What is the concept of fitness ?
backspace
>Fitness (often denoted w in population genetics models) is a central concept in evolutionary theory.
Fitness isn't a concept but a word. This word is used by individuals
to encode their specific concept for us to decode.
>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.
The abstract authority Mr.Fitness didn't describe anything - who is
this person that has done the actual description of what ?
>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...."
Who has defined what is a genotype? Other than noting that "genotypes"
became more common how was their fitness measured. And who has called
this process "natural selection" ? Darwin didn't know about genes is
the author
referring to him.
Will in New Haven
<crickets chirping>
--
Will in New Haven
Woland
I'm not talking to you until you show us that you're capable of
learning and astract thought, or until I get bored.
Inez
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29>Fitness (often denoted w in population genetics models) is a central concept in evolutionary theory.
>
> Fitness isn't a concept but a word. This word is used by individuals
> to encode their specific concept for us to decode.
>
Incorrect. Fitness is a word that communicates a concept. The
concept is not a code, but a standardized meaning, and you can look it
up in a dictionary. As for the rest of your post, learn to do your
own research.
But hey, keep safe down there in Zimbabwe. The news doesn't look that
good for you guys.
edi...@rcn.com
Ground Hog Day
Cory Albrecht
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29
>> Fitness (often denoted w in population genetics models) is a central concept in evolutionary theory.
> Fitness isn't a concept but a word. This word is used by individuals
> to encode their specific concept for us to decode.
>
>> 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.
>
> The abstract authority Mr.Fitness didn't describe anything - who is
> this person that has done the actual description of what ?
Who is the actual person that has done the actual description of what
"red" is? Until you determine that, referring to "red" is useless.
>
>> 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...."
>
> Who has defined what is a genotype? Other than noting that "genotypes"
> became more common how was their fitness measured. And who has called
> this process "natural selection" ? Darwin didn't know about genes is
> the author
> referring to him.
"Blah, blah blah blah BLAH blah blah...."
Mark VandeWettering
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29
>>Fitness (often denoted w in population genetics models) is a central concept in evolutionary theory.
> Fitness isn't a concept but a word.
The word "fitness" is a word. Fitness is a concept.
Your argument isn't going to go very far if you can't understand the
relatively obvious distinction.
[ rest of the trainwreck snipped ]
Greg G.
>
> Fitness isn't a concept but a word. This word is used by individuals
> to encode their specific concept for us to decode.
>
a distinction between the word and the concept.
--
Greg G.
Waiter: Today's Special is 'Beef Tongue'.
Diner: I couldn't eat anything that came out of a cow's mouth.
Just give me a couple of eggs.
Kermit
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29>Fitness (often denoted w in population genetics models) is a central concept in evolutionary theory.
>
> Fitness isn't a concept but a word. This word is used by individuals
> to encode their specific concept for us to decode.
>
> >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.
>
> The abstract authority Mr.Fitness didn't describe anything - who is
> this person that has done the actual description of what ?
>
> >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...."
<snip>
It is generally agreed that fitness involves multiple characteristics.
These include physical strength, power and speed, flexibility, co-
ordination, and endurance. Even concepts such as endurance can include
muscular endurance, cardio-vascular endurance, and the ability to
focus and practice or perform a movement for prolonged lengths of time
(mental endurance).
Here's a good introduction:
http://www.keepkidshealthy.com/WELCOME/treatmentguides/exercise.html
Kermit
Ken Shackleton
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29>Fitness (often denoted w in population genetics models) is a central concept in evolutionary theory.
>
> Fitness isn't a concept but a word. This word is used by individuals
> to encode their specific concept for us to decode.
Religion isn't a concept but a word. This word is used by individuals
David Hare-Scott
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1c14bb5e-30c4-4060...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29
> >Fitness (often denoted w in population genetics models) is a central
concept in evolutionary theory.
> Fitness isn't a concept but a word. This word is used by individuals
> to encode their specific concept for us to decode.
>
Please provide examples of concepts that are not represented by words. And
explain just how the two got separated.
> >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.
>
> The abstract authority Mr.Fitness didn't describe anything - who is
> this person that has done the actual description of what ?
>
That would be Mrs Dictionary, or if you want the detail Mr Scientist
consulting with Ms Lexicographer.
> >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...."
>
> Who has defined what is a genotype? Other than noting that "genotypes"
> became more common how was their fitness measured. And who has called
> this process "natural selection" ? Darwin didn't know about genes is
> the author
> referring to him.
>
Gosh we seem to have been here before, Mr Backspace has a perpetual calendar
that chimes at the end of each month reminding him to post the same word game
as last month and the month before.
David
The Enigmatic One
<1c14bb5e-30c4-4060...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
sawirel...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29
>>Fitness (often denoted w in population genetics models) is a central concept
in evolutionary theory.
>Fitness isn't a concept but a word. This word is used by individuals
>to encode their specific concept for us to decode.
Holy shit!
You're a fucking dumbass!
-Tim
Rolf
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1c14bb5e-30c4-4060...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29
[snipped nonsense]
Are you fit for fight? Do you think your fitness might be improved, say by
doing some excercise and workout? That might be good for what muscles you
still may have left in your sloppy body. For your brain there is less hope,
unless you consult somebody that may teach you how to use it.
Will in New Haven
> In article
> <1c14bb5e-30c4-4060-b26f-ae645164d...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> sawireless2...@yahoo.com says...
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29
> >>Fitness (often denoted w in population genetics models) is a central concept
>
> in evolutionary theory.
>
> >Fitness isn't a concept but a word. This word is used by individuals
> >to encode their specific concept for us to decode.
>
> Holy shit!
>
> You're a fucking dumbass!
>
Cj
reproductively fit.
backspace
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29
> >>Fitness (often denoted w in population genetics models) is a central concept in evolutionary theory.
> > Fitness isn't a concept but a word.
> The word "fitness" is a word. Fitness is a concept.
> Your argument isn't going to go very far if you can't understand the
> relatively obvious distinction.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fitness
"..Also called Darwinian fitness. Biology.
a. the genetic contribution of an individual to the next generation's
gene pool relative to the average for the population, usually measured
by the number of offspring or close kin that survive to reproductive
age.
b. the ability of a population to maintain or increase its numbers in
succeeding generations...."
Rephrase1:
The contribution of an individual to the gene pool relative to the
contribution of the other humans, measured by the number of offspring
that he left.
Rephrase2:
The number of babies an individual contributed more than others,
measured by the number of offspring that he left.
Rephrase3:
If an individual produced more babies than other individuals he
contributed more of his characteristics to the gene pool.
Rephrase4:
The number of babies an individual contributed more than others.
Rephrase5:
The more babies you make the more your characteristics will reflect in
the population.
And this last rephrase is truism - it is true by definition and has
got nothing to do with getting naturaled. And why must a single word
in the English language be hijacked to be associated with this
truism ? The synonym for fitness is "strength", "vigor" etc. All these
are single words that we use to communicate some sort of personal
intent or motive we have. Who has decided that breeding more babies
than other people must now be associated with the word "Fitness"? One
can certainly have a concept of one person breeding more prolific than
another but why must single words by used for such a concept. And lets
not problem description: how does protein space get mapped to gene
space and then to animal space, what are the eigenvalues of the
transition matrix.
backspace
> On Jun 28, 12:22 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29>Fitness (often denoted w in population genetics models) is a central concept in evolutionary theory.
>
> > Fitness isn't a concept but a word. This word is used by individuals
> > to encode their specific concept for us to decode.
>
> Incorrect. Fitness is a word that communicates a concept. The
> concept is not a code, but a standardized meaning, and you can look it
> up in a dictionary.
A truism is something which is true by definition hence nobody can
hijack such a truism and eternally associate his name with it.
Language itself is being made undefined by calling "fitness" -
"Darwinian fitness". Darwin stated a truism in the same way that
Howard stated "bacteria don't survive in lava" , another truism.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Darwinian%20fitness isn't
defined.
Inez what would you say is the standardized definition of "darwinian
fitness" and who standardized it ?
Ken Shackleton
The fact that you are able to [and in fact, do] produce more babies
than others is an observable demonstration of reproductive fitness.
The mechanism by which this is able to come about is due, in part, to
Natural Selection.
Tiny Bulcher
What does 'getting naturaled' mean? This phrase does not exist in the
English language.
>>And why must a single word
>> in the English language be hijacked to be associated with this
>> truism ? The synonym for fitness is "strength", "vigor" etc.
No, they are not. This hammer in my hand is absolutely fit for the
purpose of knocking sense into your fat head. What strength or vigour
does this hammer possess?
Has a creature that has produced more offspring than its rivals shown
itself better fitted for the purpose of reproduction, or not? Has it
shown itself better fitted to survive in the prevailing environment, or
not?
How did it get that way?
>>All
>> these are single words that we use to communicate some sort of
>> personal intent or motive we have. Who has decided that breeding
>> more babies than other people must now be associated with the word
>> "Fitness"?
We did. Deal with it.
>>One can certainly have a concept of one person breeding
>> more prolific than another but why must single words by used for
>> such a concept.
Why not? One single word that springs to mind is 'fertile'. But in any
case the phrase associated with natural selection is two words:
reproductive fitness.
>>And lets not problem description:
And let's not verb nouns, either.
>>how does protein
>> space get mapped to gene space and then to animal space,
Read up on genetics for the answers.
>>what are
>> the eigenvalues of the transition matrix.
The what of the what?
> The fact that you are able to [and in fact, do] produce more babies
> than others is an observable demonstration of reproductive fitness.
>
> The mechanism by which this is able to come about is due, in part, to
> Natural Selection.
Or, as I prefer to call it, Differential Death.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<sawirel...@yahoo.com>:
The giraffe, in the bathtub with the aardvark.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Mark Isaak
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fitness
> "..Also called Darwinian fitness. Biology.
> a. the genetic contribution of an individual to the next generation's
> gene pool relative to the average for the population, usually measured
> by the number of offspring or close kin that survive to reproductive
> age.
> b. the ability of a population to maintain or increase its numbers in
> succeeding generations...."
>
> [...[
> Rephrase5:
> The more babies you make the more your characteristics will reflect in
> the population.
>
> And this last rephrase is truism - it is true by definition
No, it is not. Many characteristics -- for example, literacy -- are not
inherited.
And besides, so what?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
John Wilkins
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 08:54:32 -0700, backspace wrote:
>
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fitness
> > "..Also called Darwinian fitness. Biology.
> > a. the genetic contribution of an individual to the next generation's
> > gene pool relative to the average for the population, usually measured
> > by the number of offspring or close kin that survive to reproductive
> > age.
> > b. the ability of a population to maintain or increase its numbers in
> > succeeding generations...."
> >
> > [...[
> > Rephrase5:
> > The more babies you make the more your characteristics will reflect in
> > the population.
