Natural selection and favorable traits how were they measured ?
backspace
"..... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that
are heritable become more common in successive generations ....."
Now other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,
how were their favoribility actually measured?
--
fnord
Ron O
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selectiontells us:
> "..... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that
> are heritable become more common in successive generations ....."
>
> Now other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,
> how were their favoribility actually measured?
>
> --
> fnord
You have been arguing against natural selection and you do not know
the answer?
Why don't you answer your own question just so that we know that you
haven't been blowing smoke all this time, and we'd also find out if
your question pertained to how a scientists would measure it, or how
nature does the job.
Ron Okimoto
geo...@hotmail.com
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selectiontells us:
> "..... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that
> are heritable become more common in successive generations ....."
>
> Now other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,
> how were their favoribility actually measured?
>
> --
> fnord
I actually know the answer to this. It's very simple, but as Ron
Okimoto has said, find out yourself. Talkorigins.org probably has the
answer somewhere (clue: you want the word 'fitness'). I learned this,
the same way I learned what abiogenesis was and why it is different
from evolution. Funny how I only needed to learn once, whereas
creationists repeat that mistake. Funny also how they're the ones that
are using it in arguments.
backspace
Let me give you a clue as to the answer:
http://whatnaturaled.blogspot.com
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/evolution.html
According to the Talk.Origins Archive, sharks haven't changed because
they "are excellently adapted to their particular niche in their
environment."
Does anyone know how this "excellent adaptation" was measured (apart
from observing that sharks haven't changed, that is)?
"[T]he geological record features episodes of high dying, during which
extinction-prone groups are more likely to disappear, leaving
extinction-resistant groups as life's legacy."
S.J. Gould & N. Eldredge, "Punctuated equilibrium comes of age",
Nature (1993) 366:223-7, p. 225.
Anyone wants to tell me how this "extinction-proneness" was measured,
except by noting that the groups went extinct?
--
fnord
Grandbank
(snip)
> Anyone wants to tell me how this "extinction-proneness" was measured,
> except by noting that the groups went extinct?
>
Is that an insufficient measure?
How did you measure the sufficiency of the word fnord to get you
whitelisted?
KP
backspace
What are you saying? Are you saying that we measure the "extinction
proneness" by observing what went extinct.
Can't you see that this is tautological , in other words true by
definition.
A tautology is defined as a series of statements that comprise an
argument, which statements are constructed in such a way that the
truth of the proposition is guaranteed. Consequently the statement
conveys no useful information regardless of it's length or complexity.
Thus, for a simple example, the statement "if you can't find something
(that you lost), you are not looking in the right place" is
tautological. It is also true, but conveys no useful information. As a
physical example, to play a game of darts where the dart board was
full of bullseyes, could be called a "tautological" game. You can't
lose. Any argument containing a tautological statement is thus flawed
logically and must be considered erroneous.
A tautological argument is not an argument; a tautological game is not
a game. (As an aside, a great many of the later, "more advanced" books
on evolution attempt to explain away this tautology by some beautiful,
highly complex, arguments; e.g. Mayr and or, Gould. Upon close
examination of these arguments it will be found that the conclusion is
usually obtained by a metaphysical "division by zero", like the well
known mathematical proof that 1 = 0. You will note that the bottom
line of all of these complex arguments is always the same, namely that
"natural selection is the cause of evolution".)
It should also be noted that some apologists for Darwinian logic claim
that mathematical equations such as f = ma, or e = mc2 could also be
termed tautologies. This is a faulted attempt to vindicate Darwinism
which could be termed "innocence by association"; in either case, [and
in every case of a mathematical expression] the terms on both sides of
the equation are defined elsewhere independently, and thus the equal
sign does not mean "is defined by" but rather {hate to say it} but is
equal to, thus establishing an equivalence. This equivalence may
establish a new "law", hitherto unknown.
--
fnord
Greg G.
> On Jan 20, 4:47 pm, geop...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 20 Jan, 14:07, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selectiontellsus:
> > > "..... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that
> > > are heritable become more common in successive generations ....."
>
> > > Now other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,
> > > how were their favoribility actually measured?
>
> > > --
> > > fnord
>
> > I actually know the answer to this. It's very simple, but as Ron
> > Okimoto has said, find out yourself. Talkorigins.org probably has the
> > answer somewhere (clue: you want the word 'fitness'). I learned this,
> > the same way I learned what abiogenesis was and why it is different
> > from evolution. Funny how I only needed to learn once, whereas
> > creationists repeat that mistake. Funny also how they're the ones that
> > are using it in arguments.
>
> Let me give you a clue as to the answer:http://whatnaturaled.blogspot.com
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/evolution.html
> According to the Talk.Origins Archive, sharks haven't changed because
> they "are excellently adapted to their particular niche in their
> environment."
You are conflating "sharks" in general with "sharks" as particular
species. No shark species that existed tens of millions of years ago
is still in existance. Some of them evolved into present day sharks.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalodon for a well studied,
recently extinct shark.
>
> Does anyone know how this "excellent adaptation" was measured (apart
> from observing that sharks haven't changed, that is)?
How can you provide a definition for something when you are not
allowed to use a valid definition? Sharks are adapted to an
environment that has remained in existance for some time. In the link
I gave, we have an example of a type of shark that went extinct when
the environment it specialized in changed.
>
> "[T]he geological record features episodes of high dying, during which
> extinction-prone groups are more likely to disappear, leaving
> extinction-resistant groups as life's legacy."
> S.J. Gould & N. Eldredge, "Punctuated equilibrium comes of age",
> Nature (1993) 366:223-7, p. 225.
>
> Anyone wants to tell me how this "extinction-proneness" was measured,
> except by noting that the groups went extinct?
An extinction-prone species is dependent on a particular element of
environment. A species that is not extinction-prone is more of a
generalist. For example, the polar bear and the black bear are closely
related but the polar bear is dependent on hunting in an environment
of ice and snow where food sources are limited, while the black bear
eats most anything and lives in an environment that provides a variety
of food.
>
> --
> fnord
AIUI, once you are white-listed you don't need the "fnord". The
"fnord" gets you white-listed (or will in the future). Am I correct?
--
Greg G.
I was trying to daydream, but my mind kept wandering.
.
Greg G.
> On Jan 20, 6:00 pm, Grandbank <zetetic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 20, 7:33 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > (snip)
>
> > > Anyone wants to tell me how this "extinction-proneness" was measured,
> > > except by noting that the groups went extinct?
>
> > Is that an insufficient measure?
>
> > How did you measure the sufficiency of the word fnord to get you
> > whitelisted?
>
> > KP
>
> What are you saying? Are you saying that we measure the "extinction
> proneness" by observing what went extinct.
> Can't you see that this is tautological , in other words true by
> definition.
>
> A tautology is defined as a series of statements that comprise an
> argument, which statements are constructed in such a way that the
> truth of the proposition is guaranteed.
The term "extinction-proneness" is not a series of statements that
comprise an argument, therefore it is not a tautology.
> Consequently the statement
> conveys no useful information regardless of it's length or complexity.
Insurance companies classify characteristics of groups of people and
charge those groups based on their risk factors. These risk factors
are measured in the same terms that you are complaining about
"extinction-proneness", yet those factors are clearly useful.
WTF is "Darwinian logic"? Evolution is the conclusion reached by
applying plain old deductive reasoning to the facts uncovered by
rigorous research. If your religion is incompatible with those facts,
change your religion or don't embarrass yourself in public.
>
> --
> fnord
--
Greg G.
Time to calibrate my computer. Hand me that hammer.
.
Friar Broccoli
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selectiontells us:
> "..... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that
> are heritable become more common in successive generations ....."
>
> Now other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,
> how were their favoribility actually measured?
Your question is answered in a FAQ provided by John Wilkins here:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
In short Natural Selection results from relative fitness of those
individuals that can be "expected to survive because of their
adaptations and functional efficiency, when compared to others
in the population" (or more succinctly there "extinction-proneness")
I will add that I think that Greg G.'s comment of
Jan 20 2008 12:53 pm about insurance
company evaluations clarifies things so much that I
hope John will consider adding it to his FAQ.
Cordially;
Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
Garamond Lethe
<snip>
> A tautological argument is not an argument; a tautological game is not a
> game.
<snip>
And a tautological tautology is not a tautology.
Ken Shackleton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selectiontells us:> ".....
Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that> are
heritable become more common in successive generations ....."> > Now
other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,> how
reproductive success.....simply put, if your traits result in you
having more babies than your peers, those traits will become more
common in the population [over many generations].> > --> fnord
backspace
> On Jan 20, 9:07 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selectiontellsus:
> > "..... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that
> > are heritable become more common in successive generations ....."
> > Now other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,
> > how were their favoribility actually measured?
> Your question is answered in a FAQ provided by John Wilkins here:
> http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
Darwin: "..I have called this principle, by which each slight
variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in
order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the
expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the
Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient. We
have seen that man by selection can certainly produce great results,
and can adapt organic beings to his own uses, through the accumulation
of slight but useful variations, given to him by the hand of Nature.
But Natural Selection, we shall hereafter see, is a power incessantly
ready for action, and is as immeasurably superior to man's feeble
efforts, as the works of Nature are to those of Art....."
Chris Colby: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html#natsel
The phrase "survival of the fittest" is often used synonymously with
natural selection. The phrase is both incomplete and misleading.
John Wilkins: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/cc737705dbc10c8e?tvc=1
"... "survival of the fittest" is a verbal shorthand for complex math.
The *math* is not a tautology - for the terms in the equations are
interpreted, which means they are what gives the equations substance.
For SotF to be an *empty* tautology, and not a contentful one (i.e., a
definition), you would need to show that the terms are not
interpretable...."
John Wilkins wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/38df9a9a127281a8/cea310284f6d201c#cea310284f6d201c
"Many were worried about the voluntaristic implications of the use of
the term "selection": this is why Wallace and Spencer insisted on
changing it to "survival of the fittest", which lacks that
implication. Darwin adopted it, but it raised a whole host of other
problems - the main one being that it made the whole thing into a
tautology, which it wasn't. The main difficulty is that our language
*is* voluntaristic, and we don't have a ready made vocabulary without
connontations for talking about an a posteriori outcome. "Goals" are
unfortunately part of the vernacular - we talk about "in order to" in
biology, but we *don't* mean that a particular biological property
thereby happened with that outcome in "mind". Because it achieved that
result, it was retained. That's selection in biology."
--
fnord
Grandbank
You seem to have confused "saying" with "argument". What is your
intent with "saying" and with "argument"? Is saying something the
same as making an argument? What if you say your not arguing, is that
an argument? Also a bit hazy about your definition of the phrase "by
definition". Are you saying definitions must by definition be false
or else they become tautologies and then by definiton true in a
falsely tautological way?
KP
Friar Broccoli
direct.
