Darwin's principle of divergence - Tautology
backspace
".....As the differences became greater, the inferior animals with
intermediate characters, being neither very swift
nor very strong, would not have been used for breeding, and will thus
have tended to disappear....."
=== rephrase ===
......... the inferior animals ............ would not have been used
for breeding, and will thus have tended to disappear....."
=== Tautological essence ===
".... the inferior animals .....disappear....."
Darwin:
"...Here, then, we see in man's productions the action of what may be
called the principle of divergence, causing differences, at first
barely appreciable, steadily to increase, and the breeds to diverge in
character, both from each other and from their common parent...."
The principle of divergence refers to Darwin's tautology: "..... the
inferior animals disappear...." or those that died were less
improved...." The failure to notice the tautology then leads one to
think that Darwin had rock solid logic and that therefore because the
dinosaurs died because they were less improved or inferior that
therefore a monkey gave birth to a talking monkey. Which doesn't
follow logically of course.
This is what tautologies does to your thinking, it forces you to
accept a banality because it is formulated in such a way that the
"truth of the proposition cannot be disputed " to use the immortal
words of Darwin himself.
unrestra...@hotmail.com
> Darwin:
> ".....As the differences became greater, the inferior animals with
> intermediate characters, being neither very swift
> nor very strong, would not have been used for breeding, and will thus
> have tended to disappear....."
>
> === rephrase ===
> ......... the inferior animals ............ would not have been used
> for breeding, and will thus have tended to disappear....."
>
> === Tautological essence ===
> ".... the inferior animals .....disappear....."
No, not a tautology.
For instance, each generation may have shown the same mix of superior
and inferior traits. They may have been generated somehow, or the
source of these traits may have been identical in all animals, only
the expressed (phenotype) variation was great and difficult to
predict, or animals which strayed too far from the species archetype
tended to revert. None of these, it turns out, was true. But the
resulting removal of undesired animals from breeding produced
cumulative changes. It was neither obvious, nor logically necessary.
"Inferior animals" and "disappearing" and in no way synonymous terms.
For instance, in the 1918 flu epidemic, it was the young and strong
humans who were most likely to die if infected.
>
> Darwin:
> "...Here, then, we see in man's productions the action of what may be
> called the principle of divergence, causing differences, at first
> barely appreciable, steadily to increase, and the breeds to diverge in
> character, both from each other and from their common parent...."
>
> The principle of divergence refers to Darwin's tautology: "..... the
> inferior animals disappear...." or those that died were less
> improved...." The failure to notice the tautology
The tautology was not noted because it is a careless or dishonest
representation of your making. It was not there for anyone to see.
> then leads one to
> think that Darwin had rock solid logic
He did not offer a purely logical argument. He presented a wealth of
data, and systematically demonstrated how his theory fit all those
and data made testable predictions.
> and that therefore because the
> dinosaurs died because they were less improved or inferior
Actually, the dinosaurs were very well adapted and physiologically and
behaviorally sophisticated. They died because of a dramatic and sudden
ecological disaster; probably an asteroid strike.
> that
> therefore a monkey gave birth to a talking monkey. Which doesn't
> follow logically of course.
Of course not.
It was entirely contingent. Assuming you are human, then you are a
talking monkey and had human parents.
But I suspect you meant that there was a hopeful monster, a primate
giving birth to a dramatically different offspring, complete with
modern human behavior. This is a laughably inept misrepresentation of
evolutionary theory. I would be kind and accuse you of dishonesty, but
your confusion over language is so profound that I fear you really
don't understand this, despite being corrected numerous times.
>
> This is what tautologies does to your thinking, it forces you to
> accept a banality because it is formulated in such a way that the
> "truth of the proposition cannot be disputed " to use the immortal
> words of Darwin himself.
He offered no tautologies. Why do you start another thread on this
topic? Do you *like being spanked?
If you think there is a problem with evolutionary science, you might
want to address the evidence, or show where the theory has been
falsified.
A non-ape monkey giving birth to a human would falsify it, for
example, or at least cause it serious grief. Do you have evidence for
such an event?
Kermit
Tim DeLaney
It is not necessary to believe everything Darwin said in order to
accept the fact of evolution. Even if he were a babbling idiot who
used the most fallacious arguments ever propounded, evolution would
still be a fact, and the ToE would still be accepted by the vast
majority of scientists. They accept it because of the mountain of
evidence uncovered by scientists of many different disciplines, not
because of Charles Darwin's reasoning.
Your post is an example of the "ad hominem" fallacy. Do you see why?
Tim
David Hare-Scott
What exactly does the formulation that Darwin may have used in some parts of
his extensive writings have to do with the validity of the ToE as it
currently understood?
Your whole routine is based on the assumption that there is such a
relationship between Darwin's words and the validity of the ToE and yet you
do not provide any evidence. So you continue to waste time by reposting
what is essentially the same pointless assumption.
over and
over and
over
David
[M]adman
yeah. your wife
>
> Kermit
[M]adman
EVOLUTIONIST TRICKERY #3490
When the post cannot be refuted, call it a fallacy
eri...@home.com
So are you arguing that selection doesn't occur and hasn't occurred,
or are you just arguing semantics?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Ignoring the trolling attention whore yet again.
His trolling seems to be getting more and more desperate,
though . . . .
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com
Tim DeLaney
The post was thoroughly refuted. Making a claim in all caps doesn't
make that claim any the more valid.
Attacking Darwin doesn't refute evolution. Evolution is not a sacred
dogma based on the scriptures of its first proponent. Those who
accept the fact of evolution are not bound to blindly accept every
word that Darwin wrote.
Hypothetical: Suppose that Isaac Newton, who first devised calculus,
had written: "Whilst many functions can be differentiated, Y=log(x)
cannot be differentiated." Do you suppose that this error by the
person who first invented calculus would invalidate all of calculus?
Similarly, if Darwin had made some egregious error in observation or
reasoning, does that error preclude the truth of evolution?
Try to think rationally, [M]adman. I know it's difficult, but try
anyway.
Tim
Mike Dworetsky
news:1rGVl.50978$19.2...@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
Not exactly a new low for Adman, replying once again to a well-reasoned
argument with an ad hominem but not replying in any way to the argument
itself. But Adman specifically complains that his "opponents" are using ad
hominems (even when, clearly, if they say "You are an idiot," it is pretty
objectively true).
Any number can play that game, Adman, just remember that. You asked for it.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
trader100
> So are you arguing that selection doesn't occur and hasn't occurred,
> or are you just arguing semantics?
Is your concept with "selection" in the random or directed sense.
After the storm , there was a selection of rocks left on the
mountain.- no intent. --- (Example A)
After the mountain climbers arranged a selection of rocks, they made a
fire - intent. -- (Example B)
Wombat
Does a sieve select particles randomly or directedly?