> >
> > And this last rephrase is truism - it is true by definition
Ergo it is true. This is something that I have never seen an
antievolutionist come to terms with. If it is true by definition, why
are you arguing it is false? For a truism to be false, some things that
are incontestible - in this case that favourable traits become more
widely distributed in subsequent generations - have to be false, and
nobody says they are.
>
> No, it is not. Many characteristics -- for example, literacy -- are not
> inherited.
>
> And besides, so what?
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Kermit
> On Jun 28, 11:19 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 28, 12:22 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29>Fitness (often denoted w in population genetics models) is a central concept in evolutionary theory.
>
> > > Fitness isn't a concept but a word. This word is used by individuals
> > > to encode their specific concept for us to decode.
>
> > Incorrect. Fitness is a word that communicates a concept. The
> > concept is not a code, but a standardized meaning, and you can look it
> > up in a dictionary.
>
> A truism is something which is true by definition hence nobody can
> hijack such a truism and eternally associate his name with it.
> Language itself is being made undefined by calling "fitness" -
> "Darwinian fitness". Darwin stated a truism in the same way that
> defined.
>
> Inez what would you say is the standardized definition of "darwinian
> fitness" and who standardized it ?
Nearly every native speaker of English can communicate with others
just fine. Your bizarre religious notions of the nature of language
has made you incapable of communicating anything intelligible to
others, and you are forced to pretend that you don't know what we are
saying. You are as seriously crippled as anyone who has had a stroke
leading to language dysfunction, but it is entirely of your own
making.
A word means what those folks who typically use it mean by it.
Dictionaries cover most of them, but I recommend using a technical
dictionary for technical terms.
Kermit
Kermit
<snort>
Yeah, I know. But since backspace is pretending to be clueless, I
thought I'd be totally irrelevant. Doesn't seem to matter to him if
our responses are spot on or not, does it?
Kermit
William Morse
Actually there are a number of different ways to create a metric for the
term fitness. Most of us have a good idea of what it means in the
general parlance, but formalizing this idea allows of interpretation. If
you are seriously interested, see the chapter "An agony in five fits" in
Dawkins' _The Extended Phenotype_ as a good starting point.
Yours,
Bill Morse
John Wilkins
Then do some recent reading:
Abrams, Marshall. 2007. Fitness and Propensity's Annulment? Biology and
Philosophy 22 (1): 115-130.
Ariew, Andre, and R. C. Lewontin. 2004. The Confusions of Fitness. Br J
Philos Sci 55 (2): 347-363.
Bouchard, Frédéric, and Alex Rosenberg. 2004. Fitness, Probability and
the Principles of Natural Selection. British Journal for the Philosophy
of Science 55 (4): 693-712.
Krimbas, Costas B. 2004. On fitness. Biology and Philosophy 19 (2):
185-203.
Walsh, D. M. 1996. Fitness and Function. Br J Philos Sci 47 (4):
553-574.
Weber, Marcel. 1996. Fitness made physical: the supervenience of
biological concepts revisited. Philosophy of Science v 63 Sept 1996. p.
"Fitness" is actually a complex topic. My own resolution is that it is a
placeholder (variable) in models that gets filled out with physical
properties and assigned on the basis of post hoc observation. Hence I
agree with Weber that it is a supervening property (a point made by
Sober back in 1984), but I go one step further and make the property
purely a property of models.
In English:
If two organisms - say a fungus and a toad - have an identical fitness,
they have no necessary physical properties in common, just an identical
rate of increase in the number of descendents at an instant. The fungus
might have fitness A because it is toxic to the fungus eaters in the
vicinity, while the toad might have fitness A because it is camouflaged
from a single predator, or can outmate other morphs in its population.
So "fitness" is a highly abstract property, a number in a mathematical
description. [And as such it isn't true by definition - it's a variable
waiting for a value.]
This means, in my view, that selectionist explanations are in fact
promissory notes towards an explanation; an explanatory IOU as it were.
To say that organism O has fitness A is just to say that it has an
instantaneous rate of reproduction relative to the background, which
will be given a full physical explanation later on if the researchers
get the funding.
William Morse
> Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 08:54:32 -0700, backspace wrote:
>>
>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fitness
>>> "..Also called Darwinian fitness. Biology.
>>> a. the genetic contribution of an individual to the next generation's
>>> gene pool relative to the average for the population, usually measured
>>> by the number of offspring or close kin that survive to reproductive
>>> age.
>>> b. the ability of a population to maintain or increase its numbers in
>>> succeeding generations...."
>>>
>>> [...[
>>> Rephrase5:
>>> The more babies you make the more your characteristics will reflect in
>>> the population.
>>>
>>> And this last rephrase is truism - it is true by definition
>
> Ergo it is true. This is something that I have never seen an
> antievolutionist come to terms with. If it is true by definition, why
> are you arguing it is false? For a truism to be false, some things that
> are incontestible - in this case that favourable traits become more
> widely distributed in subsequent generations - have to be false, and
> nobody says they are.
Exactly. Part of the genius of Wallace and Darwin was in recognizing the
necessary, despite accepted dogma. I have not heard anyone argue that
every offspring of an organism survives - all agree that more offspring
are produced than survive. I have not heard anyone argue that offspring
do not differ from their parents in some regards. I have not heard
anyone argue that the difference is not to some extent heritable.
So is anyone willing to argue that differential survival is completely
random, i.e. is unrelated to the characteristics of the individual
organism? If not, natural selection must occur. This is not a theory, it
is a simple mathematical consequence.
Yours,
Bill Morse
backspace
> If two organisms - say a fungus and a toad - have an identical fitness,
> they have no necessary physical properties in common, just an identical
> rate of increase in the number of descendents at an instant. The fungus
> might have fitness A because it is toxic to the fungus eaters in the
> vicinity, while the toad might have fitness A because it is camouflaged
> from a single predator, or can outmate other morphs in its population.
> So "fitness" is a highly abstract property, a number in a mathematical
> description.
No, you have a concept which you view as highly abstract , what has
this yet to be defined property got to do with the word "fitness"?
What concept are you trying to encode and transmit over the internet
using the some protocol with "fitness" in it that we must decode. To
decode your concept we need more background information and a single
word such as vigor, strength, fitness won't be able to do this. For
example I would need to know wether you agree that vigor and strength
can be used as synonyms in our attempt at decoding your pragmatics.
>[And as such it isn't true by definition - it's a variable
> waiting for a value.]
There is no language without a motive. Fitness is semantics, not
pragmatics you have some abstract concept which you haven't defined
which you say isn't a truism, this concept you encode using the word
"Fitness" for us to decode.
Fitness isn't a "variable waiting for a definition" it is merely part
of our semantic lexicon used to encode our pragmatics using some sort
of agreed on protocol for others to decode. If signal sender uses
Ethernet and signal receiver tries to decode the message using ATM
then no communication takes place. Shannon's information theorem
can't measure the intent behind a message. If not even a human can
figure out what "you are playing with your mouse" means then how can a
Turing machine ?
And Dr.Wilkins please would you be so kind as to reply to me directly
and not indirectly.
backspace
> > > The more babies you make the more your characteristics will reflect in
> > > the population.
> > > And this last rephrase is truism - it is true by definition
> For a truism to be false, some things that
> are incontestible - in this case that favourable traits become more
> widely distributed in subsequent generations - have to be false, and
> nobody says they are.
Other than noting the traits become more widely distributed how was
their favoribility measured ?
Sapient Fridge
<nos...@buzz.off> writes
>The giraffe, in the bathtub with the aardvark.
That's a seriously warped game of Cluedo you are playing there.
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://spamsights.org http://spews.org http://spamhaus.org
John Harshman
> On Jun 30, 5:05 am, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
>> If two organisms - say a fungus and a toad - have an identical fitness,
>> they have no necessary physical properties in common, just an identical
>> rate of increase in the number of descendents at an instant. The fungus
>> might have fitness A because it is toxic to the fungus eaters in the
>> vicinity, while the toad might have fitness A because it is camouflaged
>> from a single predator, or can outmate other morphs in its population.
>
>> So "fitness" is a highly abstract property, a number in a mathematical
>> description.
>
> No, you have a concept which you view as highly abstract , what has
> this yet to be defined property got to do with the word "fitness"?
> What concept are you trying to encode and transmit over the internet
> using the some protocol with "fitness" in it that we must decode. To
> decode your concept we need more background information and a single
> word such as vigor, strength, fitness won't be able to do this. For
> example I would need to know wether you agree that vigor and strength
> can be used as synonyms in our attempt at decoding your pragmatics.
What, is your tapeworm trying to figure this out too? If so, maybe he
can explain it to you. Because everyone else here knows what "fitness"
means. You never will, because you've decided it's a meaningless term
and don't pay attention to explanations.
[snip gibberish]
> And Dr.Wilkins please would you be so kind as to reply to me directly
> and not indirectly.
I believe he has you killfiled. He can't see your posts. And there is of
course no point in replying to you. I really don't know why anyone does
it. I don't even know why I did this.
John Wilkins
> backspace wrote:
...
>
> [snip gibberish]
>
> > And Dr.Wilkins please would you be so kind as to reply to me directly
> > and not indirectly.
>
> I believe he has you killfiled. He can't see your posts. And there is of
> course no point in replying to you. I really don't know why anyone does
> it. I don't even know why I did this.
I don't do this. I wouldn't respond to backspace again even if I could
see him.
Inez
>
> > On Jun 28, 12:22 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29>Fitness (often denoted w in population genetics models) is a central concept in evolutionary theory.
>
> > > Fitness isn't a concept but a word. This word is used by individuals
> > > to encode their specific concept for us to decode.
>
> > Incorrect. Fitness is a word that communicates a concept. The
> > concept is not a code, but a standardized meaning, and you can look it
> > up in a dictionary.
>
> A truism is something which is true by definition hence nobody can
> hijack such a truism and eternally associate his name with it.
a) What does that have to do with what I wrote?
b) Yes they can. Why couldn't someone associate their name with a
truism?
> Language itself is being made undefined by calling "fitness" -
> "Darwinian fitness". Darwin stated a truism in the same way that
> Howard stated "bacteria don't survive in lava" , another truism.http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Darwinian%20fitnessisn't
> defined.
You have your concepts in a jumble here. You seem to think that
truisms are undefined, and/or that stating a truism means you are
wrong or something. Neither is true. In order to reach the status of
truism, a statement must be defined, otherwise it would be meaningless
and therefore not a truism or anything else. Similarly, truisms are
true by their very nature.
Rather than repeating your same tired argument over and over, you need
to come to grips with the basic fact that your argument is that
evolution is true, you just think it's trivially obvious.
>
> Inez what would you say is the standardized definition of "darwinian
> fitness" and who standardized it ?
There is no point in playing this game with you. Were I to answer,
you'd either demand to know who definied the term that way and where
it was published, or pretend to be confused about the "intent" of
several of the words I used. It's just not interesting.
