creationist who all
seemingly can't comprehend my argument has got nothing to do with
natural selection or getting naturaled.
Question:
Other than noting they had advantageous traits how was their
successfulness measured ?
Dr. Acula
> http://groups.google.co.za/group/talk.origins/tree/browse_frm/thread/...
>
> Harshman:
>
> > But the ones that successfully reproduced
> > best are those with the advantageous traits.
> >................
> >..................
> >..... This is natural selection .......
>
> Zoe:
> "....is good health an advantageous trait? Or is it that new good
> mutations are the only source of successful reproduction?..."
>
> Both Zoe(ID, creationism proponent) and Harshman failed to notice the
> tautology:
> 1)... those that successfully reproduced best are the ones with the
> advantageous traits..
> 2) Those with the advantageous traits , produced the best.
Those are not tautologies, in any way.
> This tautological thinking from Harshman, ID and creationist who all
> seemingly can't comprehend my argument has got nothing to do with
> natural selection or getting naturaled.
>
> Question:
> Other than noting they had advantageous traits how was their
> successfulness measured ?
Look at that word 'reproduction' again.
Boikat
> http://groups.google.co.za/group/talk.origins/tree/browse_frm/thread/...
>
>
> > But the ones that successfully reproduced
> > best are those with the advantageous traits.
> >................
> >..................
> >..... This is natural selection .......
>
> Zoe:
> "....is good health an advantageous trait? Or is it that new good
> mutations are the only source of successful reproduction?..."
>
> Both Zoe(ID, creationism proponent) and Harshman failed to notice the
> tautology:
> 1)... those that successfully reproduced best are the ones with the
> advantageous traits..
> 2) Those with the advantageous traits , produced the best.
>
> This tautological thinking from Harshman, ID and creationist who all
> seemingly can't comprehend my argument has got nothing to do with
> natural selection or getting naturaled.
>
> Question:
> Other than noting they had advantageous traits how was their
> successfulness measured ?
By surviving long enough to reproduce. It may surprise you, but some
"self evident truths" actually are valid observations.
Boikat
Burkhard
> http://groups.google.co.za/group/talk.origins/tree/browse_frm/thread/...
>
>
> > But the ones that successfully reproduced
> > best are those with the advantageous traits.
> >................
> >..................
> >..... This is natural selection .......
>
> Zoe:
> "....is good health an advantageous trait? Or is it that new good
> mutations are the only source of successful reproduction?..."
>
> Both Zoe(ID, creationism proponent) and Harshman failed to notice the
> tautology:
> 1)... those that successfully reproduced best are the ones with the
> advantageous traits..
> 2) Those with the advantageous traits , produced the best.
>
> This tautological thinking from Harshman, ID and creationist who all
> seemingly can't comprehend my argument has got nothing to do with
> natural selection or getting naturaled.
>
that would be because you do not use the word tautology like anybody
else, which makes communication difficult
unrestra...@hotmail.com
> http://groups.google.co.za/group/talk.origins/tree/browse_frm/thread/...
>
>
> > But the ones that successfully reproduced
> > best are those with the advantageous traits.
> >................
> >..................
> >..... This is natural selection .......
>
> Zoe:
> "....is good health an advantageous trait? Or is it that new good
> mutations are the only source of successful reproduction?..."
>
> Both Zoe(ID, creationism proponent) and Harshman failed to notice the
> tautology:
> 1)... those that successfully reproduced best are the ones with the
> advantageous traits..
> 2) Those with the advantageous traits , produced the best.
Those athletes who are taller, tend to win at basketball; those who
win at basketball tend to be taller.
People who commit violent crimes are more likely to be male; males are
more likely to commit violent crimes.
Theists are more likely to attend churches regularly; people who
attend churches regularly tend to be theists.
Are these tautologies?
Are they complete explanations of these subjects?
>
> This tautological thinking from Harshman, ID and creationist who all
> seemingly can't comprehend my argument has got nothing to do with
> natural selection or getting naturaled.
Bwahahahaha!
WTF is "getting naturaled" supposed to mean?
>
> Question:
> Other than noting they had advantageous traits how was their
> successfulness measured ?
Kids! The secret code is hidden in the phrase "reproductive success".
Can you find it?
A few points:
Tautologies are true.
Favorable traits != reproductive success. They *lead to it.
A sentence fragment is not a complete theory.
You can't speak English. This is not a criticism; most people can't.
If you explain yourself in your native language, there is probably
somebody here who could translate it for the rest of us.
Kermit
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<Steph...@gmail.com>:
You seem to think that the observation that individuals with
more advantageous traits survive better and have more
offspring is a tautology. It isn't.
And please define your invented term "get naturaled".
>Question:
>Other than noting they had advantageous traits how was their
>successfulness measured ?
How would you like it to be measured? Be specific, and keep
in mind that the question is differential reproductive
success in a population leading to a change in allele
frequency in that population.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Robert Camp
> http://groups.google.co.za/group/talk.origins/tree/browse_frm/thread/...
>
>
> > But the ones that successfully reproduced
> > best are those with the advantageous traits.
> >................
> >..................
> >..... This is natural selection .......
>
> Zoe:
> "....is good health an advantageous trait? Or is it that new good
> mutations are the only source of successful reproduction?..."
>
> Both Zoe(ID, creationism proponent) and Harshman failed to notice the
> tautology:
> 1)... those that successfully reproduced best are the ones with the
> advantageous traits..
> 2) Those with the advantageous traits , produced the best.
>
> This tautological thinking from Harshman, ID and creationist who all
> seemingly can't comprehend my argument has got nothing to do with
> natural selection or getting naturaled.
Is that what they're calling it these days? Man I must be getting
old.
Hang on a second - "Hey you kids, get offa my lawn!" - now, what was I
saying?
RLC
John Harshman
Let me point out, pro forma since you can't actually read, understand,
or learn, that "natural" isn't a verb, and that a person who has no
understanding of the term "natural selection" is not in a good position
to critique it.
Anyway, natural selection isn't a tautology. But now I have reached my
quota of time spent banging my head against a wall, and must leave you
with a simple link:
raven1
By their passing those traits on. What's difficult to understand?
Will in New Haven
> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 12:15:58 -0700 (PDT), backspace
>
>
>
> >http://groups.google.co.za/group/talk.origins/tree/browse_frm/thread/...
>
> >Harshman:
> >> But the ones that successfully reproduced
> >> best are those with the advantageous traits.
> >>................
> >>..................
> >>..... This is natural selection .......
>
> >Zoe:
> >"....is good health an advantageous trait? Or is it that new good
> >mutations are the only source of successful reproduction?..."
>
> >Both Zoe(ID, creationism proponent) and Harshman failed to notice the
> >tautology:
> >1)... those that successfully reproduced best are the ones with the
> >advantageous traits..
> >2) Those with the advantageous traits , produced the best.
>
> >This tautological thinking from Harshman, ID and creationist who all
> >seemingly can't comprehend my argument has got nothing to do with
> >natural selection or getting naturaled.
>
> >Question:
> >Other than noting they had advantageous traits how was their
> >successfulness measured ?
>
> By their passing those traits on. What's difficult to understand?
EVERYTHING is difficult for backspace to understand. Note that he is
cryptically honest in his choice of user names. He asks for
explanation. When he gets them, he _backspaces_ through them and then
asks the same stupid question, although he may change the wording.
--
Will in New Haven
unrestra...@hotmail.com
He only changes the wording because he forgot how he asked it the last
time.
Kermit
backspace
> >Question:
> >Other than noting they had advantageous traits how was their
> >successfulness measured ?
> By their passing those traits on. What's difficult to understand?
Ok, other than noting they passed their traits on how was it
determined that these traits were advantageous?
You don't understand of course the traits are being passed on , this
the observation. What we need is an independent reason for this
happening and not reformulating the observation as a tautology.
Tom McDonald
> On Apr 12, 1:40 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>> Question:
>>> Other than noting they had advantageous traits how was their
>>> successfulness measured ?
>
>> By their passing those traits on. What's difficult to understand?
>
> Ok, other than noting they passed their traits on how was it
> determined that these traits were advantageous?
Other than winning the game, how was it determined that the Green
Bay Packers' scoring more points than the Minnesnota Viqueens was
advantageous to the Packers?
Other than landing men on the moon and returning them safely to
the earth, how was it determined that the Apollo program reached
its primary mission goal as laid out by Jack Kennedy in his
inaugural address?
Other than that, how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
> You don't understand of course the traits are being passed on , this
> the observation. What we need is an independent reason for this
> happening and not reformulating the observation as a tautology.
It's a bitch when your short-term memory goes down the crapper,
eh B.S.?
--
Tom
When Tyrants tremble, sick with fear,
And hear their death-knell ringing;
When friends rejoice, both far and near,
How can I keep from singing.
backspace
> >> By their passing those traits on. What's difficult to understand?
> > Ok, other than noting they passed their traits on how was it
> > determined that these traits were advantageous?
> Other than winning the game, how was it determined that the Green
> Bay Packers' scoring more points than the Minnesnota Viqueens was
> advantageous to the Packers?