Wombat
trader100
> > Is your concept with "selection" in the random or directed sense.
> > After the storm , there was a selection of rocks left on the
> > mountain.- no intent. --- (Example A)
> > After the mountain climbers arranged a selection of rocks, they made a
> > fire - intent. -- (Example B)
> Does a sieve select particles randomly or directedly?
A bag of flower fell over a the sieve forming a selection of white
powder in the pan. - No intent.
The cook poured flower through a sieve forming a selection of white
powder in the pan. - Intent.
If there was no intent back 3bil years ago, then don' t use words such
selection, modification, filter and sieve which used in 99% of cases
in the directional, volition, intent meaning.
Note that Wilkins said that ordinary language due to its innate
volition isn't suitable for discussing concepts within the premise of
matter before mind. We are using the same words but with different
belief systems, resulting in a huge circus where Ken Ham is now even
more confused than Wilkins.
1) Theism - mind came before matter. This is a religious metaphysical
belief taken by faith, which is the evidence of things not seen.
2) Non-theism - matter results in mind. Also a religious belief taken
by faith.
Because of our different religious belief systems we are basically
incapable of communicating with one another , because of our religious
belief systems.
Dick C.
@l32g2000vba.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 3, 4:52�pm, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Darwin:
>> This is what tautologies does to your thinking, it forces you to
>> accept a banality because it is formulated in such a way that the
>> "truth of the proposition cannot be disputed " to use the immortal
>> words of Darwin himself.
>
> So are you arguing that selection doesn't occur and hasn't occurred,
> or are you just arguing semantics?
>
As near as anyone can tell he thinks that by playing some sort of
stupid semantic game he can make evolution disappear.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@gmail.com
trader100
> What exactly does the formulation that Darwin may have used in some parts of
> his extensive writings have to do with the validity of the ToE as it
> currently understood?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
"...The "theory of evolution" refers to the modern evolutionary
synthesis, which is the current scientific explanation of how these
changes occur. ......"
Who explained what the Modern synthesis is ? Was it an individual,
group of people and if so , who says so. Show me the paper, journal
or monograph that established the MS or isn't it established. Or even
worse nobody knows what is the MS , it a term like ToE that everybody
uses but the concept it refers to isn't defined.
Is the ToE the theory of how monkeys turned into talking monkeys. If
not why not and who says so. If it doesn't matter who says so, then I
want to know who says so.
Burkhard
> On Jun 4, 3:46 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > What exactly does the formulation that Darwin may have used in some parts of
> > his extensive writings have to do with the validity of the ToE as it
> > currently understood?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
> "...The "theory of evolution" refers to the modern evolutionary
> synthesis, which is the current scientific explanation of how these
> changes occur. ......"
>
> Who explained what the Modern synthesis is ? Was it an individual,
> group of people and if so , who says so. Show me the paper, journal
> or monograph that established the MS or isn't it established.
Julian Huxley : Evolution: The Modern Synthesis (1942). is as far as I
know the first usage of the term, and in the book you find a good
exposition. The synthesis itself was the result of a decade of work by
scientists from various fields (hence synthesis). and work on it
continued long after Huxley's book.
wf3h
> Darwin:
> This is what tautologies does to your thinking, it forces you to
> accept a banality because it is formulated in such a way that the
> "truth of the proposition cannot be disputed " to use the immortal
> words of Darwin himself.
more tiresome abuse of language from creationism. backspace commands
neither language nor science. he's mired in a 4th century view of the
world that excludes logic and reason, while emphasizing faith and
magic. it's one reason the west made virtually no scientific progress
for a thousand years.
he doesn't know what a 'tautology' is. he insists that he has never
been told what evolution is, how it's defined, how experiments show
natural selection at work even though 2 minutes of 'googling' will
show all of these.
he's typical of a creation: a liar; a revisionist and someone too
ignorant to think clearly or to learn even the basics of his own
complaint about science
wf3h
>
> Is the ToE the theory of how monkeys turned into talking monkeys. If
> not why not and who says so. If it doesn't matter who says so, then I
> want to know who says so.
well, backspace, no one cares what you want because no matter how many
times your questions are answered you'll continue to lie about the
answers. that's what creationists do. your questions have been
answered. they made no impact on you at all.
wf3h
>
> 1) Theism - mind came before matter. This is a religious metaphysical
> belief taken by faith, which is the evidence of things not seen.
> 2) Non-theism - matter results in mind. Also a religious belief taken
> by faith.
>
> Because of our different religious belief systems we are basically
> incapable of communicating with one another , because of our religious
> belief systems.
2 is observable. we can watch a baby grow, including its brain. do you
deny brains exist?
1 is NEVER seen. ever. not once. we have no idea how it can occur.
but you're right; because scientists speak in the language of science,
and creationists use concepts from the 4th century which have no
meaning today, we can not communicate. your incessant bleating about
'tautologies', even though you don't know what the word means, proves
this.
trader100
> times your questions are answered you'll continue to lie about the
Talking about lying. Darwin seemed to have told some fibs and not give
due credit.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/uj0150g65x848620/ It is a GIF
image thus can't copy and paste, but Darwin said as he was riding his
carriage he had a flash of insight...... modification......
The insight actually was from Halloy as I discussed here
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/browse_thread/thread/d138b2c03c35d64f
He later as old age began to set in wrote in a letter to Asa Gray that
he invented the concept of Decent with modification or natural
selection. But actually Halloy invented in in 1848 , a paper which
Darwin read. We all agree that passing yourself of as the inventor of
concepts or having "flashes of brilliance and insight" , not crediting
the person you got it from is unacceptable in academia. Darwin also
confused the cause with the effect, something I continually see
analysts do in their analysis of the futures and forex markets.
---
Real-time Track record on Dow, SP500 and Forex trading
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Trader100
trader100
> > Who explained what the Modern synthesis is ? Was it an individual,
> > group of people and if so , who says so. Show me the paper, journal
> > or monograph that established the MS or isn't it established.
>
> Julian Huxley : Evolution: The Modern Synthesis (1942). is as far as I
> know the first usage of the term, and in the book you find a good
> exposition. The synthesis itself was the result of a decade of work by
> scientists from various fields (hence synthesis). and work on it
> continued long after Huxley's book.