On Jan 20, 4:59 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 20, 9:39 pm, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 20, 9:07 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selectiontellsus:
>>> "..... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that
>>> are heritable become more common in successive generations ....."
>>> Now other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,
>>> how were their favoribility actually measured?
>> Your question is answered in a FAQ provided by John Wilkins here:
>>http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
>
> Darwin: "..I have called this principle, by which each slight
> variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in
> order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the
> expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the
> Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient. We
> have seen that man by selection can certainly produce great results,
> and can adapt organic beings to his own uses, through the accumulation
> of slight but useful variations, given to him by the hand of Nature.
> But Natural Selection, we shall hereafter see, is a power incessantly
> ready for action, and is as immeasurably superior to man's feeble
> efforts, as the works of Nature are to those of Art....."
>
> Chris Colby: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html#natsel
> The phrase "survival of the fittest" is often used synonymously with
> natural selection. The phrase is both incomplete and misleading.
>
> John Wilkins: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1b039385d37c84fb
> "... "survival of the fittest" is a verbal shorthand for complex math.
> The *math* is not a tautology - for the terms in the equations are
> interpreted, which means they are what gives the equations substance.
> For SotF to be an *empty* tautology, and not a contentful one (i.e., a
> definition), you would need to show that the terms are not
> interpretable...."
>
> John Wilkins wrote:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/67ee14eb6cca4fab
> "Many were worried about the voluntaristic implications of the use of
> the term "selection": this is why Wallace and Spencer insisted on
> changing it to "survival of the fittest", which lacks that
> implication. Darwin adopted it, but it raised a whole host of other
> problems - the main one being that it made the whole thing into a
> tautology, which it wasn't. The main difficulty is that our language
> *is* voluntaristic, and we don't have a ready made vocabulary without
> connontations for talking about an a posteriori outcome. "Goals" are
> unfortunately part of the vernacular - we talk about "in order to" in
> biology, but we *don't* mean that a particular biological property
> thereby happened with that outcome in "mind". Because it achieved that
> result, it was retained. That's selection in biology."
I am a bit puzzled by all of the above. I would like to hope
that you have presented the foregoing to indicate that you now
understand the point, however, I fear that you believe you
have seen some contradiction and intend to place it before me to
see if I can untangle it.
I will admit to considerable personal discomfort dealing with
this approach (if indeed that is your intent).
It is, in general, my belief that words are imperfect and
imprecise pointers to reality. I am therefore very suspicious
of word definition games and much more comfortable discussing
the direct evidence for the position I am defending.
Since I haven't followed your discussions much I have spent a few
minutes searching your old messages attempting to figure out
what you position is. Reading between the lines of the
following:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0c8300c0d3e9c4ef
I get the impression that you (like Behe) accept common descent
and discount pure Natural Selection (NS), preferring some form of
Theological Evolution. Is that correct?
If it is, I won't argue the point. I believe in NS and believe
the evidence points strongly in favour of NS, but I know I
cannot prove that God does not sometimes intervene in the
process.
Do you think that you and I disagree on some substantive
point?
PS: The "fnord"s in your post serve no purpose. The DIG has
already WHITELISTED you.
Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)
Lol... <golf clap>
I'm wondering what his intent is with mindless syntactical attempts to
baffle every issue ever under discussion. I'm thinking it's because
he doesn't have any real arguments.
Al
David Hare-Scott
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:020e45f4-c62b-48fb...@21g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...
Here we go again. "Survival of the fittest is a tautology, therefore
evolution is wrong"
How many times are you going to replay this? Probably endlessly. Why?
Because you like the attention you get for being such a dunce and if you
learnt from the many explanations that you have been given you would have to
think up another nonsense to get attention.
David
geo...@hotmail.com
> On Jan 20, 4:47 pm, geop...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 20 Jan, 14:07, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selectiontellsus:
> > > "..... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that
> > > are heritable become more common in successive generations ....."
>
> > > Now other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,
> > > how were their favoribility actually measured?
>
> > > --
> > > fnord
>
> > I actually know the answer to this. It's very simple, but as Ron
> > Okimoto has said, find out yourself. Talkorigins.org probably has the
> > answer somewhere (clue: you want the word 'fitness'). I learned this,
> > the same way I learned what abiogenesis was and why it is different
> > from evolution. Funny how I only needed to learn once, whereas
> > creationists repeat that mistake. Funny also how they're the ones that
> > are using it in arguments.
>
> Let me give you a clue as to the answer:http://whatnaturaled.blogspot.com
You've made a whole blog around your inability to comprehend the
English language? Awesome. :)
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/evolution.html
> According to the Talk.Origins Archive, sharks haven't changed because
> they "are excellently adapted to their particular niche in their
> environment."
>
> Does anyone know how this "excellent adaptation" was measured (apart
> from observing that sharks haven't changed, that is)?
Clue: the sharks have a high 'fitness' in that environment. Fitness is
measured in terms of reproductive success. Basically more children -
more fit, but if you want a better answer, learn some evolution. Get
your friends to stop trying to run it out of schools for biblical
reasons and the education might be easier to obtain. That's a
tautology that is.
>
> "[T]he geological record features episodes of high dying, during which
> extinction-prone groups are more likely to disappear, leaving
> extinction-resistant groups as life's legacy."
> S.J. Gould & N. Eldredge, "Punctuated equilibrium comes of age",
> Nature (1993) 366:223-7, p. 225.
>
> Anyone wants to tell me how this "extinction-proneness" was measured,
> except by noting that the groups went extinct?
Have you tried reading the article the quote comes from?
>
> --
> fnord
John Wilkins
> "backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:020e45f4-c62b-48fb...@21g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection tells us:
> > "..... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that
> > are heritable become more common in successive generations ....."
> >
> > Now other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,
> > how were their favoribility actually measured?
> >
> > --
> > fnord
> >
>
> Here we go again. "Survival of the fittest is a tautology, therefore
> evolution is wrong"
And let it be noted that tautologies are *by definition* true.
>
> How many times are you going to replay this? Probably endlessly. Why?
>
> Because you like the attention you get for being such a dunce and if you
> learnt from the many explanations that you have been given you would have to
> think up another nonsense to get attention.
>
> David
--
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."
wf3h
> "..... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that
> are heritable become more common in successive generations ....."
>
> Now other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,
> how were their favoribility actually measured?
>
> --
guess backspace doesn't realize that a gazelle that runs faster than
another gazelle can escape from a lion.
it's apparently impossible to overestimate the stupidy that
christianism breeds in its believers...
amazing.
Walter Bushell
<fe10519e-520f-461a...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For example, the polar bear and the black bear are closely
> related but the polar bear is dependent on hunting in an environment
> of ice and snow where food sources are limited, while the black bear
> eats most anything and lives in an environment that provides a variety
> of food.
But the polar bear can be transformed into a regular bear by a simple
coordinate transformation.
Greg G.
> In article
> <fe10519e-520f-461a-af6a-1c0b6467e...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
That would be a Cartesian bear...
.
John Wilkins
Michael Siemon
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> Greg G. <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 20, 9:29 pm, Walter Bushell <pr...@oanix.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <fe10519e-520f-461a-af6a-1c0b6467e...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > For example, the polar bear and the black bear are closely
> > > > related but the polar bear is dependent on hunting in an environment
> > > > of ice and snow where food sources are limited, while the black bear
> > > > eats most anything and lives in an environment that provides a variety
> > > > of food.
> > >
> > > But the polar bear can be transformed into a regular bear by a simple
> > > coordinate transformation.
> >
> > That would be a Cartesian bear...
> > .
>
> Riemannian Bears have a saddle.
Nah; that's Lobachevskian bears...
Ken Shackleton
9:07 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:> > >http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selectiontellsus:> > "..... Natural
selection is the process by which favorable traits that> > are
heritable become more common in successive generations ....."> > > Now
other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,> >
how were their favoribility actually measured?> > > --> > guess
backspace doesn't realize that a gazelle that runs faster than>
another gazelle can escape from a lion.> > it's apparently impossible
to overestimate the stupidy that> christianism breeds in its
Christianity....fundamentalism of any sort leads to all sorts of
stupidity.Ken...
TomS
<mlsiemon-0801B9...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>, Michael Siemon
stated..."
Consider a spherical bear ...
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
Puppet_Sock
> "..... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that
> are heritable become more common in successive generations ....."
>
> Now other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,
> how were their favoribility actually measured?
How does one measure the ability of a runner to run? Are you
looking for some complicated thing beyond "measure how
fast the runner runs?"
Maybe you want to call highschool track meets "tautological."
Socks
Walter Bushell
TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
But spherical bears are bipolar. You don't even want to thing about a
bipolar polar bear. Unbearable!
backspace
> If it is, I won't argue the point. I believe in NS and believe
> the evidence points strongly in favour of NS, but I know I
> cannot prove that God does not sometimes intervene in the
> process.
> Do you think that you and I disagree on some substantive
> point?
Let me ask you the following which is my answer to you:
What is the true meaning of the following:
1) Survival of the fittest. (Note that I never said SoF is a
tautology.)
2) You Friar Broccoli have a green light.
Think a bit about this.....
Bill Hudson
> On Jan 20, 9:07 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selectiontellsus:
> > "..... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that
> > are heritable become more common in successive generations ....."
>
> > Now other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,
> > how were their favoribility actually measured?
>
> > --
>
> guess backspace doesn't realize that a gazelle that runs faster than
> another gazelle can escape from a lion.
>
Also note, the gazelle doesn't have to run faster than the lion, but
only a bit faster than the other gazelle. A joke involving two
hunters, a grizzly bear, and a pair of running shoes comes to mind.
Bill Hudson
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
> > If it is, I won't argue the point. I believe in NS and believe
> > the evidence points strongly in favour of NS, but I know I
> > cannot prove that God does not sometimes intervene in the
> > process.
> > Do you think that you and I disagree on some substantive
> > point?
>
> Let me ask you the following which is my answer to you:
>
> What is the true meaning of the following:
> 1) Survival of the fittest. (Note that I never said SoF is a
> tautology.)
Differential reproductive success of organisms due to an interplay
between environmental conditions and variations of the phenotypes
within a population.
[snip]
hersheyh
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
> > If it is, I won't argue the point. I believe in NS and believe
> > the evidence points strongly in favour of NS, but I know I
> > cannot prove that God does not sometimes intervene in the
> > process.
> > Do you think that you and I disagree on some substantive
> > point?
>
> Let me ask you the following which is my answer to you:
>
> What is the true meaning of the following:
> 1) Survival of the fittest. (Note that I never said SoF is a
> tautology.)