Because it doesn't tell us the real reason they won. Maybe they were
all on steroids while the other team wasn't. Without detailed
information we won't know the actual reason.
http://www.members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe10fsrc.html
2. Living fossils
"Natural selection ... plays a conservative rather than an innovating
role. The mutations which diverge from
the wild type or from the privileged genotype are swept away when the
environment changes; hence the
stability of the species. Panchronic species [living fossils], which
like other species are subject to the assaults
of mutations remain unchanged. Their variants are eliminated except
possibly for neutral mutants. In any
event, their stability is an observed fact and not a theoretical
concept." (Grasse, 1977, p.87) [top]
"...The mutations which diverge from the wild type or from the
privileged genotype are swept away when the environment changes;..."
=== rephrase ===
"......those that diverge are swept away...."
Diverge and swept away alludes to the same fact but doesn't tell us
the actual reason something died.
Al of these tautologies starts out this way : "..... those that died
were swept away...." The tautology then gets fleshed out with
mutations, genotype, phenotype, environment , changes etc...
[M]adman
Oh my. We must be having a two for one special today
Evolutionist trickery #389
Claim they just don't understand.
Evolutionist trickery #112
Attack the poster when you can't refute the information
Zuca
It is really not that complicated.
Beneficial mutations are beneficial through their environment, thats the
criteria.
Through a beneficial mutation the species gets a boon, it's like the
hidden ace in your sleeve, when it gets played it might just win you the
hand.
In this case, having a beneficial mutation gives you a higher chance of
succeeding as opposed to the species that have more neutral or non
benefitial mutations.
And then natural selection does the rest, the population with the most
beneficial mutations at the point in time as compared to the environment
and other populations.. Wins the match.
And thus those beneficial mutations are carried on, signs of a winner,
at the moment at least.
Iain
> Ok, other than noting they passed their traits on how was it
> determined that these traits were advantageous?
Wow! I already answered this question, and yet I notice you never
responded to any of the posts answering it. Mind filtering out
anything that actually clears up the mess in your head?
You asked...
" Ok, other than noting they passed their traits on how was it
determined that these traits were advantageous?"
In an environment with tall trees, you can tell whether a long neck
was advantageous, because it stands to reason that short one couldn't
have reached reach the leaves.
> You don't understand of course the traits are being passed on , this
> the observation. What we need is an independent reason for this
> happening
Humping, unhampered by environmental factors such as trees being too
tall.
>and not reformulating the observation as a tautology.
No tautology; already explained. You too stupid to understand.
This withstands all logical analysis. Far, far, far more than you've
ever ventured.
--iain
wf3h
backspace has never heard of the 'laboratory' where such tests are
run.
backspace prefers to wait for his preacher to tell him how to think
about nature. which is why, for 2000 years, creationism led nowhere.
wf3h
> On Apr 12, 9:20 am, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > >> By their passing those traits on. What's difficult to understand?
> > > Ok, other than noting they passed their traits on how was it
> > > determined that these traits were advantageous?
> > Other than winning the game, how was it determined that the Green
> > Bay Packers' scoring more points than the Minnesnota Viqueens was
> > advantageous to the Packers?
>
> Because it doesn't tell us the real reason they won. Maybe they were
> all on steroids while the other team wasn't. Without detailed
> information we won't know the actual reason.
what is 'real'? how do you know 'real' exists? how do you measure
'real'?
> >
> Diverge and swept away alludes to the same fact but doesn't tell us
> the actual reason something died.
what is an 'actual' reason? how you you know a reason is 'real'?
>
> Al of these tautologies starts out this way : "..... those that died
> were swept away...." The tautology then gets fleshed out with
> mutations, genotype, phenotype, environment , changes etc..
of course the bible says something along those lines as well but to
creationists that book of myth is 'real'
.
Iain
> On Apr 12, 9:20 am, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:
> Diverge and swept away alludes to the same fact but doesn't tell us
> the actual reason something died.
Well yes it does because the statement is often followed by a 'by' and
then the killer is mentioned.
--Iain
Damaeus
Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> posted:
> By surviving long enough to reproduce. It may surprise you, but some
> "self evident truths" actually are valid observations.
Low sperm count might be nature's way of saying "This person should really
not be reproducing."
Damaeus
Damaeus
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> posted:
> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 12:15:58 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
> <Steph...@gmail.com>:
>
> >This tautological thinking from Harshman, ID and creationist who all
> >seemingly can't comprehend my argument has got nothing to do with
> >natural selection or getting naturaled.
>
> And please define your invented term "get naturaled".
Sometimes these are not invented terms, but when shifting phrases and
ideas around, incompleted words, or words known to be in need of
correction are overlooked before the message is finally posted. I don't
think accusing someone of ignorance based on something like that is right.
Damaeus
backspace
> Beneficial mutations are beneficial through their environment, thats the
> criteria.
> Through a beneficial mutation the species gets a boon,
Other than noting the mutation was beneficial how was the boonability
measured ?
backspace
> You asked...
> " Ok, other than noting they passed their traits on how was it
> determined that these traits were advantageous?"
> In an environment with tall trees, you can tell whether a long neck
> was advantageous, because it stands to reason that short one couldn't
> have reached reach the leaves.
There are 30 five year old's in a room with no chairs. An adult places
a jar of candy at a hight of 5 meters - how many of the kids will get
the candy? Do you understand the concept of a red herring.
Steven L.
The phrase "tend to win" implies a probability of winning.
It seems that probability comes into evolution in several places: The
probability of an organism of a population being born with a favorable
mutation; the probability that this organism will survive long enough to
reproduce (it still may get eaten by a predator); etc.
I searched talk.origins for "probability," but I didn't find any
explicit discussion of the role of probability in evolution.
It seems that this is one of the main things upsetting the creationists
and even theistic evolutionists. That if you started up life on Earth
all over again from 4 billion years ago and let time and evolution take
their course, by now you wouldn't get Homo Sapiens--you might not even
get a sentient species, who knows. Which truly means that Homo Sapiens
is here on Earth by a lucky set of random probabilities--there's nothing
necessary about our being here.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Martin Andersen
Charles Brenner
> http://groups.google.co.za/group/talk.origins/tree/browse_frm/thread/...
>
> Harshman:
>
> > But the ones that successfully reproduced
> > best are those with the advantageous traits.
> >................
> >..................
> >..... This is natural selection .......
>
> Zoe:
> "....is good health an advantageous trait? Or is it that new good
> mutations are the only source of successful reproduction?..."
>
> Both Zoe(ID, creationism proponent) and Harshman failed to notice the
> tautology:
> 1)... those that successfully reproduced best are the ones with the
> advantageous traits..
> 2) Those with the advantageous traits , produced the best.
Backspace has a point. There is a tautological aura along the lines of
(1) and (2) above. On the other hand:
A. So what? Not just a rhetorical question -- I'm interested in the
answer. At a guess it's that natural selection can't operate if there
is no actual entity of "fitness" on which to select.
B. (1) and (2) are not quite accurate. Namely, (2) is slightly but
importantly wrong. It should be:
(2) Those with the advantageous traits *tend to* reproduce the best.
The point about the words "tend to" (notable included in the T.O. faq
that Harshman mentioned -- http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html)
is that "fitness" is defined in probability terms, which is different
from the stochastic accident of what actually happens. Probability
refers to the long run rate of success, i.e. over infinitely many
conceptual trials. What actually happens, who actually reproduces or
dies without offspring, is partly a random event.
Admittedly the difference is subtle. In practice we may estimate the
probability by counting the frequency of actual occurrences and if the
population is large -- thousands of Gallapagos finches -- the counting
frequency will be an accurate estimate of the long-run probability.
However, the philosophical difference is important. By insisting that
fitness means a tendency, not a mere possibly accidental occurrence,
it follows that fitness has an actual cause -- beak better suited to
the available food, etc. -- a cause which is helpful for prosperity.
It doesn't matter whether we know what that cause is in a particular
case. Its mere existence is sufficient to explain the concept of
natural selection. That's "what".
In summary, I agree that the definitions as stated by Backspace
comprise a tautology. But they're not correct definitions.
Iain
None. And no, the analogy is not obvious.
We're talking about trees that are too tall for some but not too tall
for others.
>Do you understand the concept of a red herring.
Yes, you're right, this is a red herring. But this is _your_ line of
questioning, not mine. I fully concede that this whole approach to the
topic is a waste of time. I can assure you that these ideas have
undergone not just logical scrutiny, but computational analysis also.
It is not fundamentally a question of language. You keep insisting
that people are 'implying' intent, when they're not. You keep
insisting that words have meanings that they don't. That approach
leads to utter red herrings, which is why the answers we give you are
not enlightening.
But you asked a question " Ok, other than noting they passed their
traits on how was it determined that these traits were advantageous?
". I gave you the correct answer to this question, even though I did
not know why you considered it important.
If you feel that my answers are not shedding any light on the topic,
that because you're not asking the questions that will help you
understand it. That's because you seem to be struggling with what 'it'
is.
--Iain
Iain
On Apr 12, 5:21 pm, Charles Brenner <cbren...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 12:15 pm, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://groups.google.co.za/group/talk.origins/tree/browse_frm/thread/...