I am not going to read the book, I believe you have. Show me the page
where he established the MS and what exactly is the MS. And what
relevance could a concept in 1942 have with what we know today.
wf3h
> On Jun 4, 7:24 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > times your questions are answered you'll continue to lie about the
>
> Talking about lying. Darwin seemed to have told some fibs and not give
> image thus can't copy and paste, but Darwin said as he was riding his
> carriage he had a flash of insight...... modification......
you're not darwin. i don't care what he did/didn't do. it's not
relevant and the smokescreen you're trying to created merely points
out how inadequate your position really is.
the issue is your use of language. it's pathetic and incomprehensible.
you have 150 years of evolutionary biology to rely on. yet you insist
that nothing has happened in bio since 1859 and you can't understand
it.
that's exactly my point. you ignore modern science because you CANT
understand it. it's your whole POINT of belief: your religion EXCLUDES
modern science thus rendering you incapable of understanding it no
matter HOW much it's explained to you. it's like trying to explain the
principles of the airplane so someone who doesn't know what air is.
Burkhard
You mean I'm going to do your homework? Think again. Nor would I say
that he established the theory, he coined the term and gave a good
account of it. as I said in my previous answer, a "synthesis"
requires more than one.
For the basic idea, wikipedia this time gives in my opinion a good
account
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis#Tenets_of_the_modern_synthesis
>And what
> relevance could a concept in 1942 have with what we know today.
It was one important stepping stone, as every scientific theory that
precedes the present knowledge is.
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Naw, her mom's a retired bank teller and her dad a former nuclear
physicist; they're both talking monkeys.
>
> > Kermit
Kermit
unrestra...@hotmail.com
> On Jun 4, 12:13 pm, Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
>
> > > Is your concept with "selection" in the random or directed sense.
> > > After the storm , there was a selection of rocks left on the
> > > mountain.- no intent. --- (Example A)
> > > After the mountain climbers arranged a selection of rocks, they made a
> > > fire - intent. -- (Example B)
> > Does a sieve select particles randomly or directedly?
>
> A bag of flower fell over a the sieve forming a selection of white
> powder in the pan. - No intent.
>
> The cook poured flower through a sieve forming a selection of white
> powder in the pan. - Intent.
So you understand that sorting and selection can occur with neither
intent nor randomnes.
>
> If there was no intent back 3bil years ago, then don' t use words such
> selection, modification, filter and sieve which used in 99% of cases
> in the directional, volition, intent meaning.
Selection! Selection!
Bwahahaha! Look at'm run!
>
> Note that Wilkins said that ordinary language due to its innate
> volition isn't suitable for discussing concepts within the premise of
> matter before mind. We are using the same words but with different
> belief systems, resulting in a huge circus where Ken Ham is now even
> more confused than Wilkins.
>
Yes. You believe that you can make the nasty evolution go away by
playing sophomoric word games, and we do not. <Looks around at
reality> It appears as though we were correct.
> 1) Theism - mind came before matter. This is a religious metaphysical
> belief taken by faith, which is the evidence of things not seen.
Have any evidence? I'm afraid that I don't accept your wishful
thinking as persuasive evidence. Hell, I don't accept *my wishful
thinking as evidence.
> 2) Non-theism - matter results in mind. Also a religious belief taken
> by faith.
Brains grow. We know quite a bit about the process, and continue to
learn ever faster. We also know quite a bit about how they developed
at a species level, over time.
>
> Because of our different religious belief systems we are basically
> incapable of communicating with one another , because of our religious
> belief systems.
Creationists have a hard time thinking about the consequences of
various "what if" scenarios. That would bring them dangerously close
to looking at the implications of their own beliefs. But we can
usually talk to them. They all seem to share the same fundamental
belief that wanting something really, really hard will make it real.
Kermit
trader100
> For the basic idea, wikipedia this time gives in my opinion a good
> account
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis#Tenets_of_...
>
> >And what
> > relevance could a concept in 1942 have with what we know today.
>
> It was one important stepping stone, as every scientific theory that
> precedes the present knowledge is.
"There is no canonical definition of neo-Darwinism, and surprisingly
few writers on the subject seem to consider it necessary to spell out
precisely what it is that they are discussing. This is especially
curious in view of the controversy which dogs the theory, for one
might have thought that a first step towards resolving the dispute
over its status would be to decide upon a generally acceptable
definition over it. ... Of course, the lack of firm definition does,
as we shall see, make the theory much easier to defend." P.T. Saunders
& M.W. Ho, "Is Neo-Darwinism Falsifiable? - And Does It Matter?",
Nature and System (1982) 4:179-196, p. 179.
trader100
> On Jun 4, 3:25 am, trader100 <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 4, 12:13 pm, Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
>
> > > > Is your concept with "selection" in the random or directed sense.
> > > > After the storm , there was a selection of rocks left on the
> > > > mountain.- no intent. --- (Example A)
> > > > After the mountain climbers arranged a selection of rocks, they made a
> > > > fire - intent. -- (Example B)
> > > Does a sieve select particles randomly or directedly?
>
> > A bag of flower fell over a the sieve forming a selection of white
> > powder in the pan. - No intent.
>
> > The cook poured flower through a sieve forming a selection of white
> > powder in the pan. - Intent.
>
> So you understand that sorting and selection can occur with neither
> intent nor randomnes.
The words sorting and selection like all words in English are used to
communicate either a motive or non-motive. The intent is the issue not
the semantics, semantics merely helps signal sender encode his concept
for signal receiver. The confusion comes in because the 99% usual
definition(semantics) or IEEE like standards committee defined
"selection" to be used only for the concept of a motive,decision.
What went wrong in society is that starting with Patrick Matthews this
rule of language no longer was adhered to by the materialists, thus
their concept isn't clear. They mean that there was no intent 3bil
years ago yet something "selection" 3bil years ago. If there was no
"selection" or decision then why are you using selection ?
unrestra...@hotmail.com
Because there was a selection, but not by a mind. Words change. In
fact, this tendency of the human mind to see intent where there is
none is part of the reason you and other Creationists see "design"
where there is none. You might want to look inside yourself if this
anthropomorphizing annoys you.
From the UC Berkely online biological dictionary:
"selection -- Process which favors one feature of organisms in a
population over another feature found in the population. This occurs
through differential reproduction—those with the favored feature
produce more offspring than those with the other feature, such that
they become a greater percentage of the population in the next
generation."
This isn't a hard concept. Nor will reality go away because you refuse
to communicate.
Kermit
Garamond Lethe
> On Jun 4, 3:46 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> What exactly does the formulation that Darwin may have used in some
>> parts of his extensive writings have to do with the validity of the ToE
>> as it currently understood?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact "...The
> "theory of evolution" refers to the modern evolutionary synthesis, which
> is the current scientific explanation of how these changes occur.
> ......"
>
> Who explained what the Modern synthesis is ?
That's a rather odd question, as it could be answered with the name of
any recent biology textbook author.
> Was it an individual,
> group of people and if so , who says so.