It's long past time for you to get a new argument. This garbage you
repeat over and over is just silly. People know what words mean,
people know what fitness means as it pertains to evolution. The fact
that natural selection can be reduced to simple parts does not
invalidate it.
Inez
You're in his killfile, he can't see your posts.
backspace
> It's long past time for you to get a new argument. This garbage you
> repeat over and over is just silly. People know what words mean,
> people know what fitness means as it pertains to evolution. The fact
> that natural selection can be reduced to simple parts does not
> invalidate it.
I would beg to differ. On 29 June 2008 here in South Africa (Dr.Jurie
van den Heever) an evolutionist from Stellenbosch University debated a
creationist on http://www.rsg.co.za radio station. He insisted that
we didn't come from an ape and that such a notion is "simplistic".
This is not our position on this forum, we all basically agree that
the thing was an ape/monkey/simian or whatever vernacular you choose
to use that makes you feel less stupid. He further said that Michael
Ruse is an expert of the ToE, yet Ruse said on CNN during the Dobbs,
Morris, Wells debate that "...Darwinism is the mechanism...", but PZ
Myers objects to the word 'Darwinism' and neither JH nor Wilkins have
said that '...Darwinism is the mechanism...." nor can I imagine they
would say something like that. Around 1915 in articles such as the New
York times evolutionists were referred to and referred to themselves
as "Darwinists", it is only lately that the materialists are trying to
get away from Darwin as people actually start discovering what Darwin
really said, like for example that chance is an "...incorrect
expression....". People are confusing the abstract concept surrounding
"chance" that they personally have with the concept Darwin had with it
given the constraints on his background knowledge, its all about your
personal intent with these undefined words.
Dr.Heever further defined natural selection as: ".... Lewe verander
oor tyd is natuurlike seleksie...." or translated:
".... Life changing over time is natural selection..." And my
question is, who established this and where ?
He also defined a mutations as: ".... mutations are small changes in
the gene either positive, neutral or negative...."
Again who says so and in what journal was this defined ? Of course
"...life changes over time.." everything in existence has to change
like the orbit of electrons around atoms. The truism:"... Life changes
over time..." has got nothing to do with getting naturaled.
John Vreeland
> John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > backspace wrote:
> ...
>
> > [snip gibberish]
>
> > > And Dr.Wilkins please would you be so kind as to reply to me directly
> > > and not indirectly.
>
> > I believe he has you killfiled. He can't see your posts. And there is of
> > course no point in replying to you. I really don't know why anyone does
> > it. I don't even know why I did this.
>
> I don't do this. I wouldn't respond to backspace again even if I could
> see him.
He's not a troll; I am sure of it. He really seems to think he has a
point. Can obtuseness be pathological?
backspace
> that natural selection can be reduced to simple parts does not invalidate it.
That depends who says "natural selection". Dr.Harshman don't consider
McPherson Smith a good interpreter of evolutionary wisdom:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/tree/browse_frm/thread/b72c8b73fceb1130/d82dc25f5c3368b4?rnum=191&_done=%2Fgroup%2Ftalk.origins%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fb72c8b73fceb1130%2F91fc3eb0db3b2a10%3Flnk%3Dst%26q%3D%26#doc_45b60d3966a12303
"...Hard to say, since what MacPherson Smith (and Sullivan) said was
largely gibberish. He said a lot of things, some of them mutually
contradictory...."
"...I have to apologize to backspace on behalf of these two bozos.
MacPherson Smith is said to be an anthropologist; if so, that just
points out the poor quality of scholarship in anthropology. Sullivan
is "a writer" so perhaps can't be blamed for scientific errors...."
Yet Smith and Harshman both use "natural selection" a term which is a
logical impossibility. If they can't agree on what type of monkey
humans came from what else should we consider doubtful ?
The thread was referring to this article: http://www.toptenmyths.com/playboy.pdf
Inez
> On Jun 30, 6:12 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It's long past time for you to get a new argument. This garbage you
> > repeat over and over is just silly. People know what words mean,
> > people know what fitness means as it pertains to evolution. The fact
> > that natural selection can be reduced to simple parts does not
> > invalidate it.
>
> I would beg to differ. On 29 June 2008 here in South Africa (Dr.Jurie
> van den Heever) an evolutionist from Stellenbosch University debated a
> we didn't come from an ape and that such a notion is "simplistic".
And how is that relevant to what I said?
> This is not our position on this forum, we all basically agree that
> the thing was an ape/monkey/simian or whatever vernacular you choose
> to use that makes you feel less stupid.
My personal feelings about my own intelligence are not tied to the
label of my ancestor species.
> He further said that Michael
> Ruse is an expert of the ToE, yet Ruse said on CNN during the Dobbs,
> Morris, Wells debate that "...Darwinism is the mechanism...", but PZ
> Myers objects to the word 'Darwinism' and neither JH nor Wilkins have
> said that '...Darwinism is the mechanism...." nor can I imagine they
> would say something like that.
I'm not sure what to tell you here. The fact you can dig up someone
who uses confusing terminology about the ToE is not especially
indicative of anything. If, given all the vast array of information
on the internet, in school, and at your local library, you are unable
to figure out what the ToE is, the fault is almost certainly with
you. If you want my advice you'd do well to stop fixating on specific
words and specific people's statements, and see if you can't divine an
overall trend between what everyone is telling you.
> Around 1915 in articles such as the New
> York times evolutionists were referred to and referred to themselves
> as "Darwinists", it is only lately that the materialists are trying to
> get away from Darwin as people actually start discovering what Darwin
> really said, like for example that chance is an "...incorrect
> expression....".
What does that have to do with anything?
> People are confusing the abstract concept surrounding
> "chance" that they personally have with the concept Darwin had with it
> given the constraints on his background knowledge, its all about your
> personal intent with these undefined words.
You are just wrong. The words have definitions, and your confusion is
manufactored so that you can pretend the theory which you feel
contradicts your religious believes is not rational.
I do not mind if you want to do this, but I really don't see why
you're bothering other people with it. If you don't understand the
ToE why don't you go away and learn about it and come back when you're
ready?
Bob Casanova
>On Jun 30, 4:08 am, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
Other than noting that questions such as this one indicate
you have the mental acuity of a bag of rocks, how is your
idiocy measured?
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Sapient Fridge
<use_repl...@spamsights.org>:
>In message <r0dg64tegndsr791h...@4ax.com>, Bob Casanova
><nos...@buzz.off> writes
>>The giraffe, in the bathtub with the aardvark.
>
>That's a seriously warped game of Cluedo you are playing there.
Yep, and that's even before the whipped cream and Vaseline
are added.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<sawirel...@yahoo.com>:
>On Jun 30, 6:12 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> It's long past time for you to get a new argument. This garbage you
>> repeat over and over is just silly. People know what words mean,
>> people know what fitness means as it pertains to evolution. The fact
>> that natural selection can be reduced to simple parts does not
>> invalidate it.
>I would beg to differ.
Differ with statements of fact all you want; it merely
reinforces the conclusion that you're an idiot who is
incapable of learning.
<snip references to comments he doesn't understand and
therefore doesn't accept>
June
Yes! obviously.
--
My 2¢ ß-}
June
To email me replace 'go' with 'ville' and remove the .spam.jam
Rupert Morrish
> On Jun 30, 6:12 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> People know what words mean, people know what fitness means as it pertains to evolution. The fact
>> that natural selection can be reduced to simple parts does not invalidate it.
>
> That depends who says "natural selection". Dr.Harshman don't consider
> McPherson Smith a good interpreter of evolutionary wisdom:
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/tree/browse_frm/thread/b72c8b73fceb1130/d82dc25f5c3368b4?rnum=191&_done=%2Fgroup%2Ftalk.origins%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fb72c8b73fceb1130%2F91fc3eb0db3b2a10%3Flnk%3Dst%26q%3D%26#doc_45b60d3966a12303
>
> "...Hard to say, since what MacPherson Smith (and Sullivan) said was
> largely gibberish. He said a lot of things, some of them mutually
> contradictory...."
>
> "...I have to apologize to backspace on behalf of these two bozos.
> MacPherson Smith is said to be an anthropologist; if so, that just
> points out the poor quality of scholarship in anthropology. Sullivan
> is "a writer" so perhaps can't be blamed for scientific errors...."
>
> Yet Smith and Harshman both use "natural selection" a term which is a
> logical impossibility.
It's also said to be logically impossible for bumblebees to fly. Yet fly
they do. If you observe something happening that you believe to be
logically impossible, the problem is with your logic.
> If they can't agree on what type of monkey
> humans came from what else should we consider doubtful ?
Why should I care what you consider doubtful?
>
> The thread was referring to this article: http://www.toptenmyths.com/playboy.pdf
Playboy is not the best magazine to read if you are interested in
learning about natural selection. It's not even the best source for
information on sexual selection.
>
Rupert Morrish
[snip]
> Yeah, I know. But since backspace is pretending to be clueless, I
> thought I'd be totally irrelevant. Doesn't seem to matter to him if
> our responses are spot on or not, does it?
I don't think he's pretending.
>
> Kermit
>
Rupert Morrish
Other than weighing it, how is the weight of an object determined?
Why do you think this question deserves an answer?
>
Inez
> On Jun 30, 6:12 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > People know what words mean, people know what fitness means as it pertains to evolution. The fact
> > that natural selection can be reduced to simple parts does not invalidate it.
>
> That depends who says "natural selection". Dr.Harshman don't consider
>
> "...Hard to say, since what MacPherson Smith (and Sullivan) said was
> largely gibberish. He said a lot of things, some of them mutually
> contradictory...."
>
> "...I have to apologize to backspace on behalf of these two bozos.
> MacPherson Smith is said to be an anthropologist; if so, that just
> points out the poor quality of scholarship in anthropology. Sullivan
> is "a writer" so perhaps can't be blamed for scientific errors...."
So what? The word is full of people, and some of them get things
wrong. The fact that you can find two people who disagree doesn't
actually mean much. Why don't you find two modern textbooks that
disagree, then write back.
> Yet Smith and Harshman both use "natural selection" a term which is a
> logical impossibility. If they can't agree on what type of monkey
> humans came from what else should we consider doubtful ?
>
> The thread was referring to this article:http://www.toptenmyths.com/playboy.pdf
If you want to have some fun, why don't you look at all the different
ways people define "Christianity." Shall we conclude that there's no
such thing?
Inez
If you're admitting that traits become widely distributed, you're
admitting that evolution happens, right?
chris thompson
By your inability to comprehend it, doofus.
backspace
> >> For a truism to be false, some things that
> >> are incontestible - in this case that favourable traits become more
> >> widely distributed in subsequent generations - have to be false, and
> >> nobody says they are.
> >Other than noting the traits become more widely distributed how was
> >their favoribility measured ?