>
> > Harshman:
>
> > > But the ones that successfully reproduced
> > > best are those with the advantageous traits.
> > >................
> > >..................
> > >..... This is natural selection .......
>
> > Zoe:
> > "....is good health an advantageous trait? Or is it that new good
> > mutations are the only source of successful reproduction?..."
>
> > Both Zoe(ID, creationism proponent) and Harshman failed to notice the
> > tautology:
> > 1)... those that successfully reproduced best are the ones with the
> > advantageous traits..
> > 2) Those with the advantageous traits , produced the best.
>
> Backspace has a point. There is a tautological aura along the lines of
> (1) and (2) above. On the other hand:
>
> A. So what?
Exactly. The quality of fitness is defined differently depending on
different environments.
That's why the constant truth 'the fittest survive' produces different
outcomes, irrespective of whether it's a tautology.
"The fittest survive" may be a tautology(it doesn't matter), but " The
course of evolution is swayed by the survival of those most befitting
their environment " is NOT a tautology at all. Before Darwin, nobody
would have agreed with this without thorough persuasion.
There are certain preliminary ideas which had not been accepted long
before Darwin's time, which made his ideas less self-evident than
Backspace seems to be crediting them for:
Mainly....
-- Old Earth
-- The fact that all hereditary information is mutible
--Iain
Iain
<snip>
Another crucial idea, the absence of which may create the illusion of
tautology, or 'tautological aura', is that fact that this is all
centred around the act of reproduction. This is why the strcuture of
organisms is oriented around the task of reproduction.
If a copying machine is also the thing being (innacurately) copied,
then whatever course the ensuing evolution takes, it will be toward
some kind of self-copying machine, be it the original version or some
other version.
If the environment interferes with the self-copying process, then the
evolution will be toward some other kind of self-copying machine.
--Iain
backspace
> Backspace has a point. There is a tautological aura along the lines of
> (1) and (2) above. On the other hand:
> A. So what? Not just a rhetorical question -- I'm interested in the
> answer. At a guess it's that natural selection can't operate if there
> is no actual entity of "fitness" on which to select.
The tautologies comes from Aristotle and James Hutton 1794 as posted
elsewhere, they didn't use the term natural selection. Natural means
of selection was due to Patrick Matthews who was a theist. But the
tautologies have nothing to do with getting naturaled. I showed how
Hutton's tautology reduces to : What is adapted is adapted. He was
quoted by Gould in his last book, but Gould failed to notice the
tautology.
> beak better suited to the available food, etc. -- a cause which is helpful for prosperity.
=== rephrase ===
The better suited beak is helpful for prosperity.
The irony in your reply is that you formulated a tautology: I wrote
the bulk of the official Wikipedia article here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric). That article is now
so widely dispersed that it has infused our culture as millions of
people hopefully have a better grip on the concept of what is a
tautological proposition and expression is. ( there is a
difference).
Bruce Stephens
[...]
> Natural means of selection was due to Patrick Matthews who was a
> theist. But the tautologies have nothing to do with getting
> naturaled.
What do you mean by "getting naturaled"? That's not a phrase I've
heard before, and (so far, anyway) it makes no sense to me.
(I'm happy to go along with verbing nouns and so on, but for the
results to be useful they have to make some kind of sense.)
[...]
backspace
> It seems that probability comes into evolution in several places: The
> probability of an organism of a population being born with a favorable
> mutation; the probability that this organism will survive long enough to
> reproduce (it still may get eaten by a predator); etc.
=== rephrase ===
"...Those being born with a favorable attribute; the probability that
this organism will survive ...... ..."
This is a tautology "favorable" implies the organism will survive but
doesn't tell us the real reason it will tend to survive.
> I searched talk.origins for "probability," but I didn't find any
> explicit discussion of the role of probability in evolution.
English is a crippled language, single words means many things in many
contexts a loophole exploited by transmutationists trying to convince
people that monkeys gave birth to monkeys that only looks human.. Try
wikipedia for probability(random) and non-probability (Non-random) as
discussed elsewhere by me on talk origins.
> It seems that this is one of the main things upsetting the creationists
> and even theistic evolutionists. That if you started up life on Earth
> all over again from 4 billion years ago and let time and evolution take
> their course, by now you wouldn't get Homo Sapiens--you might not even
> get a sentient species, who knows. Which truly means that Homo Sapiens
> is here on Earth by a lucky set of random probabilities--there's nothing
> necessary about our being here.
Or whatever happens happend to happen.....
backspace
> "The fittest survive" may be a tautology(it doesn't matter),
substance, if it doesn't matter to what a tautology is then why should
we assign any substance to what you say? Note that a tautology is not
defined as something which is true by definition: A truism is. And a
tautology is not circular reasoning either.
> " The course of evolution is swayed by the survival of those most befitting
> their environment " is NOT a tautology at all.
Other than noting that during the course of evolution sharks survived
how was their befittedness to the environment measured ?
backspace
wrote:
> backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > Natural means of selection was due to Patrick Matthews who was a
> > theist. But the tautologies have nothing to do with getting
> > naturaled.
>
> What do you mean by "getting naturaled"? That's not a phrase I've
> heard before, and (so far, anyway) it makes no sense to me.
I mean that like a square circle there can't possibly be such a thing
as a natural selection. To motive for this I deduced Aristotle's
tautology which Darwin credit him with inspiring Origin of Species,
then showed how James Hutton 1794 basically wrote a huge manuscript
that reduces to: What is adapted is adapted. The error was taken over
by William Charles Wells and Patrick Matthews; plagiarized by Wallace
and Darwin. The tautologies dating back to the Greeks weren't
originally associate with the term natural selection or Darwin's
preferred term natural preservation.
Charles Brenner
> On Apr 12, 6:21 pm, Charles Brenner <cbren...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> > Backspace has a point. There is a tautological aura along the lines of
> > (1) and (2) above. On the other hand:
> > A. So what? Not just a rhetorical question -- I'm interested in the
> > answer. At a guess it's that natural selection can't operate if there
> > is no actual entity of "fitness" on which to select.
>
> The tautologies comes from Aristotle and James Hutton 1794 as posted
> elsewhere, they didn't use the term natural selection. Natural means
> of selection was due to Patrick Matthews who was a theist. But the
> tautologies have nothing to do with getting naturaled. I showed how
> Hutton's tautology reduces to : What is adapted is adapted. He was
> quoted by Gould in his last book, but Gould failed to notice the
> tautology.
>
I'm sure you did a wonderful job but that doesn't bear on the question
I asked. You're merely giving clues as to the path your thoughts took
leading to the erroneous claim you made. Who cares? (This one is
rhetorical.)
> > beak better suited to the available food, etc. -- a cause which is helpful for prosperity.
>
> === rephrase ===
> The better suited beak is helpful for prosperity.
>
> The irony in your reply is that you formulated a tautology:
Nope. Although after you revised what I said leaving out some words
you were close enough to a tautology that perhaps one more iteration
of misquoting would do the trick.
backspace
"transmutationist" are relevent to the discussion. As you read the
thread you should be able to notice the tautologies. Would somebody
else other than me point them out please, it is getting tyering
really......
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.anthropology.paleo/browse_thread/thread/9e2f45c7422a414/b4f9eeb26446e2b2?q=james+hutton#b4f9eeb26446e2b2
In the 1890s, Henry Osborne, the neo-Lamarckian, published
Osborn, Henry Fairfield. 1894. From the Greeks to Darwin: An outline
of
the development of the evolution idea, Columbia University Biological
Series. I. New York: Macmillan.
http://www.amazon.com/Greeks-History-Philosophy-Sociology-Science/dp/0405066104
Iain
wrote:
> backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > Natural means of selection was due to Patrick Matthews who was a
> > theist. But the tautologies have nothing to do with getting
> > naturaled.
>
> What do you mean by "getting naturaled"? That's not a phrase I've
> heard before, and (so far, anyway) it makes no sense to me.
That's classic.
Backspace is the one whining about unclear, undefined language, and
yet he is the first and only person here ever to use truly nonsense
language.
--Iain
Iain
> On Apr 12, 8:19 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > [...]
>
> > > Natural means of selection was due to Patrick Matthews who was a
> > > theist. But the tautologies have nothing to do with getting
> > > naturaled.
>
> > What do you mean by "getting naturaled"? That's not a phrase I've
> > heard before, and (so far, anyway) it makes no sense to me.
>
> I mean that like a square circle there can't possibly be such a thing
> as a natural selection.
Nonsense.
Natural selection is a brute fact. By saying it's a tautology you
couldn't be further from the truth.
If a predator prefers blue insects, blue insect species near it will
become less blue. You may have your own wierd ideas about the broader
significance of this fact, but to attempt to brush it aside is just a
non-starter, and you'll make yourself look foolish or elusive or
unwilling to learn.
This fact was not acknowledged before Darwin, so whatever you think
it's epistemological nature is -- tautology or whatever -- it's a
significant departure from prior understanding of the natural world.
If you're interested in learning about the subject at all, you'll
begin with the fact, not with wordgames(which aren't even that -- just
a lot of silly non sequiturs such as "selection implies intent").