Taken literally, not much. Better would be "survival of the
fitter" (reproductive success is relative to the success of others,
not absolute -- there is no 'fittest' in an absolute sense, only
fitter in a conditional and relative sense). Better yet would be
"greater differential reproductive success due to better phenotypic
adaption to local conditions than organisms with a different
phenotype" (only that portion of the phenotype that is due to genotype
has evolutionary consequences). This, of course, assumes that the
words 'success' and 'better' are used, as is standard usage, for the
survival and/or reproductive success of an organism rather than for
its early death or sterility. So we are really looking at a
correlation: between differential reproductive success and adaptive
success (on some feature important to an organism's relative ability
to live/reproduce in a particular local environment). Sometimes
relative adaption can be measured independently by engineering
standards. That is, certain phenotypes can be empirically
demonstrated to be be better at helping an organism eat, survive, and/
or reproduce than alternative phenotypes. In organisms, the only
consistent measure of "success" is differential reproductive success.
In a number of cases, death of the organism itself is evolutionarily
favored *because* it leads to increased reproductive success.
Friar Broccoli
Hmmm, as I see things here,
- I don't like talking about linguistic distinctions
- You don't like talking about physical reality (or maybe you
just don't want to tell us what you believe - or something
like that)
So I wonder if we can make a deal here:
I will work out and present an answer that I like to your
question: "What does 'Survival of the fittest' mean?",
if you will agree to tell me something about what you believe,
specifically beginning with:
Do you accept the reality of the tree of common descent which
includes things like - modern whales are descendants of a common
non-whale ancestor?
Note, that I am willing to go first, if you will agree that you
will provide me with a clear answer to my question in your very
next post to me.
Is that arrangement acceptable to you?
Inez
He doesn't want *your* definition of survival of the fittest, he
want's *the* definition of survival of the fittest, which he believes
must have been published in the Journal of Establishing Terms. If two
people write defintions that differ in a single word, everything is
thrown in confusion and we must reject the theory as meaningless.
Friar Broccoli
Thanks for summarizing his position.
As long as I can get him to tell me what he thinks external
reality looks like as it relates to evolution, I am willing to hear
his argument through.
backspace
> if you will agree to tell me something about what you believe,
Certainly, my name is Stephanus Rensburg from South Africa. I am a
fundamentalist YEC who considers Ken Ham's usage of Natural Selection
as actually meaning something heretical. My mother tongue is Afrikaans
and my second language is obviously English, I am bilingual. I claim
to be perhaps the only Christian that can speak in tongues, the
language you can listen to here http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TongueSpeaker
I am doing everything in my power to help linguists falsify my
Glossolalia, yet not a single one of them is willing to engage me or
return my e-mails. It is as though they are afraid of something. There
is not a single linguist I know of that is willing to state that my
tongues doesn't sound like a language. The linguists neither confirm
nor deny that I can speak in tongues, just stone dead silence from
them.
> specifically beginning with:
> Do you accept the reality of the tree of common descent which
> includes things like - modern whales are descendants of a common
> non-whale ancestor?
Of course not it is absurd nonsense and nothing else but circular
reasoning. Note that begging the question is not the same thing as a
tautology as Dr.Wilkins had to explain to me the other day.
--
Falsify my Glossolalia
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TongueSpeaker
backspace
> On Jan 22, 9:26 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Friar Broccoli wrote:
> > > If it is, I won't argue the point. I believe in NS and believe
> > > the evidence points strongly in favour of NS, but I know I
> > > cannot prove that God does not sometimes intervene in the
> > > process.
> > > Do you think that you and I disagree on some substantive
> > > point?
>
> > Let me ask you the following which is my answer to you:
>
> > What is the true meaning of the following:
> > 1) Survival of the fittest. (Note that I never said SoF is a
> > tautology.)
>
> Taken literally, not much. Better would be "survival of the
> fitter" (reproductive success is relative to the success of others,
> not absolute -- there is no 'fittest' in an absolute sense, only
> fitter in a conditional and relative sense). Better yet would be
> "greater differential reproductive success due to better phenotypic
<snip nonsense>
If a cow were meant to produce beer instead of milk would it still be
a success ?
hersheyh
Success to whom? And 'meant to produce beer' by whom? Obviously,
domesticated cows are "intelligently designed" or, if you prefer,
"eugenically produced" by humans to meet human needs and not the needs
of the cows themselves. That is, cows are examples of "intelligent
design" by "intelligent designers" who want to force cattle into
creatures that only exist to serve its needs. Just like some
"intelligent agent" who supposedly "intelligently designed" humans to
serve only to worship him. No wonder religious imagery in
Christianity is filled with images of "sheep". We all know what
happens to sheep. They get fleeced and then get led to slaughter.
Do the cows that produce beer have greater reproductive success
relative to the ones that produce milk? That is, of course, an
empirically determinable question (one answered by actual
experiment). It is not an empty philosophical or lexicographical
problem determined by blithering idiots who want magical words.
And, if the answer to this empirically determinable question were
"Yes, the beer-producers have more offspring relative to the milk-
producers (that is the metric of 'success').", then the answer is that
those cows that produce beer are 'fitter' than the milk-producers. If
the answer were "No, they have fewer offspring (assuming that they
survive to reproduce themselves).", then the answer is that the beer-
producers are less fit than the milk producers. If the answer were,
"There is no significant difference wrt reproductive success between
the milk producers and the beer producers", then the traits are
selectively neutral and the frequency of the traits will drift to
fixation one way or the other, with a probability determined by the
current frequency. Assuming, of course, that the local environment
remains constant (selective value is contingent and not absolute).
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Something a mental patient would say who has snuck into the office and
used the computers while the administrators are in the lunch room
singing happy birthday to a co-worker.
Ray
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Something a mental patient would say who has snuck into the office and
used the computers while the administrators are in the lunch room
singing happy birthday to a co-worker.
Howard: Backspace was not asking a real question, he was mocking you,
hoping that you would bite and make a fool of yourself. My explanation
just above provides an excuse for your "answer".
Ray
Woland
Unfortunately you still have no idea what any of those things mean.
Friar Broccoli
Before replying to the present post (which is of considerable
interest to me) I am first obliged to do as promised and respond
to your question:
> What is the true meaning of the following:
> 1) Survival of the fittest. (Note that I never said SoF is a
> tautology.)
This phrase refers to the process of Natural Selection (NS).
Within the Theory of Evolution, NS is the mechanism that drives
(or controls) the changes in organisms as they evolve. Boiling
NS down to its essence, it SELECTS using one and only one
criteria, which is:
How_well_organisms_replicate_or_reproduce_themselves
So in the phrase "Survival of the fittest"
"Survival" means: REPLICATE well
"Fittest" means: having CHARACTERISTICS that are best for
replication
So "Survival of the fittest" could be paraphrased as:
Having the best CHARACTERISTICS for REPLICATION.
______________________________________________________________
Now for my reply to the present post. First, I must admit that
I know nothing about linguistics, so I couldn't possibly say
anything intelligent on the topic so I have cut that discussion.
I found one short phrase from you to be very informative and
interesting for me, so I cut everything else to focus on it:
> I am a fundamentalist YEC ...
I am going to assume that by Young Earth Creationist (YEC) you
mean that you believe (among other things) that:
- the earth and all life forms were created by God about 6000
years ago.
- Noah's flood killed most people and animals about 4500 years ago.
With that in mind, I have three questions for you:
1) The Andromeda Galaxy is the closest major Galaxy to our Milky
Way Galaxy. It is a bit more than 2,000,000 light years away.
How did light from Andromeda get here in 6000 years?
2) After Noah's flood, how did the kangaroos get back to
Australia? (Note that kangaroos are just an example. Unique
geographically isolated groups of species, including fresh
water fish, are found all over the planet.)
3) In Genesis 4:14 Cain says to God:
"Behold, You have driven me this day from the face of the
ground; and from Your face I will be hidden, and I will be a
vagrant and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me
will kill me."
Who do you think Cain feared would kill him?
hersheyh
I know full well that backspace was mocking. I also know full well
that cows do not make beer (although some beers taste like they were
brewed through a cow wrt having the appropriate amber color, but not
the taste). But since backspace is so mind-numbingly ignorant about
how one quantitatively measures and empirically determines the "level
of reproductive success" or what "natural selection" means, I decided
to use his stupid idea as if it were real. He (and you) apparently
are not smart enough to deal with *real* examples which measure
fitness and demonstrate selection, so maybe stupid examples of your
own can penetrate your very thick skulls.
Where, exactly, am I wrong about the mechanism by which one would
measure the 'relative fitness' and, hence, the 'natural selection' of
the traits that backspace mentioned (or any more realistic ones)?
Backspace, rather ignorantly, thinks that natural selection does not
occur or cannot be observed if it does occur if he can pretend it
doesn't by saying that the words do not describe a reality (post-
modernist that he is). Do you think that natural selection is a myth,
too?
The fact is that 'natural selection' describes a real (but contingent
and relative) process that occurs and can be observed and
mathematically measured in nature. Do you have evidence that it
doesn't occur, cannot be observed, or cannot be mathematically
described?
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
I just wanted to give you the courtesy of knowing that I read your
reply, that I can see that you are not rattled....I am impressed.
As for your points on natural selection: I cannot comment right now,
but I do so in my forth-coming paper. I will have a lot to say about
evolution by natural selection - a lot. I am sure you will not like my
conclusions but Darwinists are not known to like or accept any
scientific facts that harm their theories, especially their long-time
accepted theories. In case you do not know: I am publicly committed to
providing positive scientific evidence for the scientific veracity of
Creationism, AND positive scientific evidence disproving the
scientific veracity of Evolution (as defined by three or four of the
biggest names in evolutionary science). Of course I have also
announced to having a Eureka! moment (actually several of them). This
means I am in possession of this scientific evidence and data that
will prove Creationism and disprove Evolution. I do look forward to
seeing your reaction to my arguments.
Ray
Grandbank
(snip)
>
> As for your points on natural selection: I cannot comment right now,
> but I do so in my forth-coming paper. I will have a lot to say about
> evolution by natural selection - a lot. I am sure you will not like my
> conclusions but Darwinists are not known to like or accept any
> scientific facts that harm their theories, especially their long-time
> accepted theories. In case you do not know: I am publicly committed to
> providing positive scientific evidence for the scientific veracity of
> Creationism, AND positive scientific evidence disproving the
> scientific veracity of Evolution (as defined by
And so the weaseling begins.
Although isn't it traditional to actually *do* the quote-mining and/or
bullshitting before you start to try to lie your way out of it?
> three or four of the
> biggest names in evolutionary science).
> Of course I have also
> announced to having a Eureka! moment (actually several of them).
Hope you had a Kleenex handy. If they go on for more than 4 hours,
consult a physician.
> This
> means I am in possession of this scientific evidence and data that
> will prove Creationism and disprove Evolution. I do look forward to
> seeing your reaction to my arguments.