> Other than noting that questions such as this one indicate
> you have the mental acuity of a bag of rocks, how is your
> idiocy measured?
Why is it so difficult to spot the tautology by Wilkins ? Lets go
through this slowly. He says that there were traits that became
common. Sure, the question is why did they become more common. He says
because they were "favorable" , well obviously because if they weren't
favorable they wouldn't have become common! Telling us that traits
became common implicitly implies that they had to be favorable, how
could they possibly not be favorable? Telling us that because traits
are common therefore they are favorable doesn't tell us independently
the actual reason they became more common. This needs to be derived
elsewhere. Why did polar bears became more common in the arctic ?
Because they had "favorable" traits, well obviously otherwise they
would be dead now wouldn't they.
chris thompson
You are completely wrong.
Traits can become common, even fixed, in a population for any number
of reasons. Brown eyes, for example, are not favorable in any way, yet
they are more common than blue eyes. And polydactyly is not favored,
but in some populations (the Amish, for example) it is fairly common,
because of drift and nonrandom mating. Likewise, not even you would
consider breast cancer or Tay-Sachs disease to be favorable, but the
genes for those traits are common in the Ashkenazi Jewish population
in Brooklyn, New York, for the exact same reasons.
Chris
backspace
> > the actual reason they became more common. This needs to be derived
> > elsewhere. Why did polar bears became more common in the arctic ?
> > Because they had "favorable" traits, well obviously otherwise they
> > would be dead now wouldn't they.
> You are completely wrong.
> Traits can become common, even fixed, in a population for any number
> of reasons. Brown eyes, for example, are not favorable in any way, yet
> they are more common than blue eyes. And polydactyly is not favored,
> but in some populations (the Amish, for example) it is fairly common,
> because of drift and nonrandom mating. Likewise, not even you would
> consider breast cancer or Tay-Sachs disease to be favorable, but the
> genes for those traits are common in the Ashkenazi Jewish population
> in Brooklyn, New York, for the exact same reasons.
Lets look at another truism/tautology combination, this time from 1
July 2008 The Star newspaper South Africa.
Letter writer Douglas Laing says:
".. We have all evolved to the same extent at the same time precisely
because we are all here at the same time - the present.."
rephrase1:
We are all here because we obviously are, I mean here we are all of us
and therefore we have evolved.
Question:
Other than noting we all are in fact here on this planet right now in
time, how was our evolvability measured ?
And you will note if your read the letter Laing uses ToE many times,
yet he never gives us the formal definition of the ToE nor who defined
it.
Inez
> On Jun 30, 11:55 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> > >> For a truism to be false, some things that
> > >> are incontestible - in this case that favourable traits become more
> > >> widely distributed in subsequent generations - have to be false, and
> > >> nobody says they are.
> > >Other than noting the traits become more widely distributed how was
> > >their favoribility measured ?
> > Other than noting that questions such as this one indicate
> > you have the mental acuity of a bag of rocks, how is your
> > idiocy measured?
>
> Why is it so difficult to spot the tautology by Wilkins ?
The bigger question, and the one that you continually avoid, is why
you think that evolution being tautological somehow invalidates it.
Tautologies are *true.* So if evolution is a tautology, it is true.
> Lets go
> through this slowly. He says that there were traits that became
> common. Sure, the question is why did they become more common. He says
> because they were "favorable" , well obviously because if they weren't
> favorable they wouldn't have become common!
But the creationist line is that species are at stasis and do not
change, so apparently this isn't so obvious to everyone.
> Telling us that traits
> became common implicitly implies that they had to be favorable, how
> could they possibly not be favorable? Telling us that because traits
> are common therefore they are favorable doesn't tell us independently
> the actual reason they became more common. This needs to be derived
> elsewhere. Why did polar bears became more common in the arctic ?
> Because they had "favorable" traits, well obviously otherwise they
> would be dead now wouldn't they.
You are overly fixated on the concept of "favorable." The focus of
the ToE is on change over time, not the exact degree of "favorability"
of traits that become common in a population. The important thing is
that certain traits become common and other's do not, which is what
leads to an overall change in populations. If all traits were equally
common there would be no overall change. As Mr. Thompson noted in
another post, there are other mechanisms of evolution than Natural
Selection, and not all traits that spread in a population are
favorable.
Inez
> On Jul 1, 2:32 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > the actual reason they became more common. This needs to be derived
> > > elsewhere. Why did polar bears became more common in the arctic ?
> > > Because they had "favorable" traits, well obviously otherwise they
> > > would be dead now wouldn't they.
> > You are completely wrong.
> > Traits can become common, even fixed, in a population for any number
> > of reasons. Brown eyes, for example, are not favorable in any way, yet
> > they are more common than blue eyes. And polydactyly is not favored,
> > but in some populations (the Amish, for example) it is fairly common,
> > because of drift and nonrandom mating. Likewise, not even you would
> > consider breast cancer or Tay-Sachs disease to be favorable, but the
> > genes for those traits are common in the Ashkenazi Jewish population
> > in Brooklyn, New York, for the exact same reasons.
>
> Lets look at another truism/tautology combination, this time from 1
> July 2008 The Star newspaper South Africa.
> Letter writer Douglas Laing says:
> ".. We have all evolved to the same extent at the same time precisely
> because we are all here at the same time - the present.."
>
> rephrase1:
> We are all here because we obviously are, I mean here we are all of us
> and therefore we have evolved.
Rephrase2: I either don't understand the statement or else I am
dishonest since I am changing the meaning.
> Question:
> Other than noting we all are in fact here on this planet right now in
> time, how was our evolvability measured ?
He wasn't talking about "evolvability."
> And you will note if your read the letter Laing uses ToE many times,
> yet he never gives us the formal definition of the ToE nor who defined
> it.
If you read any scientific writting you will note that people
virtually never give the "formal definition" of widely understood
theories, nor who defined it.
You should go get yourself naturaled or something.
Greg Guarino
<savagem...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>You should go get yourself naturaled or something.
Is that what the kids are calling it these days? If so, I concur that
a some good old-fashioned "naturaling" might do our friend Backspace a
world of good.
Greg Guarino
TomS
<f776363b-3da7-4541...@z32g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Inez
stated..."
>
>On Jul 1, 3:45 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 30, 11:55 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>> > >> For a truism to be false, some things that
>> > >> are incontestible - in this case that favourable traits become more
>> > >> widely distributed in subsequent generations - have to be false, and
>> > >> nobody says they are.
>> > >Other than noting the traits become more widely distributed how was
>> > >their favoribility measured ?
>> > Other than noting that questions such as this one indicate
>> > you have the mental acuity of a bag of rocks, how is your
>> > idiocy measured?
>>
>> Why is it so difficult to spot the tautology by Wilkins ?
>
>The bigger question, and the one that you continually avoid, is why
>you think that evolution being tautological somehow invalidates it.
>Tautologies are *true.* So if evolution is a tautology, it is true.
"The old 'it's a tautology' trick."
Long ago, someone once suggested that Newton's laws of
motion were tautologies. How does one measure force?
By the amount of acceleration that it produces in a
given mass. How does one measure mass? By the amount
of acceleration that it undergoes with a given force.
Tautologies can be useful. Something as obvious as the
"Pigeonhole principle". From the Wikipedia article:
"Although the pigeonhole principle may seem to be intuitive,
it can be used to demonstrate possibly unexpected results.
For example, there must be at least two people in London
with the same number of hairs on their heads. Demonstration:
a typical head of hair has around 150,000 hairs. It is
reasonable to assume that no one has more than 1,000,000
hairs on their head (m = 1 million holes). There are more
than 1,000,000 people in London (n is bigger than 1 million
objects). If we assign a pigeonhole for each number of hairs
on a head, and assign people to the pigeonhole with their
number of hairs on it, there must be at least two people with
the same number of hairs on their heads."
>
>> Lets go
>> through this slowly. He says that there were traits that became
>> common. Sure, the question is why did they become more common. He says
>> because they were "favorable" , well obviously because if they weren't
>> favorable they wouldn't have become common!
>
>But the creationist line is that species are at stasis and do not
>change, so apparently this isn't so obvious to everyone.
>
>> Telling us that traits
>> became common implicitly implies that they had to be favorable, how
>> could they possibly not be favorable? Telling us that because traits
>> are common therefore they are favorable doesn't tell us independently
>> the actual reason they became more common. This needs to be derived
>> elsewhere. Why did polar bears became more common in the arctic ?
>> Because they had "favorable" traits, well obviously otherwise they
>> would be dead now wouldn't they.
>
>You are overly fixated on the concept of "favorable." The focus of
>the ToE is on change over time, not the exact degree of "favorability"
>of traits that become common in a population. The important thing is
>that certain traits become common and other's do not, which is what
>leads to an overall change in populations. If all traits were equally
>common there would be no overall change. As Mr. Thompson noted in
>another post, there are other mechanisms of evolution than Natural
>Selection, and not all traits that spread in a population are
>favorable.
>
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
chris thompson
> On Jul 1, 2:32 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > the actual reason they became more common. This needs to be derived
> > > elsewhere. Why did polar bears became more common in the arctic ?
> > > Because they had "favorable" traits, well obviously otherwise they
> > > would be dead now wouldn't they.
> > You are completely wrong.
> > Traits can become common, even fixed, in a population for any number
> > of reasons. Brown eyes, for example, are not favorable in any way, yet
> > they are more common than blue eyes. And polydactyly is not favored,
> > but in some populations (the Amish, for example) it is fairly common,
> > because of drift and nonrandom mating. Likewise, not even you would
> > consider breast cancer or Tay-Sachs disease to be favorable, but the
> > genes for those traits are common in the Ashkenazi Jewish population
> > in Brooklyn, New York, for the exact same reasons.
>
> Lets look at another truism/tautology combination,
No, let's not.
Don't change the subject, and don't move on. Just because you click
your heels three times and say, "There's no evolution! There's no
evolution!", it doesn't go away.
Not addressing the points I made is the height of intellectual
dishonesty. You were shown to be wrong, so you tried to run away. Now
that's not usual for you, and I expect you'll keep doing it no matter
what, and that's OK. Because that way everyone knows you for the
coward you are.
Chris
Kermit
> On Jul 1, 3:45 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 30, 11:55 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> > > >> For a truism to be false, some things that
> > > >> are incontestible - in this case that favourable traits become more
> > > >> widely distributed in subsequent generations - have to be false, and
> > > >> nobody says they are.
> > > >Other than noting the traits become more widely distributed how was
> > > >their favoribility measured ?
> > > Other than noting that questions such as this one indicate
> > > you have the mental acuity of a bag of rocks, how is your
> > > idiocy measured?
>
> > Why is it so difficult to spot the tautology by Wilkins ?
>
> The bigger question, and the one that you continually avoid, is why
> you think that evolution being tautological somehow invalidates it.
> Tautologies are *true.* So if evolution is a tautology, it is true.