--Iain
Bruce Stephens
> On Apr 12, 8:19 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > Natural means of selection was due to Patrick Matthews who was a
>> > theist. But the tautologies have nothing to do with getting
>> > naturaled.
>>
>> What do you mean by "getting naturaled"? That's not a phrase I've
>> heard before, and (so far, anyway) it makes no sense to me.
>
> I mean that like a square circle there can't possibly be such a
> thing as a natural selection.
So it's selection (something that according to you can't possibly be
natural) that's being naturaled?
That doesn't seem a very useful phrase. Indeed, a search using a
famous search engine suggests that only one person (you) uses it.
Iain
> On Apr 12, 7:33 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:> "The fittest survive" may be a tautology(it doesn't matter),
>
> A tautology is defined as something which is all form but no
> substance,
Irrelevant.
It is, at least, a correct statement, which may or may not be
significant.
"Survival of the fittest" is the name of a phenomenon. It is not a
statement, and so not a tautology. To cite 'survival of the fittest'
is to point to something.
> if it doesn't matter to what a tautology is then why should
> we assign any substance to what you say?
Because nobody says "survival of the fittest" on its own. It's not a
complete sentence. I say more.
> Note that a tautology is not
> defined as something which is true by definition: A truism is. And a
> tautology is not circular reasoning either.
Irrelevant.
> > " The course of evolution is swayed by the survival of those most befitting
> > their environment " is NOT a tautology at all.
>
> Other than noting that during the course of evolution sharks survived
> how was their befittedness to the environment measured ?
Irrelevant. Only relevant to statement "the fittest survive" -- not a
statement that is made.
--Iain
Iain
> On Apr 12, 4:09 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > It seems that probability comes into evolution in several places: The
> > probability of an organism of a population being born with a favorable
> > mutation; the probability that this organism will survive long enough to
> > reproduce (it still may get eaten by a predator); etc.
>
> === rephrase ===
> "...Those being born with a favorable attribute; the probability that
> this organism will survive ...... ..."
>
> This is a tautology "favorable" implies the organism will survive but
> doesn't tell us the real reason it will tend to survive.
The reason is 'fitness', which just means that the qualities it needs
to survive are set by the environment.
Ask what 'fitness' consists of, and the answer varies according to the
environment.
That, in turn, is the idea which the theory consists of. And that is
an idea, not a tautology.
> > I searched talk.origins for "probability," but I didn't find any
> > explicit discussion of the role of probability in evolution.
>
> English is a crippled language, single words means many things in many
> contexts
You are not dealing with many contexts.
> a loophole
...which is irrelevant.
> exploited by transmutationists trying to convince
> people that monkeys gave birth to monkeys that only looks human..
Horseshit.
--Iain
Dr. Acula
> This thread on Osborne and James Hutton where Wilkins used the word
> "transmutationist" are relevent to the discussion. As you read the
> thread you should be able to notice the tautologies. Would somebody
> else other than me point them out please, it is getting tyering
We can't point them out because they aren't tautologies. You have no
idea what a tautology looks like. You are simply lacking in pragmatic
competence.
> In the 1890s, Henry Osborne, the neo-Lamarckian, published
>
> Osborn, Henry Fairfield. 1894. From the Greeks to Darwin: An outline
> of
> the development of the evolution idea, Columbia University Biological
> Series. I. New York: Macmillan.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Greeks-History-Philosophy-Sociology-Science/dp/...
Will in New Haven
> Will in New Haven wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 11, 7:40 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 12:15:58 -0700 (PDT), backspace
>
> >> <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>http://groups.google.co.za/group/talk.origins/tree/browse_frm/thread/...
>
> >>> Harshman:
> >>>> But the ones that successfully reproduced
> >>>> best are those with the advantageous traits.
> >>>> ................
> >>>> ..................
> >>>> ..... This is natural selection .......
>
> >>> Zoe:
> >>> "....is good health an advantageous trait? Or is it that new good
> >>> mutations are the only source of successful reproduction?..."
>
> >>> Both Zoe(ID, creationism proponent) and Harshman failed to notice
> >>> the tautology:
> >>> 1)... those that successfully reproduced best are the ones with the
> >>> advantageous traits..
> >>> 2) Those with the advantageous traits , produced the best.
>
> >>> seemingly can't comprehend my argument has got nothing to do with
> >>> natural selection or getting naturaled.
>
> >>> Other than noting they had advantageous traits how was their
> >>> successfulness measured ?
>
> >> By their passing those traits on. What's difficult to understand?
>
> > cryptically honest in his choice of user names. He asks for
> > explanation. When he gets them, he _backspaces_ through them and then
> > asks the same stupid question, although he may change the wording.
>
> Oh my. We must be having a two for one special today
>
> Evolutionist trickery #389
> Claim they just don't understand.
>
> Evolutionist trickery #112
> Attack the poster when you can't refute the information
Speaking of giving us a clue to your nature, would anyone in the whole
world believe an ADMAN to be honest. And simply accusing
"evolutionsts" of the tricks that you lunatic creationists do isn't
very effective because we have years of _evidence_ of creationist
behavior on this newsgroup and elsewhere.
--
Will in New Haven
Will in New Haven
> On Apr 12, 2:56 am, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 12, 1:40 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
> > > >Question:
> > > >Other than noting they had advantageous traits how was their
> > > >successfulness measured ?
> > > By their passing those traits on. What's difficult to understand?
>
> > determined that these traits were advantageous?
> > the observation. What we need is an independent reason for this
> > happening and not reformulating the observation as a tautology.
>
> backspace has never heard of the 'laboratory' where such tests are
> run.
>
> backspace prefers to wait for his preacher to tell him how to think
> about nature. which is why, for 2000 years, creationism led nowhere.
He probably listens, or appears to listen, carefully to his preacher's
explanation and then asks the same stupid question. His purpose is to
annoy and he succeeds.
Zuca
Zuca
Its not "noted".. Its observed. For instance, Nylonase is a good example
.. When the bacteria through mutations develloped a means of eating
nylon in a nylon rich environment.. It had a "boon" on other bacteria's
that didn't have this mutation.
Do you understand that the mutation is whats measured against the
environment and the mutation is what causes the benefit.
backspace
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> He probably listens, or appears to listen, carefully to his preacher's
> explanation and then asks the same stupid question. His purpose is to
> annoy and he succeeds.
But Will you still haven't answered my question: Darwin defined
natural selection as the elimination of the less improved forms. See
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/browse_frm/thread/777b37f621f66c4e#
And below here Dennet tells us he thinks that Darwin's insight that
the dead dinosaurs were less improved because they died is the most
brilliant idea any man could have ever conceived of.
Dangerous idea p.21
"....Let me lay my cards on the table. If I were to give an award for
the single best idea anyone has ever had, I'd give it to Darwin, ahead
of Newton and Einstein and everyone else. In a single stroke, the idea
of evolution by natural selection unifies the realm of life, meaning,
and purpose with the realm of space and time, cause and effect,
mechanism and physical law. But it is not just a wonderful scientific
idea. It is a dangerous idea. My admiration for Darwin's magnificent
idea is unbounded, but I, too, cherish many of the ideas and ideals
that it seems to challenge, and want to protect them. For instance, I
want to protect the campfire song, and what is beautiful and true in
it, for my little grandson and his friends, and for their children
when they grow up....":
In what way Will, did Darwin's observation that those who are dead are
less improved the most brilliant idea any man could have ever
conceived ?
Cory Albrecht
> Reading from news:talk.origins,
> Bob Casanova<nos...@buzz.off> posted:
>
>> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 12:15:58 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
>> <Steph...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> This tautological thinking from Harshman, ID and creationist who all
>>> seemingly can't comprehend my argument has got nothing to do with
>>> natural selection or getting naturaled.
>>
>
> Sometimes these are not invented terms, but when shifting phrases and
> ideas around, incompleted words, or words known to be in need of
> correction are overlooked before the message is finally posted. I don't
> think accusing someone of ignorance based on something like that is right.
Oh, it's completely appropriate to accuse Backspace of ignorance.
Perhaps *you* need to watch a little more before you accuse somebody of
accusing somebody else, uncalled for, of ignorance?
If you had, you might have known "get naturaled" is a signature
backspace phrase in his attempt to prove evolution false by way of
grammar. You might also have noticed that every time somebody answers
one of Backspace's variations on his "Other than by noting that the
animal survived, how was it determined that it was the fittest"
question, that Backspace gets very quiet.
wf3h
> On Apr 12, 4:09 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > It seems that probability comes into evolution in several places: The
> > probability of an organism of a population being born with a favorable
> > mutation; the probability that this organism will survive long enough to
> > reproduce (it still may get eaten by a predator); etc.
>
> === rephrase ===
> "...Those being born with a favorable attribute; the probability that
> this organism will survive ...... ..."
>
> This is a tautology "favorable" implies the organism will survive but
> doesn't tell us the real reason it will tend to survive.
fortunately natural selection does PRECISELY this
as opposed to creationism where you DO face the problem that 'god did
it' explains everything and nothing
>
> > I searched talk.origins for "probability," but I didn't find any
> > explicit discussion of the role of probability in evolution.