Quoting from just such a textbook:
<q>
The full theoretical reconciliation between Mendelian genetics, biometry
and natural selection came primarily through the work of R. A. Fisher,
Sewall Write, and J.B.S. Haldane. The first and most important
contribution came in 1918, with Fisher's paper on "The correlation
between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance." This set
out to show that the correlations between relatives that had been
measured by Galton, Pearson and the other biometricians could be
explained by multiple Mendelian factors, together with random nongeteic
influences. However, Fisher did much more than this. He defined the
/variance/ and showed that it could be expressed as a sum of components
due to genetic and nongentic causes. The genetic component could itself
be separated into components due to additive effects, dominance, and
interactions between different genes. Fisher's 1918 paper established
much of the present theory of quantitative genetics, as well as the key
statistical technique of /analysis of variance/.
</q>
Barton et al. _Evolution_, 2007.
> Show me the paper, journal or
> monograph that established the MS
http://www.library.adelaide.edu.au/digitised/fisher/9.pdf
> or isn't it established. Or even worse
> nobody knows what is the MS , it a term like ToE that everybody uses but
> the concept it refers to isn't defined.
>
It's really cool that, flipping through that paper, I recognize several
figures and equations that are reproduced in my textbook.
> Is the ToE the theory of how monkeys turned into talking monkeys.
No.
> If not
> why not
No interest, really.
> and who says so.
I do.
> If it doesn't matter who says so, then I want
> to know who says so.
You often want to know things that don't matter.
wf3h
> On Jun 4, 8:49 pm, unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 4, 3:25 am, trader100 <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 4, 12:13 pm, Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
>
> > > > > Is your concept with "selection" in the random or directed sense.
> > > > > After the storm , there was a selection of rocks left on the
> > > > > mountain.- no intent. --- (Example A)
> > > > > After the mountain climbers arranged a selection of rocks, they made a
> > > > > fire - intent. -- (Example B)
> > > > Does a sieve select particles randomly or directedly?
>
> > > A bag of flower fell over a the sieve forming a selection of white
> > > powder in the pan. - No intent.
>
> > > The cook poured flower through a sieve forming a selection of white
> > > powder in the pan. - Intent.
>
> > So you understand that sorting and selection can occur with neither
> > intent nor randomnes.
>
> The words sorting and selection like all words in English are used to
> communicate either a motive or non-motive.
well, no. they can be descriptive of a process and 'motive' is
irrelevant. it can't be helped that creationist produces a crabbed
concept of vocabulary and can not conceive of a process that is self
directed...like a rock falling from a cliff
The intent is the issue not
> the semantics, semantics merely helps signal sender encode his concept
> for signal receiver. The confusion comes in because the 99% usual
> definition(semantics) or IEEE like standards committee defined
> "selection" to be used only for the concept of a motive,decision.
i'm a chemist. we rarely, if ever, refer to IEEE standard. sorry.
another example of a creationist trying to ram something through a
place it doesn't belong. intellectual constipation, it seems
>
> What went wrong in society is that starting with Patrick Matthews this
> rule of language no longer was adhered to by the materialists, thus
> their concept isn't clear. They mean that there was no intent 3bil
> years ago yet something "selection" 3bil years ago. If there was no
> "selection" or decision then why are you using selection ?-
because if you look up virtually any word in the dictionary you'll
see it has multiple meanings. creationists pretend language is clear,
crisp and well defined.
it's not. just look up 'god' and see how many definitions you get.
'trader' has his testicles wrapped around his brain and can't think
of anything but religion
[M]adman
Doubtful.
>>
>>> Kermit
>
> Kermit
[M]adman
You guys can dish it but can't take it
Garamond Lethe
<snip>
> The words sorting and selection like all words in English are used to
> communicate either a motive or non-motive. The intent is the issue not
> the semantics, semantics merely helps signal sender encode his concept
> for signal receiver. The confusion comes in because the 99% usual
> definition(semantics) or IEEE like standards committee defined
> "selection" to be used only for the concept of a motive,decision.
I keep several IEEE standards as pets. Which one are you referring to?
<snip>
trader100
> Because there was a selection, but not by a mind. Words change. In
> fact, this tendency of the human mind to see intent where there is
> none is part of the reason you and other Creationists see "design"
> where there is none. You might want to look inside yourself if this
> anthropomorphizing annoys you.
Some see design where others don't , they can't all use the same word
for this reason. Use words which reflect your intent such as "whatever
happens happens".
> From the UC Berkely online biological dictionary:
> "selection -- Process which favors one feature of organisms in a
> population over another feature found in the population. This occurs
> through differential reproduction—those with the favored feature
> produce more offspring than those with the other feature, such that
> they become a greater percentage of the population in the next
> generation."
Which is a reformulation of Darwins theory of evolution tautology in
origin:
Those favored become more common, those not favored don't because they
are dead. Those favored monkeys then gave birth to humans , those not
favored died.
David Hare-Scott
> On Jun 4, 3:46 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> What exactly does the formulation that Darwin may have used in some
>> parts of his extensive writings have to do with the validity of the
>> ToE as it currently understood?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
> "...The "theory of evolution" refers to the modern evolutionary
> synthesis, which is the current scientific explanation of how these
> changes occur. ......"
>
> Who explained what the Modern synthesis is ? Was it an individual,
> group of people and if so , who says so.
It doesn't matter. Science is not a word game. The validity depends on the
the many lines of evidence that have each been verified by many different
scientists.
Show me the paper, journal
> or monograph that established the MS or isn't it established. Or even
> worse nobody knows what is the MS , it a term like ToE that everybody
> uses but the concept it refers to isn't defined.
>
Who said there was only one concept involved? You are still grasping for
some words to play word games with.
> Is the ToE the theory of how monkeys turned into talking monkeys. If
> not why not and who says so. If it doesn't matter who says so, then I
> want to know who says so.
I say it doesn't matter and I am a Grand Celestial Poobah. Therefore it
doesn't matter. If you want to dispute my pronouncements you have to prove
that
a) GCPs cannot make this pronouncement
b) I am not a GCP
Don't you find being a one-trick pony kinda limiting?
David
trader100
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061030161840AA6GBRV
".....The key point is that speciation does NOT require geographical
isolation ... just genetic isolation. And genetic isolation can be the
result of normal variation that causes individuals to expand into all
available niches, whereupon for those traits that make different
individuals suited for different niches, those traits will
diverge,propagate......"
=== rephrase ===
1) We observe a group of different individuals that can propagate,
occupy, expand into any niche.
2) The traits of these individuals that make them suited to propagate
into any niche, those traits will propagate.
Point 1 is the assertion which we won't dispute: A group of
individuals can occupy any niche.
The question is why do they have these traits? This must be
independently derived in such a way that the truth of the argument
isn't guaranteed, or it must be falsifiable. We must derive the actual
reason each of these individuals were able to occupy any niche. Was
the one perhaps on steroids ? We don't know, the observer who
formulated the observation must now tell us.