Somebody told him once that tautologies are bad logic (they sometimes
are used in bad arguments), so if evolution is some kind of bad logic,
it must be wrong. Or something like that; he remembers the conclusion,
anyway, and that's what's important.
>
> > Lets go
> > through this slowly. He says that there were traits that became
> > common. Sure, the question is why did they become more common. He says
> > because they were "favorable" , well obviously because if they weren't
> > favorable they wouldn't have become common!
>
> But the creationist line is that species are at stasis and do not
> change, so apparently this isn't so obvious to everyone.
Well, sometimes they tell us that species evolved very fast, so that a
few thousand kinds on Noah's flood became tens of millions of species
in a few dozen centuries. Except when they're telling us that nobody
has ever seen a species evolve.
>
> > Telling us that traits
> > became common implicitly implies that they had to be favorable, how
> > could they possibly not be favorable? Telling us that because traits
> > are common therefore they are favorable doesn't tell us independently
> > the actual reason they became more common. This needs to be derived
> > elsewhere. Why did polar bears became more common in the arctic ?
> > Because they had "favorable" traits, well obviously otherwise they
> > would be dead now wouldn't they.
>
> You are overly fixated on the concept of "favorable." The focus of
> the ToE is on change over time, not the exact degree of "favorability"
> of traits that become common in a population. The important thing is
> that certain traits become common and other's do not, which is what
> leads to an overall change in populations. If all traits were equally
> common there would be no overall change. As Mr. Thompson noted in
> another post, there are other mechanisms of evolution than Natural
> Selection, and not all traits that spread in a population are
> favorable.
Kermit
Kermit
No, polars didn't just walk north and become more common in the
Arctic. Certain traits became more prevalent in the Alaskan brown bear
population that lived in the colder climates. Those traits included
size, camouflaged fur (white), swimming ability, etc. Altho still very
closely related, the Brown Alaskan Bear and the polar bear do not
normally interbreed, and the neither does as well in the other's
environment. As the polar bears adapted to the environment, they
became more prevalent by moving into the niche they were now adapted
to. As a population becomes adapted to an environment, it becomes able
to exploit resources from the more extreme range of that environment.
Or, it adapts as the environment changes. We humans are changing the
Arctic very quickly now, and the polar bears cannot adapt quickly
enough. People like you, who are ignorant of science and fight against
learning, will get to see a magnificent species go extinct because our
species finds thinking to be incompatible with warm fuzzy feelings. Or
something.
Kermit
Bob Casanova
>On Jun 30, 11:55 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> For a truism to be false, some things that
>> >> are incontestible - in this case that favourable traits become more
>> >> widely distributed in subsequent generations - have to be false, and
>> >> nobody says they are.
>
>> >Other than noting the traits become more widely distributed how was
>> >their favoribility measured ?
>
>> Other than noting that questions such as this one indicate
>> you have the mental acuity of a bag of rocks, how is your
>> idiocy measured?
>
>Why is it so difficult to spot the tautology by Wilkins ?
Because it's not a tautology. If traits are favorable they
will increase in occurrence in a population. It was observed
that these traits increased in occurrence in the population,
leading to the conclusion that these traits are favorable.
Where's the tautology?
> Lets go
>through this slowly. He says that there were traits that became
>common. Sure, the question is why did they become more common. He says
>because they were "favorable" , well obviously because if they weren't
>favorable they wouldn't have become common! Telling us that traits
>became common implicitly implies that they had to be favorable, how
>could they possibly not be favorable? Telling us that because traits
>are common therefore they are favorable doesn't tell us independently
>the actual reason they became more common. This needs to be derived
>elsewhere. Why did polar bears became more common in the arctic ?
>Because they had "favorable" traits, well obviously otherwise they
>would be dead now wouldn't they.
OK, so what's the problem? Are you contending that any
explanation for an observation (which is what this is) is
tautologous?
Cj
So? what's your point?
Cj
Cj
Cj
Cj
> On Jun 30, 5:05 am, j.wilki...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
>> If two organisms - say a fungus and a toad - have an identical fitness,
>> they have no necessary physical properties in common, just an identical
>> rate of increase in the number of descendents at an instant. The fungus
>> might have fitness A because it is toxic to the fungus eaters in the
>> vicinity, while the toad might have fitness A because it is camouflaged
>> from a single predator, or can outmate other morphs in its population.
>
>> So "fitness" is a highly abstract property, a number in a mathematical
>> description.
>
> No, you have a concept which you view as highly abstract , what has
> this yet to be defined property got to do with the word "fitness"?
> What concept are you trying to encode and transmit over the internet
> using the some protocol with "fitness" in it that we must decode. To
> decode your concept we need more background information and a single
> word such as vigor, strength, fitness won't be able to do this. For
> example I would need to know wether you agree that vigor and strength
> can be used as synonyms in our attempt at decoding your pragmatics.
>
>> [And as such it isn't true by definition - it's a variable
>> waiting for a value.]
>
> There is no language without a motive. Fitness is semantics, not
> pragmatics you have some abstract concept which you haven't defined
> which you say isn't a truism, this concept you encode using the word
> "Fitness" for us to decode.
> Fitness isn't a "variable waiting for a definition" it is merely part
> of our semantic lexicon used to encode our pragmatics using some sort
> of agreed on protocol for others to decode. If signal sender uses
> Ethernet and signal receiver tries to decode the message using ATM
> then no communication takes place. Shannon's information theorem
> can't measure the intent behind a message. If not even a human can
> figure out what "you are playing with your mouse" means then how can a
> Turing machine ?
>
> And Dr.Wilkins please would you be so kind as to reply to me directly
> and not indirectly.
>
together?
Cj
Cj
>> people know what fitness means as it pertains to evolution. The fact
>> that natural selection can be reduced to simple parts does not
>> invalidate it.
>
> van den Heever) an evolutionist from Stellenbosch University debated a
> we didn't come from an ape and that such a notion is "simplistic".
> the thing was an ape/monkey/simian or whatever vernacular you choose
> Ruse is an expert of the ToE, yet Ruse said on CNN during the Dobbs,
> Morris, Wells debate that "...Darwinism is the mechanism...", but PZ
> Myers objects to the word 'Darwinism' and neither JH nor Wilkins have
> said that '...Darwinism is the mechanism...." nor can I imagine they
> York times evolutionists were referred to and referred to themselves
> as "Darwinists", it is only lately that the materialists are trying to
> get away from Darwin as people actually start discovering what Darwin
> really said, like for example that chance is an "...incorrect
> "chance" that they personally have with the concept Darwin had with it
> given the constraints on his background knowledge, its all about your
> personal intent with these undefined words.
>
> oor tyd is natuurlike seleksie...." or translated:
> ".... Life changing over time is natural selection..." And my
> question is, who established this and where ?
> He also defined a mutations as: ".... mutations are small changes in
> the gene either positive, neutral or negative...."
> Again who says so and in what journal was this defined ? Of course
> "...life changes over time.." everything in existence has to change
> like the orbit of electrons around atoms. The truism:"... Life changes
> over time..." has got nothing to do with getting naturaled.
>
You need a new dictionary, your old one stinks,
Cj
Cj
> On Jun 30, 6:12 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> People know what words mean, people know what fitness means as it pertains to evolution. The fact
>> that natural selection can be reduced to simple parts does not invalidate it.
>
> McPherson Smith a good interpreter of evolutionary wisdom:
>
> "...Hard to say, since what MacPherson Smith (and Sullivan) said was
> largely gibberish. He said a lot of things, some of them mutually
> contradictory...."
>
> "...I have to apologize to backspace on behalf of these two bozos.
> MacPherson Smith is said to be an anthropologist; if so, that just
> points out the poor quality of scholarship in anthropology. Sullivan
> is "a writer" so perhaps can't be blamed for scientific errors...."
>
> logical impossibility. If they can't agree on what type of monkey
> humans came from what else should we consider doubtful ?
>
> The thread was referring to this article: http://www.toptenmyths.com/playboy.pdf
>
around so much BS that nobody is certain what your point might be.
Cj
William Morse
> William Morse <wdNOSP...@verizonOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>> backspace wrote:
>>> On Jun 28, 11:19 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jun 28, 12:22 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29>Fitness (often
>>>>> denoted w in population genetics models) is a central concept in
>>>>> evolutionary theory. Fitness isn't a concept but a word. This word is
>>>>> used by individuals to encode their specific concept for us to decode.
>>>> Incorrect. Fitness is a word that communicates a concept. The
>>>> concept is not a code, but a standardized meaning, and you can look it
>>>> up in a dictionary.
>>> A truism is something which is true by definition hence nobody can
>>> hijack such a truism and eternally associate his name with it.
>>> Language itself is being made undefined by calling "fitness" -
>>> "Darwinian fitness". Darwin stated a truism in the same way that
>>> Howard stated "bacteria don't survive in lava" , another truism.
>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Darwinian%20fitness isn't
>>> defined.
>>>
>>> Inez what would you say is the standardized definition of "darwinian
>>> fitness" and who standardized it ?
>>>
>> Actually there are a number of different ways to create a metric for the
>> term fitness. Most of us have a good idea of what it means in the
>> general parlance, but formalizing this idea allows of interpretation. If
>> you are seriously interested, see the chapter "An agony in five fits" in
>> Dawkins' _The Extended Phenotype_ as a good starting point.
>>
> Then do some recent reading:
>
> Abrams, Marshall. 2007. Fitness and Propensity's Annulment? Biology and
> Philosophy 22 (1): 115-130.
>
> Ariew, Andre, and R. C. Lewontin. 2004. The Confusions of Fitness. Br J
> Philos Sci 55 (2): 347-363.
>
> Bouchard, Frédéric, and Alex Rosenberg. 2004. Fitness, Probability and
> the Principles of Natural Selection. British Journal for the Philosophy
> of Science 55 (4): 693-712.
>
> Krimbas, Costas B. 2004. On fitness. Biology and Philosophy 19 (2):
> 185-203.
>
> Walsh, D. M. 1996. Fitness and Function. Br J Philos Sci 47 (4):
> 553-574.
>
> Weber, Marcel. 1996. Fitness made physical: the supervenience of
> biological concepts revisited. Philosophy of Science v 63 Sept 1996. p.
>
> "Fitness" is actually a complex topic. My own resolution is that it is a
> placeholder (variable) in models that gets filled out with physical
> properties and assigned on the basis of post hoc observation. Hence I
> agree with Weber that it is a supervening property (a point made by
> Sober back in 1984), but I go one step further and make the property
> purely a property of models.
>
> In English:
>
> If two organisms - say a fungus and a toad - have an identical fitness,
> they have no necessary physical properties in common, just an identical
> rate of increase in the number of descendents at an instant. The fungus
> might have fitness A because it is toxic to the fungus eaters in the
> vicinity, while the toad might have fitness A because it is camouflaged
> from a single predator, or can outmate other morphs in its population.