KP
backspace
> The fact is that 'natural selection' describes a real (but contingent
> and relative) process that occurs and can be observed and
> mathematically measured in nature. Do you have evidence that it
> doesn't occur, cannot be observed, or cannot be mathematically
> described?
That depends on where was the mechanism responsible for species
transition defined. Note that once the mechanism has been defined you
can then label it natural selection if you so desire. But the label is
independent of any as yet to be stated theory. You have not provided
me with any theory, what is your theory?
And telling me that traits becoming more common are favorable and
those that don't are not favorable is true by definition and hence a
tautology and not a theory.
Bill Hudson
> On Jan 23, 7:25 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The fact is that 'natural selection' describes a real (but contingent
> > and relative) process that occurs and can be observed and
> > mathematically measured in nature. Do you have evidence that it
> > doesn't occur, cannot be observed, or cannot be mathematically
> > described?
>
> That depends on where was the mechanism responsible for species
> transition defined.
No, it does not.
Natural selection occurs within species (by any definition of
'species') and even within discreet populations (i.e., subsets of
species). It is an observation. It is seen to occur. It is not
dependent on any definition of 'species' or 'species transition' and
is a component of the overall theory of evolution, but it is not
dependent upon the definition of the theory.
>.. Note that once the mechanism has been defined you
> can then label it natural selection if you so desire.
Natural selection is not *the* mechanism. It is *a* mechanism, one of
several.
>... But the label is
> independent of any as yet to be stated theory.
Nobody, except perhaps you, said that it was.
>... You have not provided
> me with any theory, what is your theory?
Theory of what? Natural selection? Evolution? You switch gears so
often in your posts it is difficult to tell what you are referring to.
> And telling me that traits becoming more common are favorable and
> those that don't are not favorable is true by definition and hence a
> tautology and not a theory.
You seem to be confused about the difference between definitions and
theories, again. Any theory or observation can be summarized in such
a way as to create a tautology. That does not invalidate the theory
or the observation. NS has been defined for you several times in
this thread in non-tautological ways.
Ray Martinez
The evolutionists are identifying simple uncontested truisms then
asserting the same is a creative mechanism. This approach cannot be
falsified.
Ray
hersheyh
Why should I be rattled?
> As for your points on natural selection: I cannot comment right now,
> but I do so in my forth-coming paper.
Ah, yes. The famous ever-receding-in-publication-date paper.
> I will have a lot to say about
> evolution by natural selection - a lot.
Good. But, again, the point in question was whether there actually
*is* something one can call "natural selection" and whether it can be
observed and measured.
> I am sure you will not like my
> conclusions but Darwinists are not known to like or accept any
> scientific facts that harm their theories, especially their long-time
> accepted theories.
That remains to be seen. In the supposed future paper.
> In case you do not know: I am publicly committed to
> providing positive scientific evidence for the scientific veracity of
> Creationism, AND positive scientific evidence disproving the
> scientific veracity of Evolution (as defined by three or four of the
> biggest names in evolutionary science).
Well, that remains to be seen.
> Of course I have also
> announced to having a Eureka! moment (actually several of them).
That remains to be seen. Your assertions are not exactly convincing.
> This
> means I am in possession of this scientific evidence and data that
> will prove Creationism and disprove Evolution. I do look forward to
> seeing your reaction to my arguments.
When, and if, I see 'em.
>
> Ray
hersheyh
> On Jan 23, 7:25 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The fact is that 'natural selection' describes a real (but contingent
> > and relative) process that occurs and can be observed and
> > mathematically measured in nature. Do you have evidence that it
> > doesn't occur, cannot be observed, or cannot be mathematically
> > described?
>
> That depends on where was the mechanism responsible for species
> transition defined.
"Natural selection", as a mechanism, can (and certainly does)
*contribute* to species divergence or transition. But 'natural
selection' also occurs in species stability. "Natural selection"
happens whether or not the species in question is diverging or
transitioning or not.
> Note that once the mechanism has been defined you
> can then label it natural selection if you so desire. But the label is
> independent of any as yet to be stated theory. You have not provided
> me with any theory, what is your theory?
>
> And telling me that traits becoming more common are favorable and
> those that don't are not favorable is true by definition and hence a
> tautology and not a theory.
The *fact* is that there are differences in phenotype that a defined
environment treats differentially wrt the relative reproductive
success of the two phenotypes.
The *direction* (greater rather than lesser reproductive success) that
gets called "favorable" is, in a real sense, arbitrary. A person
*could* claim that early death and/or inability to reproduce is a
*good thing*. Such a person would be a 'death cultist' akin to the
Jonestown suicidists or that weird group that castrated themselves and
then committed suicide when a certain comet was in the sky.
The fact is that, given the near universality of organisms struggling
*to* reproduce, it is more obvious to consider life and/or
reproductive success as the only consistent goal that living organisms
have. For that reason, that is the direction that is called
"favorable".
If *you* are convinced that organisms should strive to die young and
without progeny, making that direction "favorable" in your mind, feel
free to make that argument. Otherwise, live with the direction that
has been labelled "favorable" -- that is, more reproductive success
is the favorable direction of difference.
wf3h
>
> That depends on where was the mechanism responsible for species
> transition defined. Note that once the mechanism has been defined you
> can then label it natural selection if you so desire. But the label is
> independent of any as yet to be stated theory. You have not provided
> me with any theory, what is your theory?
>
ever get the impression when reading this idiot that, if he were ever
to enter an echo chamber he'd never leave?
wf3h
says the man who believes in the simple uncontested truism that the
bible is literally true and asserts the same is a creative mechanism.
backspace
> On Jan 23, 1:59 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 23, 7:25 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The fact is that 'natural selection' describes a real (but contingent
> > > and relative) process that occurs and can be observed and
> > > mathematically measured in nature. Do you have evidence that it
> > > doesn't occur, cannot be observed, or cannot be mathematically
> > > described?
>
> > That depends on where was the mechanism responsible for species
> > transition defined.
>
> No, it does not.
>
> Natural selection occurs within species (by any definition of
> 'species') and even within discreet populations (i.e., subsets of
> species).
> It is an observation. It is seen to occur. It is not
> dependent on any definition of 'species' or 'species transition' and
> is a component of the overall theory of evolution, but it is not
> dependent upon the definition of the theory.
Botanical Gazette 1909:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0006-8071%28190901%2947%3A1%3C30%3AAVMATP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage
"...The production of form from formlessness in the egg-derived
individual, the multiplication of parts and the orderly creation of
diversity among them, in an actual evolution, of which anyone may
ascertain the facts, but of which no one has dissipated the mystery in
any significant measure. This MICROEVOLUTION forms an integral part of
the grand evolution problem and lies at the base of it, so that we
shall have to understnad the minor process before we can thoroughly
comprehend the more general one.."
The author in 1909 gave us the problem specification and used
"microevolution" in colloquial terms, he wasn't formulating any theory
of microevolution. Before we can discuss any theories we need to
specify the problem:
By what mechanism does an egg turn into a chicken that makes a racket
before sunrise every morning.
Answer:
We don't know, whatever it is it will be a discovery like nuclear
fusion was a discovery. What did Darwin know a 150 years ago that we
don't know today? Nothing, in fact we know so much more today that it
is clear Darwin couldn't even specify the problem. He was in the same
position as a nomad roaming the Sahara in 1250 A.D trying to develop a
theory of sunshine. Only with the discovery of nuclear fusion were we
in a position to formulate any sort of theory as to why there is
sunshine. In the same manner it is preposterous to talk of any theory
from 1859. Darwin used the term Theory of Natural Selection 36 times
which is like our nomad using the term Theory of sunshine 36 times -
meaningless.
Bill Hudson
> On Jan 24, 12:26 am, Bill Hudson <oldgeek61-...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 23, 1:59 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 23, 7:25 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The fact is that 'natural selection' describes a real (but contingent
> > > > and relative) process that occurs and can be observed and
> > > > mathematically measured in nature. Do you have evidence that it
> > > > doesn't occur, cannot be observed, or cannot be mathematically
> > > > described?
>
> > > That depends on where was the mechanism responsible for species
> > > transition defined.
>
> > No, it does not.
>
> > Natural selection occurs within species (by any definition of
> > 'species') and even within discreet populations (i.e., subsets of
> > species).
> > It is an observation. It is seen to occur. It is not
> > dependent on any definition of 'species' or 'species transition' and
> > is a component of the overall theory of evolution, but it is not
> > dependent upon the definition of the theory.
>
So you're changing the topic? Big surprise.
Do you even realize that you're using post-modernist arguments? What
you're essentially saying is that we can't possibly know anything
about anything.
Friar Broccoli
Have you decided it is impossible to answer the questions
I asked you here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/bd594a880d648a1b
two days ago?
If you have, please say so, and I'll find something else to do.
Woland
> On Jan 24, 12:26 am, Bill Hudson <oldgeek61-...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 23, 1:59 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 23, 7:25 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The fact is that 'natural selection' describes a real (but contingent
> > > > and relative) process that occurs and can be observed and
> > > > mathematically measured in nature. Do you have evidence that it
> > > > doesn't occur, cannot be observed, or cannot be mathematically
> > > > described?
>
> > > That depends on where was the mechanism responsible for species
> > > transition defined.
>
> > No, it does not.
>
> > Natural selection occurs within species (by any definition of
> > 'species') and even within discreet populations (i.e., subsets of
> > species).
> > It is an observation. It is seen to occur. It is not
> > dependent on any definition of 'species' or 'species transition' and
> > is a component of the overall theory of evolution, but it is not
> > dependent upon the definition of the theory.
>
Actually we do know and if you tried to study biology you would know
too. Again you have no idea what you're talking about.
Ray Martinez
So you agree that natural selection is an inferred result based on the
identification of simple truisms and their interaction?
Ray
Woland
> On Jan 23, 7:25 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The fact is that 'natural selection' describes a real (but contingent
> > and relative) process that occurs and can be observed and
> > mathematically measured in nature. Do you have evidence that it
> > doesn't occur, cannot be observed, or cannot be mathematically
> > described?
>
> That depends on where was the mechanism responsible for species
> transition defined. Note that once the mechanism has been defined you
> can then label it natural selection if you so desire. But the label is
> independent of any as yet to be stated theory. You have not provided
> me with any theory, what is your theory?
I can't even count how many times you've been provided with this
information. What is wrong with you exactly?
> And telling me that traits becoming more common are favorable and
> those that don't are not favorable is true by definition and hence a
> tautology and not a theory.
Actually, it's part of a theory. Kind of a hypothesis statement
really. Example: "If Natural Selection occurs then we should see more
favorable traits becoming more common throughout the population in
successive generations. If it does not occur traits should be
distributed randomly."
See? I even gave you a way to falsify it!
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
Ernest Major
<2196f26e-3109-4d8d...@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
that you were projecting your own intellectual deficiencies onto others.