Point 2 is where the "bright brittle voice of logic folly" intrudes as
Berlinski put it. "Propagate" and "suited to propagate" alludes to the
same fact but doesn't tell us why the traits were suitable to
propagate. I replaced "occupy" with propagate because occupy and
propagate alludes to the same fact. If the individual "occupied" a
niche he will leave descendants "propagating" his line. Point 2
guarantees the truth of the proposition, giving one the illusion of
being brilliant.
wf3h
> === different niches ===http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061030161840AA6GBRV
> ".....The key point is that speciation does NOT require geographical
> isolation ... just genetic isolation. And genetic isolation can be the
> result of normal variation that causes individuals to expand into all
> available niches, whereupon for those traits that make different
> individuals suited for different niches, those traits will
> diverge,propagate......"
>
> === rephrase ===
> 1) We observe a group of different individuals that can propagate,
> occupy, expand into any niche.
> 2) The traits of these individuals that make them suited to propagate
> into any niche, those traits will propagate.
>
> Point 1 is the assertion which we won't dispute: A group of
> individuals can occupy any niche.
> The question is why do they have these traits? This must be
> independently derived in such a way that the truth of the argument
> isn't guaranteed, or it must be falsifiable. We must derive the actual
> reason each of these individuals were able to occupy any niche. Was
> the one perhaps on steroids ? We don't know, the observer who
> formulated the observation must now tell us.
we apply the logic of a tested mechanism: natural selection. that's
how science is done. we test the mechanism in the lab; we observe
nature to see if this mechanisms operates in nature. it does.
that's the reason.
as to creationism? useless. saying 'god did it'' says nothing about
nature. so go beat your brains out against your 2000 year history of
failure and tell us why you think it has anything to say about nature.
>
> Point 2 is where the "bright brittle voice of logic folly" intrudes as
> Berlinski put it. "Propagate" and "suited to propagate" alludes to the
> same fact but doesn't tell us why the traits were suitable to
> propagate.
what part of 'differential reproduction' do you refuse to understand?
because it's been explained to you ad nauseum. the logical conclusion
is that, with your 4th century mindset, hobbled by religious
fanaticism, you simply can't understand concepts like 'empiricism',
'observation', 'test', 'laboratory' and other ideas developed by
science since the 16th century.
that's part of the problem with creationism: you're proud of your 4th
century language skills.
I replaced "occupy" with propagate because occupy and
> propagate alludes to the same fact.
and 'lightening' and 'lightening bug' do the same, i suppose, to
paraphrase mark twain
you seem to enjoy distortions of fact. that's part of the reason
you're a creationist.
If the individual "occupied" a
> niche he will leave descendants "propagating" his line. Point 2
> guarantees the truth of the proposition, giving one the illusion of
> being brilliant.
creationists have, for 2000 years, prided themselves on the idea that
'god did it' is a profound definition of the way nature works when it
actually says nothing
i wouldnt be so quick to throw stones at glass houses if i were you.
trader100
What part of "green light" do you refuse to understand? -
wf3h
i'm amazed you know about light. i thought your religion prohibited
it.
David Hare-Scott
>
> Because of our different religious belief systems we are basically
> incapable of communicating with one another , because of our religious
> belief systems.
There must be a special word to describe people who are the exemplar of
their favourite theory.
David
trader100
specific the difference between the concept Darwin had with it and the
concept he had with Theory of Evolution? None: ToNS, ToE, selection,
divergence, Survival of the most suitable (Spencer)...., etc..... were
all different word fillers for the same tautological essence from
Patrick Matthews: Those that didn't reproduce were less perfect while
those that did reproduce were more perfect or what is adapted is
adapted from James Hutton, Which Darwin restated as "....The
preservation of individuals, which were favorable, and the
destruction of those which weren't favorable......" , labeling it ToE
which he also called Theory of Natural selection 36 times, which was
that the dinosaurs died because there were less improved.
This tautological thinking was then taken over by Gould:"..The
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..."
With the insanity continuing here at Harvard
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2009/06.04/wrangham.html
",,,Wrangham says. “We are biologically adapted to cook food. It’s
part of who we are and affects us in every way you can imagine:
biologically, anatomically, socially...”
How did Wrangham manage to figure out that were are adapted to cook
food other than noting we do cook food? Instead of deriving the actual
reason we are cooking food (nobody really knows) he formulates a
proposition that cannot be disputed, which can be generalized to all
of nature: A rock is adapted at being a rock by the same logic, with
"adapted' here meaning that through some process something morphed
into a rock, which begs the question because it assumes the very thing
that needs to be proven.
Ken Ham doesn't point out these logical fallacies because then there
would be nothing to refute and no books to sell.
trader100
> With the insanity continuing here at Harvardhttp://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2009/06.04/wrangham.html
> ",,,Wrangham says. “We are biologically adapted to cook food. It’s
> part of who we are and affects us in every way you can imagine:
> biologically, anatomically, socially...”
> How did Wrangham manage to figure out that were are adapted to cook
> food other than noting we do cook food? Instead of deriving the actual
> reason we are cooking food (nobody really knows) he formulates a
> proposition that cannot be disputed, which can be generalized to all
> of nature: A rock is adapted at being a rock by the same logic, with
> "adapted' here meaning that through some process something morphed
> into a rock, which begs the question because it assumes the very thing
> that needs to be proven.
Lets reformulate Wrangham's banality as: Humans are adapted for
breathing air. The sentence is an obvious truism with word "adapted" a
proxy for two concepts.
1) Concept 1 with "adapted": As the eons went by something developed
into an air breathing human. This conjecture needs to be proven and
not assumed , which would be circular reasoning.
2) Concept 2 with "adapted": Indeed man is adapted for breathing air ,
but this is a truism. Thus the pragmatics with the word "adapted" can
in transmutationary speak always begs the question - concept 1 , and
the truism masks this underlying fallacy.
wf3h
>
> Ken Ham doesn't point out these logical fallacies because then there
> would be nothing to refute and no books to sell.
unfortunately trader, with his 3rd century view of science and
language, exhibits what's known in sociology as a 'culture bound'
syndrome. his mind is locked into a box bound by religion. this
religion has, as a condition, a mindset that can not understand the
basic concepts of experimentation, data analysis, etc. he keeps
chasing himself in circles, trying to look for a way out of his self
imposed intellectual prison.
it's actually one reason it took until the 16th century for western
civilization to break free of this 'magical thinking' and start to
apply the rules of logic and reason to nature.
creationism has no explanation of the natural world because it has no
method to explore it.
wf3h
>
> Lets reformulate Wrangham's banality as: Humans are adapted for
> breathing air. The sentence is an obvious truism with word "adapted" a
> proxy for two concepts.
> 1) Concept 1 with "adapted": As the eons went by something developed
> into an air breathing human. This conjecture needs to be proven and
> not assumed , which would be circular reasoning.