> So "fitness" is a highly abstract property, a number in a mathematical
> waiting for a value.]
>
> This means, in my view, that selectionist explanations are in fact
> promissory notes towards an explanation; an explanatory IOU as it were.
> To say that organism O has fitness A is just to say that it has an
> instantaneous rate of reproduction relative to the background, which
> will be given a full physical explanation later on if the researchers
> get the funding.
It seems to me we have had this conversation before, but that is one of
the advantages of getting old - you can have the same discussion over
and over and it is always fresh :-)
I agree that as generally used in evolution, fitness is based on post
hoc observation. And to the extent that the environment is a moving
target (it includes other organisms and it includes metereological
variability and geological change) that is inevitable. However, to the
extent that the environment is fixed, it is possible for there to be
some absolute fitness benchmarks. The place to look for these is in
convergence.
One example is streamlining. Any animal that expends any significant
fraction of its energy in overcoming fluid friction will be streamlined.
For such animals, a genetic change that increases streamlining with
no offsetting cost will increase fitness. And lo! streamlining is
observed across multiple taxa.
A second example is aposematism. AFAIK, all the terrestrial animals that
are toxic to eat are only so because they eat toxic plants. But it
appears that if you do eat toxic plants and are therefore going to be
unpalatable, it pays to advertise the fact - again seen across multiple
taxa.
Both these examples would let one gauge a fitness by a metric that is
true by definition, albeit limited to the domain involved - animals that
need to overcome fluid friction in the first case, terrestrial animals
that are toxic in the second.
Which gives room for selectionist explanations that do not rely on an
instantaneous rate of reproduction (the usual definition of fitness) but
instead rely on a selection matrix, as it were: given conditions a, b,
and c, we can expect that an increase in d will increase fitness, at
least if that increase can be achieved at a reasonable cost.
Yours,
Bill Morse
P.S. I haven't read the references, but thanks for giving them.
John Wilkins
> Both these examples would let one gauge a fitness by a metric that is
> true by definition, albeit limited to the domain involved - animals that
> need to overcome fluid friction in the first case, terrestrial animals
> that are toxic in the second.
>
> Which gives room for selectionist explanations that do not rely on an
> instantaneous rate of reproduction (the usual definition of fitness) but
> instead rely on a selection matrix, as it were: given conditions a, b,
> and c, we can expect that an increase in d will increase fitness, at
> least if that increase can be achieved at a reasonable cost.
Expectation of a rate of increase *is* instantaneous increase (because
fitness can change if the environment does), and all you have done is
make the epistemology dependent upon some set of knowledge based on the
past. Sure, if you have the priors to make the rate of expectation
reasonable, then you can say fitness is what will happen in the future
(this is called the propensity conception of fitness), but right now all
you have is the instantaneous rate of increase as is or will be
observed.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
backspace
> >>> Inez what would you say is the standardized definition of "darwinian
> >>> fitness" and who standardized it ?
> the advantages of getting old - you can have the same discussion over
> and over and it is always fresh :-)
> I agree that as generally used in evolution, fitness is based on post
> hoc observation.
We are dealing with post-hoc rationalization in these discussions
since nobody was there to observe how animals came into being - what
has this got to do with the word "fitness". ?
> And to the extent that the environment is a moving
> target (it includes other organisms and it includes metereological
> variability and geological change) that is inevitable. However, to the
> extent that the environment is fixed, it is possible for there to be
> some absolute fitness benchmarks. The place to look for these is in
> convergence.
"convergence" is just a another English word that can be used by
millions of signal senders to encode their pragmatics , to which
individual signal sender are you referring that we must decode using
what protocol for which "convergence" is a proxy ?
> For such animals, a genetic change that increases streamlining with
> no offsetting cost will increase fitness.
And until you give me the formally defined concept for which "fitness"
is a label you are not even wrong.
> Which gives room for selectionist explanations that do not rely on an
Who did the selecting ?
> instantaneous rate of reproduction (the usual definition of fitness) but
Who's usual definition, who is this person and what was his
background knowledge. Spencer said "survival of the fittest" a term
constrained by his background knowledge , a term Darwin said was a
"...better expression than natural selection...." And lets not forget
that in 1863 Darwin wrote in a letter that he should have used
" ...natural preservation..." - what could that possibly mean given
what we know today ?
> instead rely on a selection matrix, as it were: given conditions a, b,
> and c, we can expect that an increase in d will increase fitness, at
> least if that increase can be achieved at a reasonable cost
Depends what you define as fitness .
Greg Guarino
I stopped reading your nonsense some time ago, but you are an
especially distasteful little troll. Someone takes the time to explain
a concept to you patiently and courteously and you can't summon the
respect to offer even a single on-topic word in response.
Go ahead, tell me some word in the paragraph above is undefined.
Greg Guarino
Woland
I think that his hovercraft is full of eels.
Kermit
> n Jul 2, 4:56 am, William Morse <wdNOSPAmo...@verizonOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> "convergence" is just a another English word that can be used by
> millions of signal senders to encode their pragmatics , to which
> individual signal sender are you referring that we must decode using
> what protocol for which "convergence" is a proxy ?
>
Yes, "convergence" has a meaning.
Do you understand how utterly crippled you are by your obsession? You
are incapable of communicating, understanding, or learning.
Nobody encodes the words they use, unless they are encrypting for
security purposes. Very few people discuss pragmatics, let alone their
own. Pragmatics is not the same as the meaning of a word or sentence.
What is a "signal sender"? It can't be a person, for we do not decode
people. There are no protocols for understanding words; that process
is hardwired into our brains, and individual words are learned by use
and repetition. "Convergence" is a word that we use in ordinary as
well as technical dialogs. It isn't a proxy for anything, except in
the sense that all words are abstract representations, and we call
that the *meaning of the word. You will find it in the dictionary.
Do you *have a native tongue?
<snip>
I imagine that the closest thing you have to friends are dull-witted
folks. They know that they don't understand smart people, and they
don't understand you, so they suppose that you are smart. Have you
noticed that other people dismiss you as rude and determinedly
ignorant?
Kermit
William Morse
> William Morse <wdNOSP...@verizonOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>> Both these examples would let one gauge a fitness by a metric that is
>> true by definition, albeit limited to the domain involved - animals that
>> need to overcome fluid friction in the first case, terrestrial animals
>> that are toxic in the second.
>>
>> Which gives room for selectionist explanations that do not rely on an
>> instantaneous rate of reproduction (the usual definition of fitness) but
>> instead rely on a selection matrix, as it were: given conditions a, b,
>> and c, we can expect that an increase in d will increase fitness, at
>> least if that increase can be achieved at a reasonable cost.
>
> Expectation of a rate of increase *is* instantaneous increase (because
> fitness can change if the environment does), and all you have done is
> make the epistemology dependent upon some set of knowledge based on the
> past. Sure, if you have the priors to make the rate of expectation
> reasonable, then you can say fitness is what will happen in the future
> (this is called the propensity conception of fitness), but right now all
> you have is the instantaneous rate of increase as is or will be
> observed.
While I normally advocate snippage, we might have lost something in
translation on this one.
Working with what is left, your response has me confused. My follow did
not discuss an expectation of a rate of increase, only of a direction of
increase. And fitness is not normally discussed as a rate, only as an
increase. We would have to take the second derivative to get a rate of
increase, and I have not seen this discussed in the literature,
although your use of it probably means that some of your references are
discussing a rate concept.
Furthermore, the set of knowledge I am using may be based in the past,
but that is irrelevant to the argument unless you think that the physics
of viscosity or the chemistry of toxicity is likely to change in the
future That was my point - that while fitness changes if the
environment does, certain aspects of the environment (e.g. the viscosity
of fluids) are fixed. I think this does lead to an expectation (not a
rate of expectation) as to characteristics that will be conserved or
enhanced in future organisms.
Yours,
Bill Morse
John Wilkins
> John Wilkins wrote:
> > William Morse <wdNOSP...@verizonOSPAM.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Both these examples would let one gauge a fitness by a metric that is
> >> true by definition, albeit limited to the domain involved - animals that
> >> need to overcome fluid friction in the first case, terrestrial animals
> >> that are toxic in the second.
> >>
> >> Which gives room for selectionist explanations that do not rely on an
> >> instantaneous rate of reproduction (the usual definition of fitness) but
> >> instead rely on a selection matrix, as it were: given conditions a, b,
> >> and c, we can expect that an increase in d will increase fitness, at
> >> least if that increase can be achieved at a reasonable cost.
> >
> > Expectation of a rate of increase *is* instantaneous increase (because
> > fitness can change if the environment does), and all you have done is
> > make the epistemology dependent upon some set of knowledge based on the
> > past. Sure, if you have the priors to make the rate of expectation
> > reasonable, then you can say fitness is what will happen in the future
> > (this is called the propensity conception of fitness), but right now all
> > you have is the instantaneous rate of increase as is or will be
> > observed.
>
> While I normally advocate snippage, we might have lost something in
> translation on this one.
I think snippage is the least of our problems. There's my brain to take
into account too...
>
> Working with what is left, your response has me confused. My follow did
> not discuss an expectation of a rate of increase, only of a direction of
> increase. And fitness is not normally discussed as a rate, only as an
> increase. We would have to take the second derivative to get a rate of
> increase, and I have not seen this discussed in the literature,
> although your use of it probably means that some of your references are
> discussing a rate concept.
Not necessarily. The rate of increase notion is mine own (which I will
one day publish when I care enough). If an allele increases over time,
the fitness is the rate at the time in a given environment at which it
increases its frequency in the population. If the environment is stable,
then the rate will remain constant (well, actually as it approaches
equilibrium or fixation, then it will slow, but that's a matter of
derivatives anyway).
But what I was talking about above is what we can know about such rates.
We cannot *know* what the propensity is at a time t, only after t. So to
define fitness as what will happen in the future is a mistake. We only
*know* what happened in the past, and we are projecting that knowledge.
>
> Furthermore, the set of knowledge I am using may be based in the past,
> but that is irrelevant to the argument unless you think that the physics
> of viscosity or the chemistry of toxicity is likely to change in the
> future That was my point - that while fitness changes if the
> environment does, certain aspects of the environment (e.g. the viscosity
> of fluids) are fixed. I think this does lead to an expectation (not a
> rate of expectation) as to characteristics that will be conserved or
> enhanced in future organisms.
But fitness is not absolute to the (in this case, liquid) environment.
It is a matter of comparative rate of increase (or comparative increase
if you dislike the rate definition) of that allele *with all other
alleles in the population* or deme. So while the Reynolds number may not
change, the ways in which competitors get around or employ it will,
changing the fitnesses of *all* alleles relative to that "problem".
Ernest Major
writes
>backspace wrote:
>Explain why natural selection is a logical impossibility. You toss
>around so much BS that nobody is certain what your point might be.