--
alias Ernest Major
hersheyh
> On Jan 23, 3:33 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 23, 6:01 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 23, 1:59 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The evolutionists are identifying simple uncontested truisms then
> > > asserting the same is a creative mechanism. This approach cannot be
> > > falsified.
Natural selection *could* certainly be falsified. Not only that, but
we know of many examples for which there is no 'natural selection'
occurring. If there is no significant differential or directional
selection on the basis of the interaction of phenotype and
environment, there is no "natural selection". That, in fact, is the
case for many, if not most, mutational changes. This absence of
"natural selection" is called "neutral drift".
Interestingly enough, selection is the only possible 'conservative'
biological feature that can *preserve* phenotypes (and thus cause
species phenotypic stability). Long term *change* in allele frequency
occurs when 1) the phenotype has a genetic component, 2) the two
phenotypes examined are differentially affected by the environment,
and 3) the environment has changed so that the current frequencies are
no longer optimal. Short term (generation to generation) change does
not require step 3 and is the reason why most 'natual selection' is
conservative in nature. In the absence of step 2 (that is, when there
is no selection) change will occur by neutral drift.
Bluntly put, change, either from generation to generation (by removing
deleterious new mutations or phenotypes that arise from sexual
recombination) or from a longer term perspective, is an inevitable
consequence of the nature of genetics, whether by 'natural selection'
or its absence.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
So you agree that natural selection is an inferred result based on the
identification of simple truisms and their interaction?
Wholistically understood, the same acts as the main (but not the
exclusive) cause of evolutionary change?
Ray
backspace
> how one quantitatively measures and empirically determines the "level
> of reproductive success" or what "natural selection" means, I decided
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/schutz172.htm
Schützenberger
"....I would appeal to a notion banned by the scientific community,
but one understood perfectly by everyone else -- that of a goal...."
As Dernavich explained in his infidels article Darwinian dissonance a
success means some predetermined goal has been reached. Since a
frog,cow and beaver have no goals there is no "success". Darwin never
used the term reproductive success.
backspace
hersheyh
> On Jan 23, 7:25 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > But since backspace is so mind-numbingly ignorant about
> > how one quantitatively measures and empirically determines the "level
> > of reproductive success" or what "natural selection" means, I decided
>
> http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/schutz172.htm
> Schützenberger
> "....I would appeal to a notion banned by the scientific community,
> but one understood perfectly by everyone else -- that of a goal...."
And I have presented the only goal that one can possibly, from study
of organisms, universally apply. Namely reproductive success in the
current local conditions (which conditions includes the past
historical path that the particular organism has followed and thus the
constraints on its ability to respond to changes in local
conditions). This goal takes precedence over life itself. When there
is a conflict between continued life and more successful reproduction,
the latter wins out (in a stochastic rather than deterministic sense,
of course). This goal also takes precedence over complexity and
simplicity (i.e., there is no general rule favoring an increase in
complexity). When the local conditions are such that increases in
simplicity favors reproductive success, simplicity rules. When
increases in complexity favors reproductive success, complexity rules.
I noticed, of course, that Schutzenberger refused and was unable to
actually define "functional complexity" rigorously. He merely
produced hand-waving generalities.
> As Dernavich explained in his infidels article Darwinian dissonance a
> success means some predetermined goal has been reached. Since a
> frog,cow and beaver have no goals there is no "success".
The 'goal' of each of these organisms is reproductive success in their
local environments within the constraints of their historical past.
> Darwin never
> used the term reproductive success.
SFW? Are we limited to the precise words that Darwin used? Darwin
was a (very good and innovative) scientist, not a god. He made it
perfectly clear that reproductive success was what he meant.
Tiny Bulcher
> On Jan 24, 6:24 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<whatever>
> So you're changing the topic? Big surprise.
>
> Do you even realize that you're using post-modernist arguments? What
> you're essentially saying is that we can't possibly know anything
> about anything.
I am entirely prepared to believe that backspace can't possibly know
anything about anything.
Tiny, Purveyor of Obvious Gags
Woland
>
> - Show quoted text -
That article was about 'randomness' and its use as a descriptive term
in science. You didn't answer his questions.
Friar Broccoli
Since this link points to an article that has nothing to do
with the questions I asked, should I assume that you
are unable to answer my questions and thus that you
already know that your YEC beliefs are impossible to
defend?
backspace
> With that in mind, I have three questions for you:
> 1) The Andromeda Galaxy is the closest major Galaxy to our Milky
> Way Galaxy. It is a bit more than 2,000,000 light years away.
>
> How did light from Andromeda get here in 6000 years?
I reject the premise of your question. What came before time, space
and matter, the Logos or Language. Jesus Christ is Language and by
his language he created the cosmos and determined the speed of light
itself. And being God he could have made the speed of light anything
he wanted at the instant of creation itself.
Since there was no matter or human observers of physics before Christ
spoke electromagnetism and gravity etc. into existence you therefore
can't extrapolate backwards from our present observations (note
observations not laws, there is no such thing as a law of physics).
When Christ speaks a new heaven and new universe into existence after
the Great White throne judgement, the Second "law" of thermodynamics
will not be able to prevent Language himself from changing matter
itself. Read the book by Prof.Herrmann http://www.raherrmann.com "Your
endangered mind" where he explains with his math of Ultralogics that
you can't apply the observations of physics as we understand them
today and apply them into the distant future or past since nobody was
there back then to take measurements.
> 2) After Noah's flood, how did the kangaroos get back to
> Australia? (Note that kangaroos are just an example. Unique
> geographically isolated groups of species, including fresh
> water fish, are found all over the planet.)
The kangaroo question http://www.icr.org have answered somewhere. You
know the answer to the question and if you don't you can pick up the
phone and ask them or order a book where they will give you an answer.
But then again you do know the creationist answer and I would like to
know as well, so if you would start a new thread with the answer
please.
> 3) In Genesis 4:14 Cain says to God:
>
> "Behold, You have driven me this day from the face of the
> ground; and from Your face I will be hidden, and I will be a
> vagrant and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me
> will kill me."
> Who do you think Cain feared would kill him?
This seems to be a variant of where did Cain get his wife, which
http://www.answersingenesis.org have answered. Cain married his
sister. Don't derail the thread further with this issue, rather start
a new thread, we are focusing on NS in this one.
Woland
> On Jan 23, 4:28 am, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > With that in mind, I have three questions for you:
> > 1) The Andromeda Galaxy is the closest major Galaxy to our Milky
> > Way Galaxy. It is a bit more than 2,000,000 light years away.
>
> > How did light from Andromeda get here in 6000 years?
>
> I reject the premise of your question. What came before time, space
> and matter, the Logos or Language. Jesus Christ is Language and by
> his language he created the cosmos and determined the speed of light
> itself. And being God he could have made the speed of light anything
> he wanted at the instant of creation itself.
> Since there was no matter or human observers of physics before Christ
> spoke electromagnetism and gravity etc. into existence you therefore
> can't extrapolate backwards from our present observations (note
> observations not laws, there is no such thing as a law of physics).
> When Christ speaks a new heaven and new universe into existence after
> the Great White throne judgement, the Second "law" of thermodynamics
> will not be able to prevent Language himself from changing matter
> endangered mind" where he explains with his math of Ultralogics that
> you can't apply the observations of physics as we understand them
> today and apply them into the distant future or past since nobody was
> there back then to take measurements.
>
> > 2) After Noah's flood, how did the kangaroos get back to
> > Australia? (Note that kangaroos are just an example. Unique
> > geographically isolated groups of species, including fresh
> > water fish, are found all over the planet.)
>
> know the answer to the question and if you don't you can pick up the
> phone and ask them or order a book where they will give you an answer.
> But then again you do know the creationist answer and I would like to
> know as well, so if you would start a new thread with the answer
> please.
>
> > 3) In Genesis 4:14 Cain says to God:
>
> > "Behold, You have driven me this day from the face of the
> > ground; and from Your face I will be hidden, and I will be a
> > vagrant and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me
> > will kill me."
> > Who do you think Cain feared would kill him?
>
> sister. Don't derail the thread further with this issue, rather start
> a new thread, we are focusing on NS in this one.
Man, your are crazy. I like you, but you're crazy...
backspace
> > Darwin never
> > used the term reproductive success.
>
> was a (very good and innovative) scientist, not a god. He made it
> perfectly clear that reproductive success was what he meant.
Where did Darwin make it clear ? Everybody invents their own theories
and then wants to credit Darwin with it but can't quote me a passage
in OoS that would substantiate their views. The reason is of course to
prevent the public from realizing that each evolutionist is basically
just sucking his or her own story out of his thumb and we are dealing
with thousands of theories not one Theory of Evolution.
Lets look at what Greg Leach had to say about RS:
http://www.cites.org/eng/prog/criteria/2nd_meeting/guidelines1.shtml
16B. Reproductive success (Greg Leach)
There is no definition of the term in the current Annex 5 nor has IUCN
found it necessary to define it in their extensive review if the IUCN
criteria. Greg Leach offers the following:
"..Reproductive success of an individual or population is a measure of
the number of individuals that make it to reproductive maturity from
one generation to the next. It is the extent of realization of the
reproductive potential.."
Now if only Leach would tell us how was this reproductive potential
actually measured other than noting the number of individuals that
made it to reproductive maturity.
backspace
> > used the term reproductive success.
>
> was a (very good and innovative) scientist, not a god. He made it
> perfectly clear that reproductive success was what he meant.
Where did Darwin make it clear ? Everybody invents their own theories
and then wants to credit Darwin with it but can't quote me a passage
in OoS that would substantiate their views. The reason is of course to
prevent the public from realizing that each evolutionist is basically
just sucking his or her own story out of his thumb and we are dealing
with thousands of theories not one Theory of Evolution.
Lets look at what Greg Leach had to say about RS:
http://www.cites.org/eng/prog/criteria/2nd_meeting/guidelines1.shtml
16B. Reproductive success (Greg Leach)
There is no definition of the term in the current Annex 5 nor has IUCN
found it necessary to define it in their extensive review if the IUCN
criteria. Greg Leach offers the following:
"..Reproductive success of an individual or population is a measure of
the number of individuals that make it to reproductive maturity from
one generation to the next. It is the extent of realization of the
reproductive potential.."
Now if only Leach would tell us how was this reproductive potential
actually measured other than noting the number of individuals that
made it to reproductive maturity. See http://whatnaturaled.blogspot.com
for the answer.
In any case this thread is at number one out of 1,8million Google
hits
http://www.google.co.za/search?as_q=natural+selection&hl=en&num=100&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=favorable&as_oq=common&as_eq=&lr=&cr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images
John Bode
> On Jan 23, 9:25 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 22, 7:52 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
> > > Howard: Backspace was not asking a real question, he was mocking you,
> > > hoping that you would bite and make a fool of yourself. My explanation
> > > just above provides an excuse for your "answer".