?? since we know that, at one time, there were no land animals, we
look in the fossil record for the development of life from the sea to
land. that is pretty well documented in the fossil record.
since air breathing was not always present, it developed. that is the
story of nature: thermodynamics...the exploitation of new sources of
energy. O2 is present in air in much higher concentrations than it is
in water. and we can see the development of air breathing life via
natural selection.
creationism has no explanation for this.
Garamond Lethe
<snip>
How's the Fisher paper treating you?
John S. Wilkins
You gave him Fisher? I *thought* I heard a major explosion from across
the Pacific.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvinthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Garamond Lethe
> Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 09:53:29 -0700, trader100 wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> How's the Fisher paper treating you?
>
> You gave him Fisher? I *thought* I heard a major explosion from across
> the Pacific.
Well, he asked.....
....ok, I'll try to be more careful.
David Hare-Scott
Is there a point in here somewhere?
David
David Hare-Scott
This is just more of the same circular pointless waffle.
Let's cut to the chase: what is your explanation of the origin of the
diversity of living things that we see around us today?
David
eri...@home.com
> On Jun 4, 5:15 am, eri...@home.com wrote:
>
> > So are you arguing that selection doesn't occur and hasn't occurred,
> > or are you just arguing semantics?
>
> Is your concept with "selection" in the random or directed sense.
>
> After the storm , there was a selection of rocks left on the
> mountain.- no intent. --- (Example A)
> After the mountain climbers arranged a selection of rocks, they made a
> fire - intent. -- (Example B)
I'm using "selection" in the non-directed sense.
What is the purpose of your original post? I don't understand the
point you are making.
Burkhard
Only if you count the full stops.
trader100
The Lord Jesus Christ who holds everything together by the power of
his language. In the beginning was Language, not matter.
trader100
If your intention is "random" with "directed(selection)" you are
forming an oxymoron or contradiction in terms. One shouldn't use
"selection or decision" at all if the intention is "random", rather
say whatever happens happens, so we know the intent.
wf3h
And since you've proven language is meaningless, what does that say
about jesus?
trader100
> > > After the storm , there was a selection of rocks left on the
> > > mountain.- no intent. --- (Example A)
> > > After the mountain climbers arranged a selection of rocks, they made a
> > > fire - intent. -- (Example B)
>
> > I'm using "selection" in the non-directed sense.
>
> > What is the purpose of your original post? I don't understand the
> > point you are making.
>
> If your intention is "random" with "directed(selection)" you are
> forming an oxymoron or contradiction in terms. One shouldn't use
> "selection or decision" at all if the intention is "random", rather
> say whatever happens happens, so we know the intent.
http://www.archive.org/stream/irishnaturalist05roya/irishnaturalist05roya_djvu.txt
"...Specimens were handed round for inspection, as well as a selection
of rocks found in the glacial beds about Dublin, which......."
Or restated " ...... a sampling of rocks found ...." Selection,
sampling is semantics, the issue is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics
where I posted the "You have a green light" example......
Another transmutationist (not evolution, don't use the word
evolution) professor wrote on his university web page under his bio:
".....I study selection....." Selection what ?
wf3h
wf3h
> Which is a reformulation of Darwins theory of evolution tautology in
> origin:
> Those favored become more common, those not favored don't because they
> are dead. Those favored monkeys then gave birth to humans , those not
> favored died.
he just doesn't understand the word 'tautology'. it is, i suppose, the
best he can do with his 4th century thinking
first, let's examine language. his language. he refers to evolution as
a tautology. this would be true if and only if evolution did not have
a testable mechanism. but it does. and it's been explained to him ad
nauseum
why, then, can't he at least comprehend the concept? primarily because
he, like all fundamentalists, suffers from a 'culture bound' syndrome
where his worldview does not encompass the language necessary to
understand modern science.
dan diner, professor at hebrew university, has explained this
phenonemon in the context of islamic fundamentalism. its consequence
has been that arab muslim world has stagnated for the last 5 centuries
relative to the rest of the world
fundamentalism tries to explain the world in terms of myth and magic.
it can not, by definition, understand science. that's why 'trader's
best 'explanation' of evolution is framed in terms of 'tautology'. he
has no understanding of, and therefore no language for, science.
creationism is intellectually crippling. 'trader''s argument is a
great example of how crippled he is.
trader100
> first, let's examine language. his language. he refers to evolution as
> a tautology. this would be true if and only if evolution did not have
> a testable mechanism. but it does. and it's been explained to him ad
> nauseum
The concept James Hutton -
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/browse_frm/thread/aefd3884630a72bb#
-
had in 1794 and Aristotle 500BC had nothing to do with the word
"evolution". Evolution as a word arbitrarily associated with
Aristotle's tautology was only foisted on manking in the 5/6th
edition. Even Darwin objected to the word. The concept a reader had
with it in 1870 has nothing to do with what PZ Myers intends with it.
It was a strategic move of language deceit in the same way adaptation,
selection and modification is used, words we use in 99% of cases to
express our volitional intent. A volition that wasn't there 3bil years
ago when something happened to happen.
wf3h
> On Jun 7, 9:50 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > first, let's examine language. his language. he refers to evolution as
> > a tautology. this would be true if and only if evolution did not have
> > a testable mechanism. but it does. and it's been explained to him ad
> > nauseum
>
> -
> had in 1794 and Aristotle 500BC had nothing to do with the word
> "evolution". Evolution as a word arbitrarily associated with
> Aristotle's tautology was only foisted on manking in the 5/6th
> edition. Even Darwin objected to the word.
darwin was not aristotle and darwin defined his concepts, as
scientists do.
again and again you keep proving my point: your religious orientation
prevents you from understanding science. you are incapable of doing
so. your reference to aristotle proves it. you look at a reference
from 2500 years ago and pretend it has relevance to today. it does
not.
creationism is a-scientific (to coin a neologism). it excludes
empiricism. the word, and concept of 'empiricism' is noticeable by its
absence from 'trader's' analysis. he never...NEVER references concepts
such as 'experiment', 'mechanism', 'test', or 'data' because such
concepts are utterly alien to creationism.
\
The concept a reader had
> with it in 1870 has nothing to do with what PZ Myers intends with it.
> It was a strategic move of language deceit in the same way adaptation,
> selection and modification is used, words we use in 99% of cases to
> express our volitional intent. A volition that wasn't there 3bil years
> ago when something happened to happen.
irrelevant. the concept of 'volition' is absent in science. again you
prove my point. you insist on analyzing 21st century science with
language from hundreds, if not thousands of years ago.
science did not exist then. the concepts we think of in science
started to be structured in the 16th and 17th century. creationism is
rooted in a time before this and so can not understand, nor express,
these ideas.
that's why your comments are useless except for, perhaps, archival
purposes. you yourself are, in a sense, a transitional...a living
linguistic fossil caught in amber.
good job. rarely do we get to see such antique thinking. appreciate
it.
eri...@home.com
No, not in the "random" sense either. I'm using selection as in
"natural selection", an entirely legitimate use of the word, as
defined in the references below. And I think I see now the point of
your original post. You really are just arguing about the words,
right?