>Cj
>
usual, this was based on his real or feigned pragmatic incompetence in
the English language; his rhetoric was based on the false presumption
that selection requires an entity with volition, which combined with
application of the etymological fallacy, leads to his misconclusion that
as nature is non-volitional, natural selection is a meaningless
combination of words.
--
alias Ernest Major
backspace
> >Explain why natural selection is a logical impossibility.
> If you were to recall some of his past posts you would remember that, as
> usual, this was based on his real or feigned pragmatic incompetence in
> the English language; his rhetoric was based on the false presumption
> that selection requires an entity with volition, which combined with
It depends what your intent is with the word "selection". The usual
intent with decision, selection and contemplation is a conscious being
making well a selection. If this is not your intent then you can't use
the word selection, its that simple. Just because the materialists
control billions of dollars in government funding and have all
brainwashed themselves, they can't by argument from authority simply
decree that "selection" can be used to project any intent they want
to. Selection in logical discussions (not poetic) must always have the
intent of consciousness.
> application of the etymological fallacy, leads to his misconclusion that
> as nature is non-volitional, natural selection is a meaningless
> combination of words.
In your language domain nature has no volition, but a Gaia dance-
around-the-fire tree hugger who apologizes to the snail he just
stepped on, his usage of "selection" - his intent is that nature is
conscious. You are both using the same word but with different
intent.
Woland
Inez
> On Jul 3, 11:39 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > >Explain why natural selection is a logical impossibility.
> > If you were to recall some of his past posts you would remember that, as
> > usual, this was based on his real or feigned pragmatic incompetence in
> > the English language; his rhetoric was based on the false presumption
> > that selection requires an entity with volition, which combined with
>
> It depends what your intent is with the word "selection". The usual
> intent with decision, selection and contemplation is a conscious being
> making well a selection.
People have been over this with you before, and you are unwilling or
unable to learn. My advice is to move on with your life to something
that you will find more productive. Learn to knit.
> If this is not your intent then you can't use
> the word selection, its that simple.
I have an idea, I will coin a new word for you- Condrextion. This
word is very simliar in meaning to "selection," only that agent that
brings about differential results is not intelligent, but rather
natural processes. The word was defined by me, here on this board.
All better now? You need not let that nasty word "selection" bother
you any more.
> Just because the materialists
> control billions of dollars in government funding and have all
> brainwashed themselves,
But they haven't, and you admit as much. You consider evolution to be
a tautology, that is, obviously and axiomatically true.
> they can't by argument from authority simply
> decree that "selection" can be used to project any intent they want
> to. Selection in logical discussions (not poetic) must always have the
> intent of consciousness.
Crisis averted; use "Condrextion" instead.
Kermit
>
> > >Explain why natural selection is a logical impossibility.
> > If you were to recall some of his past posts you would remember that, as
> > usual, this was based on his real or feigned pragmatic incompetence in
> > the English language; his rhetoric was based on the false presumption
> > that selection requires an entity with volition, which combined with
>
> It depends what your intent is with the word "selection".
His intent was to communicate, I'm sure. That is the intent most
people have when they write or speak. Your intent is obviously to *not
communicate.
This, or course, is beside the pertinent point of what it *means.
http://www.onelook.com/?w=selection&ls=a
On this page, the most appropriate definition would be "a natural
process resulting in the evolution of organisms best adapted to the
environment "
> The usual
> intent with decision, selection and contemplation is a conscious being
> making well a selection.
Only in non-technical fields. As has been explained to you before, in
biology it is a natural process, with no mind in sight.
http://www.onelook.com/?w=metaphor&ls=a
Metaphor: "noun: a figure of speech in which an expression is used
to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to
suggest a similarity"
When metaphors are used widely in a specialized field, they become
merely technical terms, and the methphorical etymology of the word
becomes irrelevant.
Or don't you think railroad locomotives run on tracks?
> If this is not your intent
What is your intent in using the word intent incorrectly?
> then you can't use
> the word selection, its that simple.
This is indeed simple, and quite wrong.
> Just because the materialists
> control billions of dollars in government funding and have all
> brainwashed themselves, they can't by argument from authority
The only one demanding authority for word definitions is you. What
does billions of dollars in funding (hah!) have to do with your
confused posts?
> simply
> decree that "selection" can be used to project any intent they want
> to. Selection in logical discussions (not poetic) must always have the
> intent of consciousness.
Not if the word is a metaphor, or changed from its common usage.
>
> > application of the etymological fallacy,
The what?
> leads to his misconclusion that
> > as nature is non-volitional, natural selection is a meaningless
> > combination of words.
>
> In your language domain nature has no volition,
The parts of the world that have brains - cats, people, and other
critters, has volition. Rain clouds, volcanos, and natural selection
do not. We are not discussing language domains, whatever they are, but
reality.
> but a Gaia dance-
> around-the-fire tree hugger who apologizes to the snail he just
> stepped on,
I *eat snails.
Bwahahahahhaha!
> his usage of "selection" - his intent is that nature is
> conscious. You are both using the same word but with different
> intent.
Everybody here has pointed out to you that natural selection has no
volition. Do *you have a mind? You seem no more responsive than the
morning glories in my garden, and a good deal less attractive.
You have succeeded only in giving the impression that you have no data
to refute evolutionary theory, and hope desperately that waving your
hands about frantically enough (by a sophomoric misuse of language),
nobody will notice. I have.
Kermit
Woland
Excellent idea. I'll begin inserting it into wikipedia articles
immediately!
"Don't worry about Wikipedia. We'll change it when we get home...
We'll change a lot of things." ~H.J. Simpson.
backspace
> http://www.onelook.com/?w=selection&ls=a
> On this page, the most appropriate definition would be "a natural
> process resulting in the evolution of organisms best adapted to the
> environment "
You have some concept of stuff being adapted to the environment, what
has this got to do with the words selection and decision ?
> > The usual
> > intent with decision, selection and contemplation is a conscious being
> > making well a selection.
> Only in non-technical fields. As has been explained to you before, in
> biology it is a natural process, with no mind in sight.
This is argument from authority, you need to derive your argument from
first principles defining what life is.
Kermit what is life and where was it defined ?
> > simply
> > decree that "selection" can be used to project any intent they want
> > to. Selection in logical discussions (not poetic) must always have the
> > intent of consciousness.
> Not if the word is a metaphor, or changed from its common usage.
How can one change the common usage of love,red, green, selection,
decision, fitness, strength without making English undefined as a
language to communicate intent ?
> Everybody here has pointed out to you that natural selection has no
> volition.
Depends on what you define as a natural selection. You could for
example use square circle as a label for this yet to be defined
concept. All I am pointing out is that SQ an NS are logical
impossibilities hence I don't care what your concept is you can't on
a point of logic use the terms. There is nothing artificial or natural
about a selection or decision.
> You have succeeded only in giving the impression that you have no data
> to refute evolutionary theory, a
What is the ToE ? I still can't find it on Wikipedia because ToE
redirects to "Evolution" and "evolution" isn't a theory but a
word(semantics) which can used in multiple contexts by each signal
sender projecting his intent to signal receiver.
Woland
You're like HAL 9000's retarded step-brother.
Bob Casanova
>On Jul 3, 11:39 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >Explain why natural selection is a logical impossibility.
>> If you were to recall some of his past posts you would remember that, as
>> usual, this was based on his real or feigned pragmatic incompetence in
>> the English language; his rhetoric was based on the false presumption
>> that selection requires an entity with volition, which combined with
>It depends what your intent is with the word "selection". The usual
>intent with decision, selection and contemplation is a conscious being
>making well a selection.
In the vernacular, this is approximately correct. However,
"usual" does not even come close to equaling "mandatory", as
any rational individual knows and you need to learn.
> If this is not your intent then you can't use
>the word selection, its that simple.
No, it's not that simple. Science frequently uses words in
ways they are *not* used in the vernacular ("theory" being a
good example). It's not in your job description to mandate
how science works or what terminology scientists use, nor
are you competent to do so.
<snip rant>
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
No rebuttal, BS?
William Morse
Well first of all this discussion should probably be with someone who
actually knows the subject. With that caveat, the problem (as you
acknowledge) is that if you look at any one instant in time, most
alleles aren't changing and the ones that are changing are mostly
neutral. If you attempt to take a rate of increase, you are probably
only measuring a statistical fluke due to a temporary fluctuation in the
environment (think snowshoe hares and lynxes). You can take a long term
average, but when you do the rate is mostly irrelevant.
Let me try to illustrate my thinking. The importance of a rate of
increase would be if we had two alleles competing to become fixed in a
population. Both of them are superior to the current predominant allele,
and the one with the greatest rate of increase is the one that will
become the new predominant allele. I don't think this describes any
common real world scenario.
> But what I was talking about above is what we can know about such rates.
> We cannot *know* what the propensity is at a time t, only after t. So to
> define fitness as what will happen in the future is a mistake. We only
> *know* what happened in the past, and we are projecting that knowledge.
>> Furthermore, the set of knowledge I am using may be based in the past,
>> but that is irrelevant to the argument unless you think that the physics
>> of viscosity or the chemistry of toxicity is likely to change in the
>> future That was my point - that while fitness changes if the
>> environment does, certain aspects of the environment (e.g. the viscosity
>> of fluids) are fixed. I think this does lead to an expectation (not a
>> rate of expectation) as to characteristics that will be conserved or
>> enhanced in future organisms.
>
> But fitness is not absolute to the (in this case, liquid) environment.
> It is a matter of comparative rate of increase (or comparative increase
> if you dislike the rate definition) of that allele *with all other
> alleles in the population* or deme. So while the Reynolds number may not
> change, the ways in which competitors get around or employ it will,
> changing the fitnesses of *all* alleles relative to that "problem".
>
I still disagree, although my disagreement may depend on which
definition of fitness we are referring to. In terms of genetic fitness,
because there are different ways to program the same result, and
numerous interactions between "genes", it is true that genetic fitness
is not absolute. In terms of phenotypic fitness (and I am still a
devotee of the phenotype as the primary (scary quotes )unit of
selection) the ways in which competitors respond to the Reynolds number
will be similar and predictable. That is, we can "know" what the
propensity is at a time t (again if we confine the discussion to certain
basic limits), we can define fitness as to what will happen in the
future, we can for instance say that animals that continue to expend a
significant fraction of their energy in overcoming fluid friction will
become more streamlined. What we don't currently know is "how" they will
become more streamlined - or at least anybody who does know will soon
be a millionaire.
Yours,
Bill Morse
Cj
The liquid concept is interesting but what changes if the liquid is
non-Newtonian? e.g. ketchup?.
Cj
Vernon Balbert
produced this interesting bit of text:
Time to make ketchup out of figs?
--
BLUCHER!
backspace
wrote:
> Well first of all this discussion should probably be with someone who
> actually knows the subject. With that caveat, the problem (as you
> acknowledge) is that if you look at any one instant in time, most
> alleles aren't changing and the ones that are changing are mostly
> neutral.