>
> > > Ray
>
> > I know full well that backspace was mocking. I also know full well
> > that cows do not make beer (although some beers taste like they were
> > brewed through a cow wrt having the appropriate amber color, but not
> > the taste). But since backspace is so mind-numbingly ignorant about
> > how one quantitatively measures and empirically determines the "level
> > of reproductive success" or what "natural selection" means, I decided
> > to use his stupid idea as if it were real. He (and you) apparently
> > are not smart enough to deal with *real* examples which measure
> > fitness and demonstrate selection, so maybe stupid examples of your
> > own can penetrate your very thick skulls.
>
> > Where, exactly, am I wrong about the mechanism by which one would
> > measure the 'relative fitness' and, hence, the 'natural selection' of
> > the traits that backspace mentioned (or any more realistic ones)?
> > Backspace, rather ignorantly, thinks that natural selection does not
> > occur or cannot be observed if it does occur if he can pretend it
> > doesn't by saying that the words do not describe a reality (post-
> > modernist that he is). Do you think that natural selection is a myth,
> > too?
>
> > The fact is that 'natural selection' describes a real (but contingent
> > and relative) process that occurs and can be observed and
> > mathematically measured in nature. Do you have evidence that it
> > doesn't occur, cannot be observed, or cannot be mathematically
> > described?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I just wanted to give you the courtesy of knowing that I read your
> reply, that I can see that you are not rattled....I am impressed.
>
Why should he be rattled? You're about as "rattling" as an anemic
gnat.
> As for your points on natural selection: I cannot comment right now,
> but I do so in my forth-coming paper.
Okay, right there, you fail. Your paper has been forthcoming for how
long, now?
It's vapor, this paper. There is no paper. There is only your empty
boast that you are going to single-handedly invalidate a century and a
half of research conducted by thousands of people. It's a ridiculous
claim on the face of it; you might as well claim that you're going to
prove that the Earth really is flat. You're simply not capable of
such a feat; you know it, we know it. If you were, you wouldn't need
to wait until your paper were published; you'd engage in the debate
right here and right now. But you can't, so you invent this fictional
paper and use it as an excuse to run away when people start calling
you on your bullshit. You're a coward, a pathological liar, and a
self-aggrandizing prat.
Woland
> In any case this thread is at number one out of 1,8million Google
> hitshttp://www.google.co.za/search?as_q=natural+selection&hl=en&num=100&b...
The reason it's 'number one' is because you, having created this
thread, are the only person who doesn't understand what we're talking
about and the only person with your serious language problems. It's
not because it's 'popular' or anything weird like that.
Did you read those links I sent you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
You may find this bird interesting as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_Ground_Finch
Woland
I don't know... His brother did say it was pretty sweet...
hersheyh
>
> > With that in mind, I have three questions for you:
> > 1) The Andromeda Galaxy is the closest major Galaxy to our Milky
> > Way Galaxy. It is a bit more than 2,000,000 light years away.
>
> > How did light from Andromeda get here in 6000 years?
>
> I reject the premise of your question. What came before time, space
> and matter, the Logos or Language.
Is this a bass ackward way of saying that time, space, and matter are
a reality independent of Logos? Or are you saying that *your* reality
is just 'words' which apparently can mean anything you want them to?
Do us all a favor and test this idea by walking out a 23rd story
window.
> Jesus Christ is Language and by
> his language he created the cosmos and determined the speed of light
> itself. And being God he could have made the speed of light anything
> he wanted at the instant of creation itself.
So you claim, without evidence. But the question is whether the speed
of light we observe and measure is independent of the words we use to
describe it.
> Since there was no matter or human observers of physics before Christ
> spoke electromagnetism and gravity etc. into existence you therefore
> can't extrapolate backwards from our present observations (note
> observations not laws, there is no such thing as a law of physics).
So you assert without evidence. Again, we have no evidence whatsoever
that Jesus spoke or existed at that time.
> When Christ speaks a new heaven and new universe into existence after
> the Great White throne judgement, the Second "law" of thermodynamics
> will not be able to prevent Language himself from changing matter
> itself. Read the book by Prof.Herrmannhttp://www.raherrmann.com"Your
> endangered mind" where he explains with his math of Ultralogics that
> you can't apply the observations of physics as we understand them
> today and apply them into the distant future or past since nobody was
> there back then to take measurements.
>
> > 2) After Noah's flood, how did the kangaroos get back to
> > Australia? (Note that kangaroos are just an example. Unique
> > geographically isolated groups of species, including fresh
> > water fish, are found all over the planet.)
>
> The kangaroo questionhttp://www.icr.orghave answered somewhere.
Nah. They don't have a consistent answer. The only consistent with
the evidence answer is that there was no world-wide flood.
> You
> know the answer to the question and if you don't you can pick up the
> phone and ask them or order a book where they will give you an answer.
> But then again you do know the creationist answer and I would like to
> know as well, so if you would start a new thread with the answer
> please.
>
> > 3) In Genesis 4:14 Cain says to God:
>
> > "Behold, You have driven me this day from the face of the
> > ground; and from Your face I will be hidden, and I will be a
> > vagrant and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me
> > will kill me."
> > Who do you think Cain feared would kill him?
>
> This seems to be a variant of where did Cain get his wife, whichhttp://www.answersingenesis.orghave answered. Cain married his
> sister. Don't derail the thread further with this issue, rather start
> a new thread, we are focusing on NS in this one.
Was he, then, afraid of his sister? Clearly hell hath no fury... But
then the Bible certainly gives some women the power to revenge.
Judith, Ester, Solome, etc. Cut their heads off when they sleep.
wf3h
> >
> > How did light from Andromeda get here in 6000 years?
>
> I reject the premise of your question. What came before time, space
> and matter, the Logos or Language. Jesus Christ is Language and by
> his language he created the cosmos and determined the speed of light
> itself.
which seems to be wildly varying if it's 186K m/s today but was fast
enough to have andromeda's light get here in 6K years...god has a
counting problem
and who was the first person to say jesus 'created' the cosmos? what
are your pragmatics in stating this? there are 34,000 xtian
denominations so, just as you argue against science by saying there
are more than 2 scientists in the world and they use different
language, one can argue against xtianity on the basis of its
incoherence.
And being God he could have made the speed of light anything
> he wanted at the instant of creation itself.
ah. i see. magic. no natural laws...just the whim of a creator. and
yet creationists say god creates order. seems creationists contradict
themselves
and backspace prides himself on his use of linguistic precision!!
> Since there was no matter or human observers of physics before Christ
> spoke electromagnetism and gravity etc. into existence you therefore
> can't extrapolate backwards from our present observations (note
> observations not laws, there is no such thing as a law of physics).
??ROFLMAO!!! the greeks predated jesus and knew there were planets.
> When Christ speaks a new heaven and new universe into existence after
> the Great White throne judgement, the Second "law" of thermodynamics
how do you know this? what are your pragmatics in saying this? where
is this documented? why do you have double standards for science and
religion? you are engaged in special pleading...religion doesn't have
to define ANYTHING but science has to define EVERYTHING.
> will not be able to prevent Language himself from changing matter
> itself. Read the book by Prof.Herrmannhttp://www.raherrmann.com"Your
> endangered mind" where he explains with his math of Ultralogics that
> you can't apply the observations of physics as we understand them
> today and apply them into the distant future or past since nobody was
> there back then to take measurements.
wrong. the universe itself was present. either god is a lawgiver and
created an orderly universe or he is, like you say, a magician. if
he's a houdini wannabe, then science itself does not exist. nor does
an orderly universe
is this what creationism argues? the universe is based on magic and
random chance?
what a babbling idiot. creationists treat christianity like a baby
treats a diaper.
backspace
"....In other words, the life forms best suited to their environments
are likely to live the longest and produce the most offspring..."
Other than noting that certain organisms live very long how were their
suitability to the environment measured ?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/a15f99d82bf80359/fbfd36657f9c8aa2#fbfd36657f9c8aa2
"... NS is the result of the interaction between a population of
organisms and their environment in nature..."
And no matter what the result Peter would tell us the same story
wouldn't he, making the whole thing unfalsifiable. Note that this
doesn't mean the label NS he has given his unfalsifiable story is
unfalsifiable itself. The label NS is entirely ad-hoc nobody can tell
me what the interaction between the organisms and the environment has
got to do with the term NS.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/04/science/04edgehed.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&oref=slogin
Richard Dawkins
"....I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence,
all creativity and all "design" anywhere in the universe, is the
direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. It follows
that design comes late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian
evolution. Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot
underlie the universe..."
Notice the difference in views between Peter and Dawkins: Dawkins
believes NS produces something while Peter sees NS as an effect or
result.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/04/science/04edgehed.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&oref=slogin
Nicholas Humphrey
Psychologist, London School of Economics; author,"The Mind Made Flesh"
"...I believe that human consciousness is a conjuring trick, designed
to fool us into thinking we are in the presence of an inexplicable
mystery. Who is the conjuror and why is s/he doing it? The conjuror is
natural selection, and the purpose has been to bolster human self-
confidence and self-importance - so as to increase the value we each
place on our own and others' lives...."
Which means we shouldn't believe a word Humphrey says because he
believes his language is "conjuring trick". The statement itself was
made by his consciousness which means that the statement itself is a
"conjuring trick". These are known as self-defeating statements. Gould
made the same mistake saying that the mind "consists of illusions",
which means that Gould believed his mind consisted of illusions and
thus we should believe a word he said. In addition the statement
itself was an "illusion" because he formulated it with his mind!
What Darwin said about NS:
".....I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if
useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark
its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often
used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the Fittest, is more
accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient. We have seen that man
by selection can certainly produce great results, and can adapt
organic beings to his own uses, through the accumulation of slight but
useful variations, given to him by the hand of Nature. But Natural
Selection, we shall hereafter see, is a power incessantly ready for
action, and is as immeasurably superior to man's feeble efforts, as
the works of Nature are to those of Art....."
What one notices about this NS business is that NS in and of itself is
invoked as the actual explanation for what we observe. No, NS can only
be the label for the mechanism, the actual process responsible for the
universe and organisms. But what is this process that is labeled NS by
everybody? NS as a word term in and of itself can't be the actual
explanation just like the label "gravity" is not the actual
explanation for what the attraction between bodies are. This needs to
be defined elsewhere and will be independent of the actual label.
The wikipedia opening statement is constructed in such a way that the
truth of the proposition is guaranteed.
Those traits which were favorable became more common. Why? Because the
traits that became more common were favorable guaranteeing the truth
of the proposition and thus it is a tautology. But this doesn't mean
that the label which was arbitrarily associated with the common traits
by some mystery, unknown writer is therefore tautological because we
don't know who wrote the opening paragraph. What has traits becoming
more common got to do with the label NS and who says so? For all we
know somebodies cat could have walked over his keyboard and typed in
the opening paragraph. We need to know who says so because we need to
know if this person agrees that the opening sentence is tautological.