From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/selection:
se·lec·tion
3: a natural or artificial process that results or tends to result in
the survival and propagation of some individuals or organisms but not
of others with the result that the inherited traits of the survivors
are perpetuated —
And from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/selection:
se⋅lec⋅tion
4. Biology. any natural or artificial process that results in
differential reproduction among the members of a population so that
the inheritable traits of only certain individuals are passed on, or
are passed on in greater proportion, to succeeding generations.
Compare natural selection, sexual selection, kin selection, artificial
selection.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.
se·lec·tion (sĭ-lěk'shən)
4. Biology A natural or artificial process that favors or induces
survival and perpetuation of one kind of organism over others that die
or fail to produce offspring.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
selection se·lec·tion (sĭ-lěk'shən)
n.
A natural or artificial process that favors or induces survival and
perpetuation of one kind of organism over others that die or fail to
produce offspring.
The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by
Houghton Mifflin Company.
trader100
> > If your intention is "random" with "directed(selection)" you are
> > forming an oxymoron or contradiction in terms. One shouldn't use
> > "selection or decision" at all if the intention is "random", rather
> > say whatever happens happens, so we know the intent.
> No, not in the "random" sense either. I'm using selection as in
> "natural selection", an entirely legitimate use of the word, as
> defined in the references below. And I think I see now the point of
> your original post. You really are just arguing about the words,
> right?
> Fromhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/selection:
> se·lec·tion
> 3: a natural or artificial process that results or tends to result in
> the survival and propagation of some individuals or organisms but not
> of others with the result that the inherited traits of the survivors
> are perpetuated —
=== rephrase ===
The survival of individuals but not of others with the result that
the inherited traits of the survivors are perpetuated
=== rephrase ===
The survival of individuals, their traits are perpetuated and those
that didn't survive, their traits are not perpetuated.
Which is the same thing Darwin told us: The dinosaurs died because
they were less improved, thus leaving no offspring.
eri...@home.com
If you would explain the point of this post or your original post it
would be helpful.
unrestra...@hotmail.com
> On Jun 4, 8:49 pm, unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 4, 3:25 am, trader100 <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 4, 12:13 pm, Wombat <tri...@multiweb.nl> wrote:
>
> > > > > Is your concept with "selection" in the random or directed sense.
> > > > > After the storm , there was a selection of rocks left on the
> > > > > mountain.- no intent. --- (Example A)
> > > > > After the mountain climbers arranged a selection of rocks, they made a
> > > > > fire - intent. -- (Example B)
>
> > > A bag of flower fell over a the sieve forming a selection of white
> > > powder in the pan. - No intent.
>
> > > The cook poured flower through a sieve forming a selection of white
> > > powder in the pan. - Intent.
>
> > So you understand that sorting and selection can occur with neither
> > intent nor randomnes.
>
> The words sorting and selection like all words in English are used to
> communicate either a motive or non-motive.
No, not always. In biology (and probably some other fields) selection
has been co-opted for a related but mindles process. Too bad if it
upsets you.
> The intent is the issue
The intent is to explain how the world works. When you try to apply
pragmatics to ordinary conversation you just come across as an
incompetent geek. Incompetent because you are wrong; geek because you
are not having a dialog, but instead are killing the conversation in
some sort of soothing-the-ego dance. It's a repetitive dance, and
therefore boring.
> not
> the semantics, semantics merely helps signal sender encode his concept
> for signal receiver.
The code you are sending is received as "I am a hopeless nerd. I
cannot get a date; girls won't talk to me and I don't know why".
Here is the response; let's see if you can decode it:
*** incoming ***
Try talking to her like a normal human being. Stop telling her she
can't communicate when she knows she has no trouble talking to her
friends. Be kind. Don't forget personal hygiene.
*** end of transmission ***
> The confusion comes in because the 99% usual
> definition(semantics) or IEEE like standards committee defined
> "selection" to be used only for the concept of a motive,decision.
The dictionaries determine how words are indeed used; they are not
some organization's rule book. They typically refer to recognized
experts on language usage and use them as a source of raw material.
This includes professionals in technical fields.
>
> What went wrong in society is that starting with Patrick Matthews
What went wrong was your decing that this has anything to do with how
the world works, or with communicating.
> this
> rule of language no longer was adhered to by the materialists, thus
> their concept isn't clear. They mean that there was no intent 3bil
> years ago yet something "selection"
"Selection" is the noun form, not the verb, you dufus. If you're going
to say something silly, at least use standard grammar.
> 3bil years ago. If there was no
> "selection" or decision then why are you using selection ?
No particular reason. Call if "Fred" if you like. Fred largely
explains the diversity of like on Earth. Do you have another testable
theory that fits all the data? Do you know how Fred works?
Kermit
Burkhard
> To answer the question: What is the principle of Divergence or more
> specific the difference between the concept Darwin had with it and the
> concept he had with Theory of Evolution? None: ToNS, ToE, selection,
> divergence, Survival of the most suitable (Spencer)...., etc..... were
> all different word fillers for the same tautological essence from
> Patrick Matthews: Those that didn't reproduce were less perfect while
> those that did reproduce were more perfect or what is adapted is
> adapted from James Hutton, Which Darwin restated as "....The
> preservation of individuals, which were favorable, and the
> destruction of those which weren't favorable......" , labeling it ToE
> which he also called Theory of Natural selection 36 times, which was
> that the dinosaurs died because there were less improved.
>
> This tautological thinking was then taken over by Gould:"..The
> 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..."
>
> ",,,Wrangham says. “We are biologically adapted to cook food. It’s
> part of who we are and affects us in every way you can imagine:
> biologically, anatomically, socially...”
>
> How did Wrangham manage to figure out that were are adapted to cook
> food other than noting we do cook food?
By looking at what biomechanics tells us about what we need in terms
of energy to walks upright, e.g.
in Aiello, L.C., Key, C., 2002. Energetic consequences of being a
Homo erectus female. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 14, 551–565.
By looking at what we know about how cooking impacts on nutrient
composition, e.g.
Ayankunbi, M.A., Keshinro, O.O., Egele, P., 1991. Effect of methods of
preparation on the nutrient composition of some cassava products—Garri
(Eba), Lafun and Fufu. Food Chem. 41, 349–354.
By looking at what chemistry and biology te,, us about digestion of
differently prepared food, e.g.