Take a gene and show me the exact spot that has been defined as an
"allele". Please the AAAS and I aren't terribly bright perhaps you
can help us out ?
Free Lunch
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in talk.origins:
Your question doesn't make sense. The alleles are all of the known forms
of a particular gene.
Earle Jones
wrote:
*
....or blood, another non-Newtonian fluid.
earle
*
William Morse
animals to swim in non-Newtonian fluids. If there were, then one would
expect the animals to have evolved methods of increasing shear during
locomotion in addition to methods of decreasing friction.
On a similar note, polymers that are thixotropic in water are produced
by bacteria, seaweed, and trees (xanthan gum, carrageenan, and pectin).
I would guess that their non-Newtonian properties are incidental, but
feel free to come up with a Just So story.
Yours,
Bill Morse
Earle Jones
William Morse <wdNOSP...@verizonOSPAM.net> wrote:
*
Bill: I think you're right. We talk about "blood viscosity" when
viscosity is not even defined for non-Newtonian fluids. My recollection
of 'thixotropic' fluids relates to time-varying viscosity based on
(shear) stress.
But any liquid that has suspended particles (blood, ketchup, etc) is
non-Newtonian.
earle
*
Bob Casanova
>On Jul 9, 4:52 am, William Morse <wdNOSPAmo...@verizonOSPAM.net>
>wrote:
>> Well first of all this discussion should probably be with someone who
>> actually knows the subject. With that caveat, the problem (as you
>> acknowledge) is that if you look at any one instant in time, most
>> alleles aren't changing and the ones that are changing are mostly
>> neutral.
>
>Take a gene and show me the exact spot that has been defined as an
>"allele".
The really sad part is the fact that you *still* have no
idea why this question makes no sense, and I don't really
feel like explaining it again, with or without another
illuminating example.
> Please the AAAS and I aren't terribly bright perhaps you
>can help us out ?
I suspect the members of the AAAS are generally pretty
bright, but based on observation (including this repeated
question) you're as dumb as a bag of rocks.
Woland
Alleles ARE genes, silly. So actually they would be on chromosomes.
Here are some pictures. Combine what you see in the pictures with what
the dictionary says (wait, dictionaries don't talk, do they?). You're
welcome.
http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/jpitocch/genbio/locus.JPG
http://www.cancerwatch.org/glossary/glossary_images/allele_1.jpg
http://www.dukehealth.org/HealthLibrary/AdviceFromDoctors/YourChildsHealth/sicklecelldisease/chart
backspace
> >Take a gene and show me the exact spot that has been defined as an
> >"allele". Please the AAAS and I aren't terribly bright perhaps you
> >can help us out ?
> Your question doesn't make sense. The alleles are all of the known forms
> of a particular gene.
And who says so? Please, I just want to know who decided this, why is
the request unreasonable. We can just all invent our own technical
terminologies without motivating for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allele
"...This article does not cite any references or sources. (July
2008)... Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed...."
Wikipedia says we are allowed to challenge stuff for which nobody can
site a reference. This is what I am doing - challenging it are you
people around here trying to tell me that such a challenge is
"forbidden"? If so who has done the forbidding, who has decided that
we can all just blather on about "alleles" yet nobody knows what the
word has got to do with genes. But of course "allele" isn't defined,
how can one refute or confirm something which isn't defined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allele revision as of July 2008
"..An allele (from the Greek αλληλος allelos, meaning each other) is
one member of a pair or series of different forms of a gene...."
Ok, now which form of what gene is this allele thingy referring to.
Different forms what? Which form, where is the form, show the contrast
in forms and who says so.
and compare July 2008 with 2006:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allele&oldid=50512497
"...An allele is any one of a number of viable DNA codings of the same
gene (sometimes the term refers to a non-gene sequence) occupying a
given locus (position) on a chromosome...."
Again who has decided this? How was the viability of some DNA
determined.
Ken Shackleton
> On Jul 13, 12:26 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> > >Take a gene and show me the exact spot that has been defined as an
> > >"allele". Please the AAAS and I aren't terribly bright perhaps you
> > >can help us out ?
> > Your question doesn't make sense. The alleles are all of the known forms
> > of a particular gene.
>
> And who says so? Please, I just want to know who decided this, why is
> the request unreasonable. We can just all invent our own technical
> terminologies without motivating for it.
If a gene could code for ice cream, strawberry would be one allele,
and vanilla would be another.
Is that simple enough?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allele
> "...This article does not cite any references or sources. (July
> 2008)... Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed...."
> Wikipedia says we are allowed to challenge stuff for which nobody can
> site a reference. This is what I am doing - challenging it are you
> people around here trying to tell me that such a challenge is
> "forbidden"? If so who has done the forbidding, who has decided that
> we can all just blather on about "alleles" yet nobody knows what the
> word has got to do with genes. But of course "allele" isn't defined,
> how can one refute or confirm something which isn't defined.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allelerevision as of July 2008
backspace
> On Jul 14, 6:16 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 13, 12:26 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> > > >Take a gene and show me the exact spot that has been defined as an
> > > >"allele". Please the AAAS and I aren't terribly bright perhaps you
> > > >can help us out ?
> > > Your question doesn't make sense. The alleles are all of the known forms
> > > of a particular gene.
>
> > And who says so? Please, I just want to know who decided this, why is
> > the request unreasonable. We can just all invent our own technical
> > terminologies without motivating for it.
>
> If a gene could code for ice cream, strawberry would be one allele,
> and vanilla would be another.
>
> Is that simple enough?
F = ma says Newton
E= mc2 says Einstein
Kepler's laws of planetary motion - says Kepler
"...> If a gene could code for ice cream, strawberry would be one
allele,
and vanilla would be another....." Says who?
Woland
Ken did.
Woland
> On Jul 13, 12:26 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> > >Take a gene and show me the exact spot that has been defined as an
> > >"allele". Please the AAAS and I aren't terribly bright perhaps you
> > >can help us out ?
> > Your question doesn't make sense. The alleles are all of the known forms
> > of a particular gene.
>
> And who says so? Please, I just want to know who decided this, why is
> the request unreasonable. We can just all invent our own technical
> terminologies without motivating for it.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allele
> "...This article does not cite any references or sources. (July
> 2008)... Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed...."
> Wikipedia says we are allowed to challenge stuff for which nobody can
> site a reference. This is what I am doing - challenging it are you
> people around here trying to tell me that such a challenge is
> "forbidden"? If so who has done the forbidding, who has decided that
> we can all just blather on about "alleles" yet nobody knows what the
> word has got to do with genes. But of course "allele" isn't defined,
> how can one refute or confirm something which isn't defined.
The dictionary defines it just fine:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/allele
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allelerevision as of July 2008
> "..An allele (from the Greek αλληλος allelos, meaning each other) is
> one member of a pair or series of different forms of a gene...."
> Ok, now which form of what gene is this allele thingy referring to.
> Different forms what? Which form, where is the form, show the contrast
> in forms and who says so.
Did you miss these?
http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/jpitocch/genbio/locus.JPG
http://www.cancerwatch.org/glossary/glossary_images/allele_1.jpg
http://www.dukehealth.org/HealthLibrary/AdviceFromDoctors/YourChildsH...
> and compare July 2008 with 2006:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allele&oldid=50512497
> "...An allele is any one of a number of viable DNA codings of the same
> gene (sometimes the term refers to a non-gene sequence) occupying a
> given locus (position) on a chromosome...."
> Again who has decided this? How was the viability of some DNA
> determined.
As you've been told 'viability' means that it codes for something. It
was confusing though, so I changed it.
Ken Shackleton
> On Jul 15, 3:33 am, Ken Shackleton <ken.shackle...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 6:16 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 13, 12:26 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
> > > > >Take a gene and show me the exact spot that has been defined as an
> > > > >"allele". Please the AAAS and I aren't terribly bright perhaps you
> > > > >can help us out ?
> > > > Your question doesn't make sense. The alleles are all of the known forms
> > > > of a particular gene.
>
> > > And who says so? Please, I just want to know who decided this, why is
> > > the request unreasonable. We can just all invent our own technical
> > > terminologies without motivating for it.
>
> > If a gene could code for ice cream, strawberry would be one allele,
> > and vanilla would be another.
>
> > Is that simple enough?
>
> F = ma says Newton
> E= mc2 says Einstein
> Kepler's laws of planetary motion - says Kepler
Yes....they discovered these laws, they did not invent them. Had these
people not been born, someone else would have made these discoveries.
These laws have been tested and tested again, and they work. The
initial discoverer might be historically important, but that has
nothing to do with the validity of the proposition.
>
> "...> If a gene could code for ice cream, strawberry would be one
> allele,
> and vanilla would be another....." Says who?
Says me. Alleles are different varieties of a particular gene, the ice
cream analogy was simple enough for all but the chronically stupid.
We have a gene which determines our blood group....the alleles are A.
B, and O.
Read about it here:
http://www.biology.arizona.edu/Human_Bio/problem_sets/blood_types/Intro.html
You seem to be hung up on who proposes things rather than on the
validity of what is being proposed. I can understand how the religious
retard would place great weight on the proposer rather than the
proposition itself; since no religious proposition has any empirical
validity at all, the only thing that can be appealed to is the
authority of the proposer.....you seem to want to extend this flawed
method of thought to scientific concepts....you need to get over this
unless it is your goal to remain an ignorant, spouting troll.
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 15:07:17 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
> <sawirel...@yahoo.com>:
>
> >On Jul 9, 4:52 am, William Morse <wdNOSPAmo...@verizonOSPAM.net>
> >wrote:
> >> Well first of all this discussion should probably be with someone who
> >> actually knows the subject. With that caveat, the problem (as you
> >> acknowledge) is that if you look at any one instant in time, most
> >> alleles aren't changing and the ones that are changing are mostly
> >> neutral.
> >Take a gene and show me the exact spot that has been defined as an
> >"allele".
> The really sad part is the fact that you *still* have no
> idea why this question makes no sense, and I don't really
> feel like explaining it again, with or without another
> illuminating example.
Even sadder is that he could be properly educated on the subject
with just ten or fifteen minutes of reading on the subject in
WikiPedia.
> > Please the AAAS and I aren't terribly bright perhaps you
> >can help us out ?
> I suspect the members of the AAAS are generally pretty
> bright, but based on observation (including this repeated
> question) you're as dumb as a bag of rocks.
Surely he is smarter than a bag of rocks; stupider than a sack of
eggplants, however.
As for "fitness," it appears he doesn't "get" the concept either.
In the biosphere "fitness" is "the reproductive success of the
barely adequate."
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Earle Jones
Desertphile <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
*
Does 'fitness' mean anything more that the ability to reproduce? And
the 'fittest' are those best able to do so.
earle
*