Woland
> http://www.strangescience.net/evolution.htm
> "....In other words, the life forms best suited to their environments
> are likely to live the longest and produce the most offspring..."
>
> Other than noting that certain organisms live very long how were their
> suitability to the environment measured ?
>
> "... NS is the result of the interaction between a population of
> organisms and their environment in nature..."
>
> And no matter what the result Peter would tell us the same story
> wouldn't he, making the whole thing unfalsifiable. Note that this
> doesn't mean the label NS he has given his unfalsifiable story is
> unfalsifiable itself. The label NS is entirely ad-hoc nobody can tell
> me what the interaction between the organisms and the environment has
> got to do with the term NS.
>
> Richard Dawkins
> "....I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence,
> all creativity and all "design" anywhere in the universe, is the
> direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. It follows
> that design comes late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian
> evolution. Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot
> underlie the universe..."
>
> Notice the difference in views between Peter and Dawkins: Dawkins
> believes NS produces something while Peter sees NS as an effect or
> result.
>
By definition it says so. You know, like in a dictionary. Do you have
to know the author of a dictionary before you accept a definition? No,
no you don't.
Anyway, why don't you try a little experiment.
1) Read these links I sent you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_Ground_Finch
2) Using the Finch as an example for the preservation of a favored
trait (i.e. beak size) generate a hypothesis, using the scientific
method, and then think of one or more ways in which your hypothesis
could be tested.
Remember, it doesn't matter what we call the 'preservation of favored
traits,' we could call it 'your mom' and it would still exist and
operate in nature and we would still be able to observe it.
Woland
> "....In other words, the life forms best suited to their environments
> are likely to live the longest and produce the most offspring..."
>
> Other than noting that certain organisms live very long how were their
> suitability to the environment measured ?
By the number of offspring that lived to reproduce.
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/a15f99d...
> "... NS is the result of the interaction between a population of
> organisms and their environment in nature..."
>
> And no matter what the result Peter would tell us the same story
> wouldn't he, making the whole thing unfalsifiable. Note that this
> doesn't mean the label NS he has given his unfalsifiable story is
> unfalsifiable itself. The label NS is entirely ad-hoc nobody can tell
> me what the interaction between the organisms and the environment has
> got to do with the term NS.
No, if the result were different then the hypothesis (all or in part)
would be incorrect and we'd start over.
The interaction has been explained to you. Again, see the example of
the Medium Ground Finch. The environment changes and birds better
suited to the altered environment leave more offspring.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/04/science/04edgehed.html?pagewanted=1...
> Richard Dawkins
> "....I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence,
> all creativity and all "design" anywhere in the universe, is the
> direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. It follows
> that design comes late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian
> evolution. Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot
> underlie the universe..."
>
> Notice the difference in views between Peter and Dawkins: Dawkins
> believes NS produces something while Peter sees NS as an effect or
> result.
As you've been told both can be true depending on context and
perspective.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/04/science/04edgehed.html?pagewanted=2...
See above: Organisms better suited to the environment leave more
offspring. Which increases the frequency of that trait within the
population.
> The wikipedia opening statement is constructed in such a way that the
> truth of the proposition is guaranteed.
> Those traits which were favorable became more common. Why? Because the
> traits that became more common were favorable guaranteeing the truth
> of the proposition and thus it is a tautology. But this doesn't mean
> that the label which was arbitrarily associated with the common traits
> by some mystery, unknown writer is therefore tautological because we
> don't know who wrote the opening paragraph. What has traits becoming
> more common got to do with the label NS and who says so? For all we
> know somebodies cat could have walked over his keyboard and typed in
> the opening paragraph. We need to know who says so because we need to
> know if this person agrees that the opening sentence is tautological.
You should take a break and get a girlfriend, maybe one of those
interweb ones.
Inez
> http://www.strangescience.net/evolution.htm
> "....In other words, the life forms best suited to their environments
> are likely to live the longest and produce the most offspring..."
>
> Other than noting that certain organisms live very long how were their
> suitability to the environment measured ?
>
they do it?
hersheyh
> "....In other words, the life forms best suited to their environments
> are likely to live the longest and produce the most offspring..."
>
> Other than noting that certain organisms live very long how were their
> suitability to the environment measured ?
Making the unlikely assumption that this is not simply quote-mined
from a more thoughtful and nuanced piece, it certainly is simplistic.
The *only* measure of fitness is reproductive success, not long life
_per se_. When reproductive success and long llife conflict, it is
always reproductive success that 'wins'. In the worm, C. elegans, for
example, there is a mutation that causes longer life than normal. But
it does so at the cost of slower reproduction. Given that the vast
majority of worms in the wild die (by accident or predation) long
before the 'life-span' of the mutant is over, selection favors shorter
life-span and more rapid reproduction over longer life-span and slower
reproduction in the wild.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/a15f99d...
> "... NS is the result of the interaction between a population of
> organisms and their environment in nature..."
>
> And no matter what the result Peter would tell us the same story
> wouldn't he, making the whole thing unfalsifiable. Note that this
> doesn't mean the label NS he has given his unfalsifiable story is
> unfalsifiable itself. The label NS is entirely ad-hoc nobody can tell
> me what the interaction between the organisms and the environment has
> got to do with the term NS.
Certainly. NS is relative differential reproductive success. To
observe NS, one must look at, bare minimum, two populations with
different phenotypes (this is called, in science-speak, the variable)
and take a measure of relative reproductive success (that can be # of
progeny over a lifetime, age at death if that is correlated to
reproductive success, or any other valid measure of reproductive
success). If the measure of 'reproductive success' for the two
populations is *significantly* different, then NS has occurred. If
there is no *significant* difference between the two populations then
we say that the two phenotypes are selectively neutral wrt each
other. Tests that would measure the significance of the difference
would include t-tests or some similar measure of population
difference.
Of course this assumes that either the two populations in question are
randomly distributed across environments or are in the same
environment. That is because NS is *sometimes* conditional on
particular or local environments. This can also be empirically
determined. Again, take the two populations with different phenotypes
(variable 1) and now put some of each in different
'environments' (variable 2). Now measure the reproductive success (by
whichever measure is best and easiest to apply). Then test for
statistical interaction between variable 1 and variable 2. If there
is no significant interaction, that tells you that there is no
difference in reproductive success of these phenotypes in the
environments tested. It does not tell you whether or not NS is
occurring by itself (for that, see the test above). It tells you if
there is an environmental difference in selective value in the two
environments.
For example, Tay-Sachs individuals will die before reproduction
regardless of the environment they are in (at present, if a cure is
found, then this will change) relative to non-Tay-Sachs individuals.
Thus, although there is strong NS against the Tay-Sachs phenotype,
there is no interaction of this with environment.
OTOH, some mutations are temperature sensitive. Thus, running the
experiment at 35C, there may be no selective difference between the
mutant and the w.t. But running the experiment at 42C produces a
large and significant selective difference. In this case, there is
interaction between an environmental variable (temperature) and the
reproductive success of populations with the two different alleles.
>
[snip]
>
> What Darwin said about NS:
> ".....I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if
> useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark
> its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often
> used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the Fittest, is more
> accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient. We have seen that man
> by selection can certainly produce great results, and can adapt
> organic beings to his own uses, through the accumulation of slight but
> useful variations, given to him by the hand of Nature. But Natural
> Selection, we shall hereafter see, is a power incessantly ready for
> action, and is as immeasurably superior to man's feeble efforts, as
> the works of Nature are to those of Art....."
>
> What one notices about this NS business is that NS in and of itself is
> invoked as the actual explanation for what we observe.
NS *only* occurs when there is a significant difference on some
measure of reproductive success between two phenotypes. NS is
*comparative*. It is the *absence* of a difference that tells us that
NS is not involved.
> No, NS can only
> be the label for the mechanism, the actual process responsible for the
> universe and organisms. But what is this process that is labeled NS by
> everybody? NS as a word term in and of itself can't be the actual
> explanation just like the label "gravity" is not the actual
> explanation for what the attraction between bodies are. This needs to
> be defined elsewhere and will be independent of the actual label.
>
> The wikipedia opening statement is constructed in such a way that the
> truth of the proposition is guaranteed.
> Those traits which were favorable became more common. Why? Because the
> traits that became more common were favorable guaranteeing the truth
> of the proposition and thus it is a tautology.
You are confusing, as I have previously pointed out, the
*directionality* description of what is considered 'beneficial',
'favorable', or 'good' when NS occurs with whether or when NS has
occurred. Whenever there is NS, there is always both a winner and a
loser (in the sense of one phenotype having greater reproductive
success and the other relatively less). Scientists, using common
understanding, label the phenotype with more reproductive success as
having the 'favorable', 'good', or 'beneficial' phenotype.
And, conversly, the phenotype with relatively less reproductive
success gets the label of 'unfavorable'. You can always make a claim
that early death and/or sterility is good, but I don't think you would
make much traction with such a claim. And, as pointed out above,
*sometimes* phenotype and environment interact and that can change the
directionality of a particular comparison or lead to no selective
difference at all.
It is when there is no difference in reproductive success that there
is no NS. NS involves a comparison. NS only exists when there is a
significant difference in reproductive success in such a comparison.
> But this doesn't mean
> that the label which was arbitrarily associated with the common traits
> by some mystery, unknown writer is therefore tautological because we
> don't know who wrote the opening paragraph. What has traits becoming
> more common got to do with the label NS and who says so?
Differential reproductive success has everything to do with NS.
backspace
> > What one notices about this NS business is that NS in and of itself is
> > invoked as the actual explanation for what we observe. No, NS can only
> > be the label for the mechanism, the actual process responsible for the
> > universe and organisms. But what is this process that is labeled NS by
> > everybody? NS as a word term in and of itself can't be the actual
> > explanation just like the label "gravity" is not the actual
> > explanation for what the attraction between bodies are. This needs to
> > be defined elsewhere and will be independent of the actual label.
> See above: Organisms better suited to the environment leave more
> offspring. Which increases the frequency of that trait within the
> population.
Other than noting that organisms leave offspring how were their
noshellswill
bs:
I fear you will talk yourself silly, before getting a relevant response.
The bio-evol folks do-not-know ... as science understanding knowing ... in
what the "selection" process consists or even on what the process acts.
They talk, and explain, and imagine. But they cannot do the one thing
required to do science. They cannot quantitatively predict outputs from
quantitative inputs ... should they know either which they do not.
nss
******
Ye Old One
By them living and producing more offspring.