>
> English is a crippled language,
so are aramaic, hebrew and greek...the languages of the bible. and yet
you say the bible is perfect.
another creationist contradiction
single words means many things in many
> contexts a loophole exploited by transmutationists trying to convince
> people that monkeys gave birth to monkeys that only looks human.. Try
> wikipedia for probability(random) and non-probability (Non-random) as
> discussed elsewhere by me on talk origins.
and why not look up the word 'god' while you're at it. talk about
LOOPHOLES....
natural selection has a clearly defined mechanism
creationism does not. it's meaningless
wf3h
>
> In what way Will, did Darwin's observation that those who are dead are
> less improved the most brilliant idea any man could have ever
> conceived ?
because it provided a mechanism that could be tested to understand how
evolution happens.
creationism was still slaughtering goats to appease some mythical view
of god. so creationism is useless.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
<no-...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid>:
>Reading from news:talk.origins,
>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> posted:
>
>> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 12:15:58 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
>> <Steph...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >This tautological thinking from Harshman, ID and creationist who all
>> >seemingly can't comprehend my argument has got nothing to do with
>> >natural selection or getting naturaled.
>>
>> And please define your invented term "get naturaled".
>
>Sometimes these are not invented terms, but when shifting phrases and
>ideas around, incompleted words, or words known to be in need of
>correction are overlooked before the message is finally posted. I don't
>think accusing someone of ignorance based on something like that is right.
Sorry, but as a newbie you're unaware he's used this
invented term quite a bit in the past and AFAIK has never
explained it rationally despite repeated requests.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
<no-...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid>:
>Reading from news:talk.origins,
>Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> posted:
>
>> By surviving long enough to reproduce. It may surprise you, but some
>> "self evident truths" actually are valid observations.
>
>Low sperm count might be nature's way of saying "This person should really
>not be reproducing."
So could a non-desire on the individual's part to engage in
activities leading to reproduction.
Iain
But besides using your mind, how did you have thoughts? 8D
--Iain
(P.S. -- " 8D "? -- I feel like I'm showing my age)
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Iain
<iain_i...@hotmail.com>:
As contrasted with using language in nonsensical ways, a la
UC?
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Dr. Acula"
<jerr...@gmail.com>:
>On Apr 12, 4:57 pm, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This thread on Osborne and James Hutton where Wilkins used the word
>> "transmutationist" are relevent to the discussion. As you read the
>> thread you should be able to notice the tautologies. Would somebody
>> else other than me point them out please, it is getting tyering
>> really......http://groups.google.com/group/sci.anthropology.paleo/browse_thread/t...
>
>We can't point them out because they aren't tautologies. You have no
>idea what a tautology looks like. You are simply lacking in pragmatic
>competence.
Eschew obfuscation: He's stupid.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Iain
<iain_i...@hotmail.com>:
>On Apr 13, 1:31 am, Zuca <Z...@utopiandragons.com> wrote:
>> Martin Andersen wrote:
>> > backspace wrote:
>> >> On Apr 12, 12:17 pm, Zuca <Z...@utopiandragons.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> Beneficial mutations are beneficial through their environment, thats the
>> >>> criteria.
>> >>> Through a beneficial mutation the species gets a boon,
>>
>> >> Other than noting the mutation was beneficial how was the boonability
>> >> measured ?
>>
>> > Besides using your eyes, how do you see?
>>
>> My thoughts exactly.
>
>But besides using your mind, how did you have thoughts?
But besides asking the question, how did you inquire?
Damaeus
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> posted:
> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 07:39:56 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
> <no-...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid>:
>
> >Sometimes these are not invented terms, but when shifting phrases and
> >ideas around, incompleted words, or words known to be in need of
> >correction are overlooked before the message is finally posted. I don't
> >think accusing someone of ignorance based on something like that is right.
>
> Sorry, but as a newbie you're unaware he's used this
> invented term quite a bit in the past and AFAIK has never
> explained it rationally despite repeated requests.
Okay.
Parroting: I stand corrected.
/em eats a cracker.
Note: "/em" is a command in Final Fantasy XI Online for "emoting" to let
others know what your character is doing.
Damaeus
Damaeus
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> posted:
> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 07:35:29 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
> <no-...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid>:
>
> >Reading from news:talk.origins,
> >Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> posted:
> >
> >> By surviving long enough to reproduce. It may surprise you, but some
> >> "self evident truths" actually are valid observations.
> >
> >Low sperm count might be nature's way of saying "This person should really
> >not be reproducing."
>
> So could a non-desire on the individual's part to engage in
> activities leading to reproduction.
And that dances so close to my idea of mind over matter, mind over
genetics, mind over body that it's amazing to see that posted by you after
all the discussions we've had.
Damaeus
*Hemidactylus*
> Reading from news:talk.origins,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> posted:
>
> > On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 07:35:29 -0500, the following appeared
> > in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
>
> > >Reading from news:talk.origins,
> > >Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> posted:
>
> > >> By surviving long enough to reproduce. It may surprise you, but some
> > >> "self evident truths" actually are valid observations.
>
> > >Low sperm count might be nature's way of saying "This person should really
> > >not be reproducing."
>
> > So could a non-desire on the individual's part to engage in
> > activities leading to reproduction.
>
> And that dances so close to my idea of mind over matter, mind over
> genetics, mind over body that it's amazing to see that posted by you after
> all the discussions we've had.
>
influence of your genes you stand corrected.
backspace
> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 14:20:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Iain
>
>
>
> >On Apr 12, 7:19 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >> backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >> > Natural means of selection was due to Patrick Matthews who was a
> >> > theist. But the tautologies have nothing to do with getting
> >> > naturaled.
>
> >> What do you mean by "getting naturaled"? That's not a phrase I've
> >> heard before, and (so far, anyway) it makes no sense to me.
>
> >That's classic.
>
> >Backspace is the one whining about unclear, undefined language, and
> >yet he is the first and only person here ever to use truly nonsense
> >language.
>
> As contrasted with using language in nonsensical ways, a la
> UC?
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
> - McNameless
All UC was trying to say is that if you want to call humans apes,
rather say we are apes that look human!
Damaeus
"*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@hotmail.com> posted:
But the mind can be improved beyond that which you have been genetically
endowed with.
Damaeus
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
<no-...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid>:
>Reading from news:talk.origins,
>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> posted:
>
>> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 07:35:29 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
>> <no-...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid>:
>>
>> >Reading from news:talk.origins,
>> >Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> posted:
>> >
>> >> By surviving long enough to reproduce. It may surprise you, but some
>> >> "self evident truths" actually are valid observations.
>> >
>> >Low sperm count might be nature's way of saying "This person should really
>> >not be reproducing."
>>
>> So could a non-desire on the individual's part to engage in
>> activities leading to reproduction.
>
>And that dances so close to my idea of mind over matter, mind over
>genetics, mind over body that it's amazing to see that posted by you after
>all the discussions we've had.
I can't imagine why, since it hardly refutes evolution as a
completely natural and material process. "Nature" is a
euphemism, not an entity.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<Steph...@gmail.com>:
>On Apr 14, 12:44 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 14:20:18 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Iain
>> <iain_inks...@hotmail.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 12, 7:19 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
>> >wrote:
>> >> backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> >> [...]
>>
>> >> > Natural means of selection was due to Patrick Matthews who was a
>> >> > theist. But the tautologies have nothing to do with getting
>> >> > naturaled.
>>
>> >> What do you mean by "getting naturaled"? That's not a phrase I've
>> >> heard before, and (so far, anyway) it makes no sense to me.
>>
>> >That's classic.
>>
>> >Backspace is the one whining about unclear, undefined language, and
>> >yet he is the first and only person here ever to use truly nonsense
>> >language.
>>
>> As contrasted with using language in nonsensical ways, a la
>> UC?
>All UC was trying to say is that if you want to call humans apes,
>rather say we are apes that look human!
Nope; sorry. UC emphatically denied that humans are apes at
all.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
Evidence for this claim, please. And "it looks that way"
isn't evidence.
Cory Albrecht
> Reading from news:talk.origins,
>> Given that your mind emerges from your brain which developed under the
>> influence of your genes you stand corrected.
>
> But the mind can be improved beyond that which you have been genetically
> endowed with.
Since when? I'm wondering if you've ever had significant contact with
mentally handicapped, like those with Downs Syndrome.
Damaeus
Cory Albrecht <coryal...@hotmail.com> posted:
> On 14/04/09 05:14 AM, Damaeus wrote:
> > Reading from news:talk.origins,
> > "*Hemidactylus*"<ecph...@hotmail.com> posted:
> >> Given that your mind emerges from your brain which developed under the
> >> influence of your genes you stand corrected.
> >
> > But the mind can be improved beyond that which you have been genetically
> > endowed with.
>
> Since when?
Since you were born. Your mind certainly operates more efficiently and
with more acuity than it did when you were, say, 1 day old, right?
> I'm wondering if you've ever had significant contact with mentally
> handicapped, like those with Downs Syndrome.
Yes, but those are exceptions. And you're only judging their appearance
and ability to respond. That says nothing about their perception.