--
Bob.
backspace
What Darwin said about NS:
".....I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if
useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark
Now other than noting that variations were preserved how were their
usefulness measured ?
wf3h
> wouldn't he, making the whole thing unfalsifiable. Note that this
> doesn't mean the label NS he has given his unfalsifiable story is
> unfalsifiable itself. The label NS is entirely ad-hoc nobody can tell
> me what the interaction between the organisms and the environment has
> got to do with the term NS.
?? is there anyone who DOESN'T know how these relate...except, of
course, for 'backspace' who seems to go to extraordinary lengths to
remain ignorant.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/04/science/04edgehed.html?pagewanted=1...
> Richard Dawkins
> "....I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence,
> all creativity and all "design" anywhere in the universe, is the
> direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. It follows
> that design comes late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian
> evolution. Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot
> underlie the universe..."
>
> Notice the difference in views between Peter and Dawkins: Dawkins
> believes NS produces something while Peter sees NS as an effect or
> result.
i don't see the difference. you see no differences when they exist,
and manufacture them when they dont
that's why you're a creationist.
>
> What one notices about this NS business is that NS in and of itself is
> invoked as the actual explanation for what we observe. No, NS can only
> be the label for the mechanism, the actual process responsible for the
> universe and organisms. But what is this process that is labeled NS by
> everybody? NS as a word term in and of itself can't be the actual
> explanation just like the label "gravity" is not the actual
> explanation for what the attraction between bodies are.
he's hopelessly confused himself between the process of NS and the
physical force of gravity. like comparing water to electricity.
and creationists pretend this is a profound argument...
wf3h
ever hear of MRSA? go and read up on it, creationist.
Ken Shackleton
demonstrates their usefulness [in terms of aiding in reproductive
success].
wf3h
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:41:53 -0800, backspace wrote:
> >http://www.strangescience.net/evolution.htm
> > "....In other words, the life forms best suited to their environments
> > are likely to live the longest and produce the most offspring..."
>
> > Other than noting that certain organisms live very long how were their
> > suitability to the environment measured ?
>
> > "... NS is the result of the interaction between a population of
> > organisms and their environment in nature..."
>
> > And no matter what the result Peter would tell us the same story
> > wouldn't he, making the whole thing unfalsifiable. Note that this
> > doesn't mean the label NS he has given his unfalsifiable story is
> > unfalsifiable itself. The label NS is entirely ad-hoc nobody can tell
> > me what the interaction between the organisms and the environment has
> > got to do with the term NS.
>
> > Richard Dawkins
> > "....I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence,
> > all creativity and all "design" anywhere in the universe, is the
> > direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. It follows
> > that design comes late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian
> > evolution. Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot
> > underlie the universe..."
>
> > Notice the difference in views between Peter and Dawkins: Dawkins
> > believes NS produces something while Peter sees NS as an effect or
> > result.
>
which is nonsense. we can't predict which radioactive atoms in a
sample will decay first, but quantum mechanics is a science
where DO you creationists get the stupidity that you think is so
profound? do you realize you're making trash of your religion?
SortingItOut
> http://www.strangescience.net/evolution.htm
> "....In other words, the life forms best suited to their environments
> are likely to live the longest and produce the most offspring..."
>
> Other than noting that certain organisms live very long how were their
> suitability to the environment measured ?
You need to turn this around and ask it from another direction. Let's
say that you (or someone else...it doesn't matter who) comes up with a
way to measure suitability. Then you observe what happens and you
find that the less suitable (by your measure) survive. What do you
think that would tell you? Is the idea of natural selection flawed,
or are the suitability measurements flawed?
When you try to answer that last question you'll see that your focus
is a little off. You'll see that what NS is really about is simply
that A) variations appear, and B) not all variants survive. Who cares
what measure or value is placed on the variants. It's irrelevant.
All that's important is that they don't all survive. If you want to
disprove NS, you have to argue either that A) variants do not appear
over time, or B) the only causes of extinction are sudden
environmental catastrophes.
Another way to look at it is that nature determines what's important
for survival. You can look at strength, speed, agility, camouflage,
quantity of offspring...any number of traits, and determine what
*seems to you* to be important, but you'll not be able to weigh all
the factors (everything has a cost). It's far too complicated. You
may forget the need for more food, a negative impact to the immune
system, lesser ability to self-heal, susceptibility to certain weather
extremes. You can't possibly factor it all in. You may as well try
to determine exactly when and where the next tornado will appear. Let
nature determine what combination of traits is best for survival. If
you have variants and some of the variants die out after some number
of generations, then natural selection has occurred. Period. (And
some, like me, would tell you that suitability is not measured before
selection occurs, but after).
backspace
"..This unequal ability of individuals to survive and reproduce will
lead to gradual change in a population, with favorable characteristics
accumulating over time and eventually resulting in the formation of a
new species..."
Now other than noting that new species were formed how were their
favorable characteristics actually measured ?
Ye Old One
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
By them living and producing more offspring.
--
Bob.
noshellswill
> On Jan 29, 5:20 pm, noshellswill <noshellsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:41:53 -0800, backspace wrote:
>> >http://www.strangescience.net/evolution.htm
>> > "....In other words, the life forms best suited to their environments
>> > are likely to live the longest and produce the most offspring..."
>>
>> > Other than noting that certain organisms live very long how were their
>> > suitability to the environment measured ?
>>
>> >http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/a15f99d...
>> > "... NS is the result of the interaction between a population of
>> > organisms and their environment in nature..."
>>> know if this person agrees that the opening sentence is tautological.
<clip>
>>
>> bs:
>>
>> I fear you will talk yourself silly, before getting a relevant response.
>> The bio-evol folks do-not-know ... as science understanding knowing ... in
>> what the "selection" process consists or even on what the process acts.
>>
>> They talk, and explain, and imagine. But they cannot do the one thing
>> required to do science. They cannot quantitatively predict outputs from
>> quantitative inputs ... should they know either which they do not.
>>
>
> which is nonsense. we can't predict which radioactive atoms in a
> sample will decay first, but quantum mechanics is a science
>
> where DO you creationists get the stupidity that you think is so
> profound? do you realize you're making trash of your religion?
wf3h:
When appropriate, science happily calculates probability distributions and
considers them respectable predictions. QM treats radioactive decay in
this way, extracting average (decay) energy per-unit-mass per-unit-time.
Stat Mech also treats classical "ideal gases" in a similar fashion,
relating velocity distributions to the temperature parameter.
I trust you HAVE studied this basic science? I mean, you are
currently attending at least high-school. Eh?
Which one of the words " quantitative prediction " do you NOT understand?
nss
*****
backspace
"...Adaptation is best defined as any trait that increases
fitness...."
Now other than noting that the fitness increased, how was the
adaptability measured?
From OoS:
"...But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the
Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate,
and is sometimes equally convenient..."
Other than noting that organisms survived, how were their fitness
measured ?
Friar Broccoli
Did you miss this?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b101e601888c22ce
ebataitis
chris thompson
> >http://www.strangescience.net/evolution.htm
> > "....In other words, the life forms best suited to their environments
> > are likely to live the longest and produce the most offspring..."
>
> > Other than noting that certain organisms live very long how were their
> > suitability to the environment measured ?
>
> > "... NS is the result of the interaction between a population of
> > organisms and their environment in nature..."
>
> > And no matter what the result Peter would tell us the same story
> > wouldn't he, making the whole thing unfalsifiable. Note that this
> > doesn't mean the label NS he has given his unfalsifiable story is
> > unfalsifiable itself. The label NS is entirely ad-hoc nobody can tell
> > me what the interaction between the organisms and the environment has
> > got to do with the term NS.
>
> > Richard Dawkins
> > "....I believe, but I cannot prove, that all life, all intelligence,
> > all creativity and all "design" anywhere in the universe, is the
> > direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. It follows
> > that design comes late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian
> > evolution. Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot
> > underlie the universe..."
>
> > Notice the difference in views between Peter and Dawkins: Dawkins
> > believes NS produces something while Peter sees NS as an effect or
> > result.
>
From: Hedrick, P.W. 1984. Population Biology: The Evolution and
Ecology of Populations. Jones & Bartlett, Boston. p56.
<begin>
Let us examine the viabilities in the experiement in which the moths
were placed on dark backgrounds. The survival of malanics is
58/70=0.83 and that of typicals is 39/70=.56. If these are
standardized into survival relative to that of melanics (because they
have the highest survival) then the relative survival of melanics is
0.83/0.93=1.0, and that of the typicals is 0.56/0.83=0.67. Because
the melanic is dominant the relative fitnesses become 1.0, 1.0, and
0.67 for AA, Aa, and aa respectively, where A and a are the melanic
and typical alleles. Assuming the relative fitness of the aa
individuals is w{aa}=1-s, then the selective disadvantage of aa
individuals is s=1-w{aa} = 1-0.67=0.33
We can use this example to illustrate numerically the expression we
have used for allelic frequency change. Assume that q=0.8 and p=0.2
and that we would like to know how much selection under the conditions
of a dark background would change allelic frequencies [omit reference
to table] The allelic frewquency after selection is:
q' = 1/2(0.406) + 0.544 = 0.747
and
dq = 0.747 - 0.8 = -0.053
Using the expression for allelic change
dq = {0.33(0.2)(0.8)^2} / 1 - (0.33)(0.8)^2
dq = -0/054
The same process can be repeated for any number of generations, and
the pattern of increase is that of progressive selection as shown in
Figure 3.4
<end quote>
Next.
Chris
Harry K
To bring it down to your level:
The ones best fitted for survival get the most ass, their offspring
inherit it, they get the most ass, etc.
Of course that does not mean that they get _all_ the ass. The less
fit also reproduce. I submit that you are an example of that.
Harry K
hersheyh
I am afraid that "ass" is the wrong thing to get if reproduction is
your goal. ;-)
Woland
Go back and read about the Medium ground Finch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_Ground_Finch
Suitability to the environment was a result of small beak size and
could be measured by said beak size. i.e. Birds baring bigger beaks
begot fewer baby birds.
Are you entirely incapable of inference and deduction?
backspace
> On Jan 29, 11:41 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.strangescience.net/evolution.htm
> > "....In other words, the life forms best suited to their environments
> > are likely to live the longest and produce the most offspring..."
>
> > Other than noting that certain organisms live very long how were their
> > suitability to the environment measured ?
>
> You need to turn this around and ask it from another direction. Let's
> say that you (or someone else...it doesn't matter who) comes up with a
> way to measure suitability. Then you observe what happens and you
> find that the less suitable (by your measure) survive. What do you
> think that would tell you? Is the idea of natural selection flawed,
> or are the suitability measurements flawed?
Depends on what you define as natural selection. Would you define it
for me and tell me who says so or even better, provided some way of
disproving the concept for which NS is supposed to be a label ?
Is the term NS the actual mechanism or is it a label for some yet to
be defined concept ?