Damaeus
Damaeus
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> posted:
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 04:14:58 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
> <no-...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid>:
>
> >Reading from news:talk.origins,
> >"*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@hotmail.com> posted:
> >
> >> Given that your mind emerges from your brain which developed under the
> >> influence of your genes you stand corrected.
> >
> >But the mind can be improved beyond that which you have been genetically
> >endowed with.
>
> Evidence for this claim, please. And "it looks that way"
> isn't evidence.
Can't you make more sense of the world now than when you were 5 days old?
3 years old? Can't you draw a better picture? Write a better story? Make
a better arguement?
That's your proof. It's your experience. Do you need corroboration that
your perception is not fooling you? As your friends to see if they agree
that their minds have improved over time.
Damaeus
Damaeus
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> posted:
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 01:33:51 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
> <no-...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid>:
>
> >And that dances so close to my idea of mind over matter, mind over
> >genetics, mind over body that it's amazing to see that posted by you after
> >all the discussions we've had.
>
> I can't imagine why, since it hardly refutes evolution as a
> completely natural and material process. "Nature" is a
> euphemism, not an entity.
I never said that mind over matter refutes evolution. I'm saying that at
some point, mind over matter is guiding evolution, even as we build
lifestyles and habitats for future generations to use after us.
Damaeus
Burkhard
> > >But the mind can be improved beyond that which you have been genetically
> > >endowed with.
>
> > Evidence for this claim, please. And "it looks that way"
> > isn't evidence.
>
> Can't you make more sense of the world now than when you were 5 days old?
> 3 years old? Can't you draw a better picture? Write a better story? Make
> a better arguement?
>
> That's your proof. It's your experience. Do you need corroboration that
> your perception is not fooling you? As your friends to see if they agree
> that their minds have improved over time.
>
> Damaeus
But all these examples only mean that we are genetically endowed with
the capacity to learn, remember, draw conclusions, wee out mistakes,
check for consistency etc. ,
backspace
> I never said that mind over matter refutes evolution. I'm saying that at
> some point, mind over matter is guiding evolution, even as we build
> lifestyles and habitats for future generations to use after us.
Isn't is natural selection that guides evolution?
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
<no-...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid>:
>Reading from news:talk.origins,
>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> posted:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 04:14:58 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
>> <no-...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid>:
>>
>> >Reading from news:talk.origins,
>> >"*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@hotmail.com> posted:
>> >
>> >> Given that your mind emerges from your brain which developed under the
>> >> influence of your genes you stand corrected.
>> >
>> >But the mind can be improved beyond that which you have been genetically
>> >endowed with.
>>
>> Evidence for this claim, please. And "it looks that way"
>> isn't evidence.
>
>Can't you make more sense of the world now than when you were 5 days old?
>3 years old? Can't you draw a better picture? Write a better story? Make
>a better arguement?
All of this relates to experience and additional knowledge,
not to an increase in ability. How about the fact that
languages are learned best and quickest before the age of 6;
does that mean that you've *lost* ability as an adult? Well,
yes, it does, but in a restricted sense which has little or
nothing to do with basic mental ability. And it's been
conclusively demonstrated that as one ages, general mental
acuity actually drops (i.e., IQ, whatever that is, goes
down).
>That's your proof. It's your experience. Do you need corroboration that
>your perception is not fooling you? As your friends to see if they agree
>that their minds have improved over time.
As I said, you're conflating ability with experience.
They're not the same. And as I commented previously, you
need to stop using "it looks that way to me" as if it were
evidence supporting your ideas; it isn't.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
<no-...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid>:
>Reading from news:talk.origins,
>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> posted:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 01:33:51 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
>> <no-...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid>:
>>
>> >And that dances so close to my idea of mind over matter, mind over
>> >genetics, mind over body that it's amazing to see that posted by you after
>> >all the discussions we've had.
>>
>> I can't imagine why, since it hardly refutes evolution as a
>> completely natural and material process. "Nature" is a
>> euphemism, not an entity.
>
>I never said that mind over matter refutes evolution.
See the phrase "as a completely natural and material
process"? Try reading what I wrote.
> I'm saying that at
>some point, mind over matter is guiding evolution, even as we build
>lifestyles and habitats for future generations to use after us.
And I'm asking for any evidence you have for this claim WRT
biological, as contrasted with social, evolution. That's
*evidence*, not personal belief.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<Steph...@gmail.com>:
In a poetic and anthropomorphic sense. Better to say that
evolution results from the process of natural selection,
which is unguided.
Ye Old One
<no-...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Reading from news:talk.origins,
>Cory Albrecht <coryal...@hotmail.com> posted:
>
>> On 14/04/09 05:14 AM, Damaeus wrote:
>> > Reading from news:talk.origins,
>> > "*Hemidactylus*"<ecph...@hotmail.com> posted:
>> >> Given that your mind emerges from your brain which developed under the
>> >> influence of your genes you stand corrected.
>> >
>> > But the mind can be improved beyond that which you have been genetically
>> > endowed with.
>>
>> Since when?
>
>Since you were born. Your mind certainly operates more efficiently and
>with more acuity than it did when you were, say, 1 day old, right?
No.
>
>> I'm wondering if you've ever had significant contact with mentally
>> handicapped, like those with Downs Syndrome.
>
>Yes, but those are exceptions. And you're only judging their appearance
>and ability to respond. That says nothing about their perception.
>
>Damaeus
--
Bob.
Damaeus
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> posted:
LOL "Wee out mistakes" is funny from some of my immortality visions.
> check for consistency etc. ,
And we do that better than gorillas, wouldn't you say? I mean, given the
difference between what we do.
Damaeus
Burkhard
> Reading from news:talk.origins,
The idea that humans are gorillas was your pointless straw man. And it
has nothing to do with your inconsequential claim that the ability to
learn means that we can change our "genetic endowment".
unrestra...@hotmail.com
> unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Apr 11, 12:15 pm, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>http://groups.google.co.za/group/talk.origins/tree/browse_frm/thread/...
>
> >> Harshman:
>
> >>> But the ones that successfully reproduced
> >>> best are those with the advantageous traits.
> >>> ................
> >>> ..................
> >>> ..... This is natural selection .......
> >> Zoe:
> >> "....is good health an advantageous trait? Or is it that new good
> >> mutations are the only source of successful reproduction?..."
>
> >> Both Zoe(ID, creationism proponent) and Harshman failed to notice the
> >> tautology:
> >> 1)... those that successfully reproduced best are the ones with the
> >> advantageous traits..
> >> 2) Those with the advantageous traits , produced the best.
>
> > Those athletes who are taller, tend to win at basketball; those who
> > win at basketball tend to be taller.
>
> > People who commit violent crimes are more likely to be male; males are
> > more likely to commit violent crimes.
>
> > Theists are more likely to attend churches regularly; people who
> > attend churches regularly tend to be theists.
>
> > Are these tautologies?
> > Are they complete explanations of these subjects?
>
> The phrase "tend to win" implies a probability of winning.
>
> It seems that probability comes into evolution in several places: The
> probability of an organism of a population being born with a favorable
> mutation; the probability that this organism will survive long enough to
> reproduce (it still may get eaten by a predator); etc.
>
> I searched talk.origins for "probability," but I didn't find any
> explicit discussion of the role of probability in evolution.
>
> It seems that this is one of the main things upsetting the creationists
> and even theistic evolutionists. That if you started up life on Earth
> all over again from 4 billion years ago and let time and evolution take
> their course, by now you wouldn't get Homo Sapiens--you might not even
> get a sentient species, who knows. Which truly means that Homo Sapiens
> is here on Earth by a lucky set of random probabilities--there's nothing
> necessary about our being here.
Correct. Given life and a hospitable environment - like Earth - there
are many things we might look for (with no guarantees):
eyes, flying, intelligent tool using, poison.
It's highly unlikely that we humans would evolve again, if the "clock
were rewound and restarted".
Gould discussed this in one of his books.
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
If I were a theist, I would suggest the possibility that "image of
God" refers to the mind. God starts evolution going, and waits for
intelligence.
Kermit
unrestra...@hotmail.com
> On Apr 12, 4:09 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > It seems that probability comes into evolution in several places: The
> > probability of an organism of a population being born with a favorable
> > mutation; the probability that this organism will survive long enough to
> > reproduce (it still may get eaten by a predator); etc.
>
> "...Those being born with a favorable attribute; the probability that
> this organism will survive ...... ..."
>
> This is a tautology "favorable" implies the organism will survive but
> doesn't tell us the real reason it will tend to survive.
The particular traits would have to be looked at. The large category
is "favorable"; we could make guesses ahead of time with a high degree
of success:
Is the climate turning colder? Then favorable traits would include:
shorter limbs, thicker fur, larger mass, larger mass to surface are
ratio, a longer hibernation period, an ability to exploit new food,
etc.
Do you think they are tautological observations?
>
> > I searched talk.origins for "probability," but I didn't find any
> > explicit discussion of the role of probability in evolution.
>
> English is a crippled language, single words means many things in many
> contexts a loophole exploited by transmutationists trying to convince
> people that monkeys gave birth to monkeys that only looks human.. Try
> wikipedia for probability(random) and non-probability (Non-random) as
> discussed elsewhere by me on talk origins.
No, monkeys gave birth to monkeys. It took a long time for them to
look human, and it didn't happen suddenly.
Perhaps you shouldn't discuss science until you can understand words
like "gradual", "accumulation", "small changes", and such.
>
> > It seems that this is one of the main things upsetting the creationists
> > and even theistic evolutionists. That if you started up life on Earth
> > all over again from 4 billion years ago and let time and evolution take
> > their course, by now you wouldn't get Homo Sapiens--you might not even
> > get a sentient species, who knows. Which truly means that Homo Sapiens
> > is here on Earth by a lucky set of random probabilities--there's nothing
> > necessary about our being here.
>
> Or whatever happens happend to happen.....
Yes. We can, in fact, describe much of it. Regarding the change in
species over time we have an excellent theory (set of related
theories, really). It explains the data, makes testable predictions,
and is supported by evidence from multiple areas of scientific
investigations. Shubin's find of titaalik is a famous and recent
example of a successful application of predictions from evolutionary
theory.
Can your rmisunderstanding of English shed light on that?
Kermit
*Hemidactylus*
chimpanzee? In a sense, humans are the ape world's version of hairless
dog breeds. Could we be nothing more than chimps with patterned
alopecia?
Iain
> On Apr 12, 11:39 am, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 12, 4:09 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > It seems that probability comes into evolution in several places: The
> > > probability of an organism of a population being born with a favorable
> > > mutation; the probability that this organism will survive long enough to
> > > reproduce (it still may get eaten by a predator); etc.
>
> > === rephrase ===
> > "...Those being born with a favorable attribute; the probability that
> > this organism will survive ...... ..."
>
> > This is a tautology "favorable" implies the organism will survive but
> > doesn't tell us the real reason it will tend to survive.
>
> The particular traits would have to be looked at. The large category
> is "favorable"; we could make guesses ahead of time with a high degree
> of success:
> Is the climate turning colder? Then favorable traits would include:
> shorter limbs, thicker fur, larger mass, larger mass to surface are
> ratio, a longer hibernation period, an ability to exploit new food,
> etc.
>
> Do you think they are tautological observations?
No, and now that you've answered Backspace's question, richly and
pertinently, you'll never hear from him again.
--Iain
backspace
> > "...Those being born with a favorable attribute; the probability that
> > this organism will survive ...... ..."
> > This is a tautology "favorable" implies the organism will survive but
> > doesn't tell us the real reason it will tend to survive.
> The particular traits would have to be looked at. The large category
> is "favorable"; we could make guesses ahead of time with a high degree
> of success:
> Is the climate turning colder? Then favorable traits would include:
> shorter limbs, thicker fur, larger mass, larger mass to surface are
> ratio, a longer hibernation period, an ability to exploit new food,
> etc.
> Do you think they are tautological observations?
A tautology is an expression not an observation.
Damaeus
Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> posted:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 05:58:12 -0500, Damaeus
> <no-...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >Reading from news:talk.origins,
> >Cory Albrecht <coryal...@hotmail.com> posted:
> >
> >> On 14/04/09 05:14 AM, Damaeus wrote:
> >> > Reading from news:talk.origins,
> >> > "*Hemidactylus*"<ecph...@hotmail.com> posted:
> >> >> Given that your mind emerges from your brain which developed under the
> >> >> influence of your genes you stand corrected.
> >> >
> >> > But the mind can be improved beyond that which you have been genetically
> >> > endowed with.
> >>
> >> Since when?
> >
> >Since you were born. Your mind certainly operates more efficiently and
> >with more acuity than it did when you were, say, 1 day old, right?
>
> No.
That explains your infantile reactions.
Damaeus
Damaeus
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> posted:
> The idea that humans are gorillas was your pointless straw man. And it
> has nothing to do with your inconsequential claim that the ability to
> learn means that we can change our "genetic endowment".
Once you learn enough. That's all I did was learn and keep learning. And
I read lots and lots of material.
Damaeus
Dr. Acula
And you're an idiot.
Bob Casanova
>On Apr 17, 1:02 am, unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com wrote:
Wow, an epiphany! And you *do* see that NS is an
observation, right? (Yeah, *suuurrre* you do...)
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
Perhaps you could answer my comments in another post, which
addressed your claim and which you seem to have missed:
"All of this relates to experience and additional knowledge,
not to an increase in ability. How about the fact that
languages are learned best and quickest before the age of 6;
does that mean that you've *lost* ability as an adult? Well,
yes, it does, but in a restricted sense which has little or
nothing to do with basic mental ability. And it's been
conclusively demonstrated that as one ages, general mental
acuity actually drops (i.e., IQ, whatever that is, goes
down)."
Thanks in advance.
Damaeus
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> posted:
> Perhaps you could answer my comments in another post, which
> addressed your claim and which you seem to have missed:
>
> "All of this relates to experience and additional knowledge,
> not to an increase in ability. How about the fact that
> languages are learned best and quickest before the age of 6;
> does that mean that you've *lost* ability as an adult? Well,
> yes, it does, but in a restricted sense which has little or
> nothing to do with basic mental ability. And it's been
> conclusively demonstrated that as one ages, general mental
> acuity actually drops (i.e., IQ, whatever that is, goes
> down)."
>
> Thanks in advance.
Okay, I will go to where you posted that and respond there to maintain
thread context.
Damaeus
Damaeus
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> posted:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 06:00:01 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
> <no-...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid>:
>
> >Reading from news:talk.origins,
> >Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> posted:
> >
> >> On Tue, 14 Apr 2009 04:14:58 -0500, the following appeared
> >> in talk.origins, posted by Damaeus
> >> <no-...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid>:
> >>
> >> >Reading from news:talk.origins,
> >> >"*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@hotmail.com> posted:
> >> >
> >> >> Given that your mind emerges from your brain which developed under the
> >> >> influence of your genes you stand corrected.
> >> >
> >> >But the mind can be improved beyond that which you have been genetically
> >> >endowed with.
> >>
> >> Evidence for this claim, please. And "it looks that way"
> >> isn't evidence.
> >
> >Can't you make more sense of the world now than when you were 5 days old?
> >3 years old? Can't you draw a better picture? Write a better story? Make
> >a better arguement?
>
> All of this relates to experience and additional knowledge,
> not to an increase in ability.
But you make more sense of what you see. As 3-year-old, for example, I
might have a toy action figure made out of plastic. To me, it was just a
toy. But after having lived a few more years, I didn't have to go to a
factory to see that my action figure was made out of pieces from cast
moldings, and those pieces were assmbled into an action figure. I could
see the seams on it and could instantly envision how it was made by
relating a Hershey candy bar commercial in which chocolate is poured into
a cast to make a chocloate bar with the Hershey name on it. Since I could
see that my toy was plastic, and I knew nothing like it existed in nature,
then it had to be made in the same way that a chocolate bar is made. I
accepted that as fact without ever having seen an actual action figure
being made. It's contriving facts from obvious truths about the
technologies humans have built.
Another example: when a figurine on a shelf in a gift shop says
"hand-crafted and hand-painted", I can see that since there are fifteen
duplicates on the shelf, and there's a "Made in China" sticker on the
bottom, the original was hand-crafted and used to make a mold to then
mass-produce the copies, which were then likely painted by hand since the
painting is so simple and lacking in detail.
When I was a kid walking through the forest and long dry stream beds, I
could see for myself where the water had washed the dirt away from under a
tree that trees have root systems growing into the ground. I learned that
by myself before being told about it by science.
> How about the fact that languages are learned best and quickest before
> the age of 6; does that mean that you've *lost* ability as an adult?
> Well, yes, it does, but in a restricted sense which has little or
> nothing to do with basic mental ability.
Interesting that about the age of six is when formal education starts,
too: first grade. What would kids learn if they were not put into formal
education? The only reason we put kids in school is because we expect
them to grow up and get jobs that pay money. But what if not all children
were meant to go to school? If you want to be an artist, and all you care
about is painting, you can learn to paint without an education. And if
you're going to be an artist, you'd naturally want to learn typography, so
your penmanship would develop through the exploration of your natural
interests.
So I believe that learning ability "seems" to drop, not because the child
is forgetting how to learn, but he's being made to *try* to learn things
and remember things that he's not interested in.
> And it's been conclusively demonstrated that as one ages, general mental
> acuity actually drops (i.e., IQ, whatever that is, goes down).
How do they determine that mental acuity has dropped? By standardized
tests? By watching body language?
Damaeus
Ye Old One
<no-...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Reading from news:talk.origins,
>Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> posted:
>
>> The idea that humans are gorillas was your pointless straw man. And it
>> has nothing to do with your inconsequential claim that the ability to
>> learn means that we can change our "genetic endowment".
>
>Once you learn enough. That's all I did was learn and keep learning.
Your posts put a lie to that claim.
> And
>I read lots and lots of material.
But you are clearly not understanding a lot of it.
>
>Damaeus
--
Bob.
Damaeus
Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> posted:
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 07:07:07 -0500, Damaeus
> <no-...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >Reading from news:talk.origins,
> >Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> posted:
> >
> >> The idea that humans are gorillas was your pointless straw man. And it
> >> has nothing to do with your inconsequential claim that the ability to
> >> learn means that we can change our "genetic endowment".
> >
> >Once you learn enough. That's all I did was learn and keep learning.
>
> Your posts put a lie to that claim.
I guess I read different materials or understood them in a different way.
I've always been a self-learner. I never asked for tutors or help from my
parents. They were both too ignorant to help me with anything. My mom
didn't graduate high school, and my dad just didn't know how.
Damaeus
Bob Casanova
....which directly results from additional experience and
knowledge, as I said.
<snip anecdotal support for my statement>
>> How about the fact that languages are learned best and quickest before
>> the age of 6; does that mean that you've *lost* ability as an adult?
>> Well, yes, it does, but in a restricted sense which has little or
>> nothing to do with basic mental ability.
>Interesting that about the age of six is when formal education starts,
>too: first grade. What would kids learn if they were not put into formal
>education? The only reason we put kids in school is because we expect
>them to grow up and get jobs that pay money. But what if not all children
>were meant to go to school? If you want to be an artist, and all you care
>about is painting, you can learn to paint without an education. And if
>you're going to be an artist, you'd naturally want to learn typography, so
>your penmanship would develop through the exploration of your natural
>interests.
>
>So I believe that learning ability "seems" to drop, not because the child
>is forgetting how to learn, but he's being made to *try* to learn things
>and remember things that he's not interested in.
And you would be incorrect; the language-learning data is
out there, and Google is Your Friend:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a907039972~db=all~jumptype=rss
From the abstract:
"Self-reported English-speaking proficiency among immigrants
declines more or less monotonically with age at migration,
and this relationship is not characterised by any sharp
decline or discontinuity that might be considered consistent
with a 'critical' period. The findings are robust across the
various immigrant samples, and between the genders."
Note that this seems to say that rather than a sharp decline
at a specific age, which is what I remembered from previous
reading, learning ability declines somewhat linearly with
age. But it still means that children are more, rather than
less, able to learn.
>> And it's been conclusively demonstrated that as one ages, general mental
>> acuity actually drops (i.e., IQ, whatever that is, goes down).
>
>How do they determine that mental acuity has dropped? By standardized
>tests? By watching body language?
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:AKvrrK5JxbUJ:samenvattingen.student.utwente.nl/images/4/43/Samenvatting_Ontwikkelingspsychologie_
(290206).doc+%22age-related+decrease+in+iq%22&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&lr=lang_en
(Watch the wrap...)
"Both cross-sectional studies and longitudinal studies tend
to show an age related decrease in iq."
You're welcome to do your own search for the data.
backspace
Matt Silberstein:
"....Ok, so Natural Selection is nonsense. What do you think
aboutdifferential reproductive success due, at least in part, to
inherited characteristics? ........"
=== rephrase ===
".....reproductive due to inherited characteristics? ........"
=== rephrase ===
Reproduction involves inherited characteristics?
=== Truism ===
Reproduction involves inheritance.
Dr. Acula
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/3c20...
>
> Matt Silberstein:
> "....Ok, so Natural Selection is nonsense. What do you think
> aboutdifferential reproductive success due, at least in part, to
> inherited characteristics? ........"
>
> === rephrase ===
> ".....reproductive due to inherited characteristics? ........"
>
> === rephrase ===
> Reproduction involves inherited characteristics?
>
> === Truism ===
> Reproduction involves inheritance.
Your "rephrasing" changes the meaning of what he is saying. incredibly
dishonest of you.
backspace
=== Gyudon Z ===
>Consider a population in which half the members carry a dominant gene that is
>100% fatal before they have a chance to reproduce--clearly a selective
>disadvantage. In the next generation, none of the population will have these
>traits. This is natural selection in action.
Replace "natural selection" with Roger Rabbit and the essence remains:
We observe that half a population carries a fatal mutation that kills
them before they can reproduce. Therefore obviously that recessive
gene won't be expressed in the next generation of the population.
Imagine we are told that half of a series of race cars don't have any
oil and that they will all attempt to drive for 1000km, obviously we
infer that those without oil won't make it, this has got nothing to do
with getting naturaled or Roger putting on a rabbit suite or anybody
making a decision because a selection is a decision.
Ray Martinez
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/3c20...
>
> "....Ok, so Natural Selection is nonsense. What do you think
> aboutdifferential reproductive success due, at least in part, to
> inherited characteristics? ........"
>
> === rephrase ===
> ".....reproductive due to inherited characteristics? ........"
>
> === rephrase ===
> Reproduction involves inherited characteristics?
>
> === Truism ===
> Reproduction involves inheritance.
It's good to see another thinking person come to the same conclusion
independently. Not too long ago, in a series of messages, I described
natural selection to be a short list of truisms that Darwinists refer
to----euphemistically----as a "mechanism."
In addition: Earlier you said that Darwinists define things in a way
that cannot be disputed. In case you missed it: I responded by saying
that this particular insight was clear thinking at its very best! That
is exactly what Darwinists do.
I have always said, and I see that you say it too, that natural
selection is NONSENSE. To contend that the short list of truisms is a
creative force, producing rain forests and the intricate amount of
interdependent life found living therein, is self-evident fraud. Rain
forests correspond to Mastemind----nothing else.
Ray
wf3h
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/3c20...
>
>
> >Consider a population in which half the members carry a dominant gene that is
> >100% fatal before they have a chance to reproduce--clearly a selective
> >disadvantage. In the next generation, none of the population will have these
> >traits. This is natural selection in action.
>
> Replace "natural selection" with Roger Rabbit and the essence remains:
except, of course, roger rabbit wasn't based on DNA chemistry. that's
what frosts creationists: science can link the OUTCOME of a
process...population changes with time...to a MECHANISM of the
process...mutations filtered by the environment
such a process is inconceivable in creationism. creationism is based
on supernaturalism which has, for thousands of years, failed to
explain anything about nature at all.
Dana Tweedy
> On Apr 24, 10:17 am, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/3c20...
>>
>> Matt Silberstein:
>> "....Ok, so Natural Selection is nonsense. What do you think
>> aboutdifferential reproductive success due, at least in part, to
>> inherited characteristics? ........"
>>
>> === rephrase ===
>> ".....reproductive due to inherited characteristics? ........"
>>
>> === rephrase ===
>> Reproduction involves inherited characteristics?
>>
>> === Truism ===
>> Reproduction involves inheritance.
>
> It's good to see another thinking person come to the same conclusion
> independently.
Someone else make the same mistake?
> Not too long ago, in a series of messages, I described
> natural selection to be a short list of truisms that Darwinists refer
> to----euphemistically----as a "mechanism."
Natural selection is part of the mechanism of evolution. You seem to be
saying that natural selection is both a "truism" (something true by
definition) and at the same time, does not exist.
>
> In addition: Earlier you said that Darwinists define things in a way
> that cannot be disputed.
Which is a mistake on Backspace's part.
> In case you missed it: I responded by saying
> that this particular insight was clear thinking at its very best!
Actually, it was an error. That you saw it as "clear thinking" is just an
indication of how much you are out of touch.
> That
> is exactly what Darwinists do.
However "darwinists" do no such thing. Scientist define things so that
they can be understood.
>
> I have always said, and I see that you say it too, that natural
> selection is NONSENSE.
Earlier you said it's a truism. Can you not make up your mind?
> To contend that the short list of truisms is a
> creative force, producing rain forests and the intricate amount of
> interdependent life found living therein, is self-evident fraud.
Claiming something is "self evident" is an attempt to avoid having to
support your claim. Natural seelction is a creative force, when combined
with random mutations in a population . The diversity of life found in
rain forests is no different providence than the interdependent life found
in deserts, temperate woodlands, or savannahs. All are the result of
random mutation being acted on by natural selection. If you dispute this,
you need to show why, not simply assert that it's "self evident" that its'
wrong.
> Rain
> forests correspond to Mastemind----nothing else.
Since there has never been an observation of a "mastermind" producing life,
or rain forests, such an assertion is baseless. Worse for Ray, nautral
selection and random mutations have been observed to produce complex
systems. So, not only is there no observed "mastermind" to appeal to,
natural processes are something else that produces rainforests.
DJT
Ray Martinez
CORRECTION: should say "Maste[r]mind."
Ray
Ray Martinez
> On Apr 24, 1:32 pm, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/3c20...
>
> > === Gyudon Z ===
>
> > >Consider a population in which half the members carry a dominant gene that is
> > >100% fatal before they have a chance to reproduce--clearly a selective
> > >disadvantage. In the next generation, none of the population will have these
> > >traits. This is natural selection in action.
>
> > Replace "natural selection" with Roger Rabbit and the essence remains:
>
> except, of course, roger rabbit wasn't based on DNA chemistry. that's
> what frosts creationists: science can link the OUTCOME of a
> process...population changes with time...to a MECHANISM of the
> process...mutations filtered by the environment
>
> on supernaturalism [SNIP....]
Absolutely correct.
And evolution is based on the exact opposite: naturalism (=
supernatural-God-Intelligence not involved).
These basic facts prove that Christian evolutionists are inexcusably
stupid or evil. Why would any Christian agree with all Atheists that
nature does not reflect Intelligence?
Ray