Bravo, L., Siddhuraju, P., Saura-Calixto, F., 1998. Effect of various
processing methods on the in vitro starch digestibility and resistant
starch content of Indian pulses. J. Agric. Food Chem. 46, 4667–4674.
Kingman, S., Englyst, H., 1994. The influence of food preparation
methods on the in vitro digestibility of starch in
potatoes. Food Chem. 49, 181–186.
By looking at the fossil record and how the size of our teeth changed,
e.g.
Brace, C.L., Rosenberg, K.R., Hunt, K.D., 1987. Gradual change in
human tooth size in the late Pleistocene and post- Pleistocene.
Evolution 41, 705–720
by looking at the way in which our gut and the guts of other primates
work, e.g.
Chivers, D.J., Hladik, C.M., 1984. Diet and gut morphology in
primates. In: Chivers, D.J., Wood, B.A., Bilsborough, A. (Eds.), Food
Acquisition and Processing in Primates. Plenum Press, New York, pp.
213–230.
Periago, M.J., Ros, G., Casas, J.L., 1997. Non-starch polysaccharides
and in vitro starch digestibility of raw and cooked chick peas. J.
Food Sci. 62, 93–96.
By looking at the earliest traces of cooked food, e.g.
Brain, C.K., 1993. The occurrence of burnt bones at Swartkrans and
their implications for the control of fire by early
hominids. In: Brain, C.K. (Ed.), Swartkrans. A Cave’s Chronicle of
Early Man. Transvaal Museum Monograph
No. 8, Transvaal, pp. 229–242.
by looking at the energy required to maintain specific lifestyles such
as hunting, e.g.
Cordain, L., Miller, J.B., Eaton, S.B., Mann, N., Holt, S.H.A., Speth,
J.D., 2000. Plant–animal subsistence ratios and macronutrient energy
estimations in worldwide hunter–gatherer diets. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 71,
682–692.
by testing his ideas against observations about the diets we find in
contemporary hunter societies, e.g.
Draper, H.H., 1977. The aboriginal Eskimo diet in modern perspective.
Am. Anthrop. 79, 309–316.
by looking at what medicine and anthropology tell us about the
relation between diet, gut size and brain
Hladik, C.M., Chivers, D.J., Pasquet, P., 1999. On diet and gut size
in non-human primates and humans: is there a
relationship to brain size? Curr. Anthrop. 40, 695–697.
by looking at what we observe in the feeding habits of other animals,
e.g.
Milton, K., 2000. Back to basics: why foods of wild primates have
relevance for modern human health. Nutrition 16,
480–483.
by looking at other physical of cooking in early history, such as
remaining ovens or
Teaford, M.F., Ungar, P.S., Grine, F.E., 2002. Paleontological
evidence for the diets of African Plio-Pleistocene hominins with
special reference to early Homo. In: Ungar, P.S., Teaford, M.F.
(Eds.), Human Diet: Its Origin and Evolution. Bergin & Garvey,
Westport, CT, pp. 143–166.
by bringing all these together, like other researchers did before
him, e.g
Smith, C.S., Martin, W., Johansen, K.A., 2001. Sego lilies and
prehistoric foragers: return rates, pit ovens, and carbohydrates. J.
Archaeol. Sci. 28, 169–183.
short, by actually doing research and looking at the chemistry,
biology and medical aspects of food processing and correlating it with
the physical finds of early humans, their bodies and their tools.
NOT however by looking in a dictionary and trying to figure out how
the world works by sitting in a closed room.
trader100
This thread would help, you seem to be new around here: http://bit.ly/HARS7
Noshell.... who publishes in biophysics journals made many informative
contributions. Such as this:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/a9582738eb994b2b/1ac2fc0c52c491d9#1ac2fc0c52c491d9
{{{
On Apr 21, 10:50 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 11:14 am, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 21, 7:22 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > But I think the much bigger difficulty lies in the intent to deceive
> > > (or willful ignorance) of creationist leaders. I don't see a huge deal
> > > being made out of metaphorical language in other disciplines (ions
> > > "want" to bond, etc.).
>
> > The way ions bond can be described mathematically but where is the
> > maths that shows how inputs into a blob of jelly gets mapped to an
> > output - clucking chicken ?
>
> Which argument is just another example of your inability to think
> clearly, or at all. The observation that such maths don't exist is not
> an argument that the development of biological complexity (assuming
> I'm deciphering your glossolalia correctly) cannot be demonstrated
> mathematically, it is an argument that it has not yet been
> demonstrated mathematically.
>
> The latter, as you use it, is an argument from ignorance. I'm guessing
> someone with your stupendous linguistic prowess is familiar with that
> particular fallacy?
>
> RLC
See this thread
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/ac52c73b1fc53deb?tvc=1&q=natural+selection+favorable+measured
And the posts by noshellswill who publishes in bio physics journals
but can't tell us his real name or PZ Myers will hunt him down:
-----------
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?
----------------------
'll grant common meaning up to here. But by refusing to reference a
physical layer, look at the trouble you run into.
> Do you agree that if there is some environmental factor (predators,
> human breeders) that causes one color of moths to breed in greater
> numbers, that the next generation will have a greater percentage
> whatever genetic complement causes that coloraition?
A quantitative speculation, agreed. But if you wish to demonstrate
this speculation ( NOT pejorative, scientists speculate freely ) ,
then
you must (quantitatively) MEASURE the "genetic complement"
percentages
in a way that is independent of measuring breeding success.
How to do this? I'm afraid you must drop-down a level, from genes/
alleles
to DNA base-pair or amino acid sequences. Or perhaps you can
directly measure (quantitate) changes in 3-dim protein structure. You
pick the method, but you do not to pick the level at which
quantitation
is performed.
Then you may compare changes in genetic (heritable) information with
changes in reproductive success.
This next paragraph doesn't so much get you in trouble as admit the
limitations of your process.
> And do you finally agree that if we know the percentages involved, that
> we can predict the changes that are likely to occur over several
> generations due to that environmental factor?
In this thread, Chris Thompson assures me this is perfectly do-
able ...
I checked and he's correct. In physics there are lots of such
recursive
procedures --
*******
I'm ignoring simple curve-fitting by X[k+1) = X(k) + <fdelt>
(k,k-1...)
*******
-- they go by the name of kinematics and are perfectly
respectable. A classic example is position of a moving object
parameterized by time:
D = D0 + V0*t + 0.5*a*t^2
The equation produces true results, widely independent of the
dynamical
physical system "sitting beneath" it. The crucial word is WIDELY. The
quantities V0 & D0 are boundary conditions not derivable from the
equation, while acceleration "a" must be determined beforehand
directly
from the dynamics ( note: dynamics --> forcelaw p.d.e.s ).
Do you see ... that the ( high level ) kinematic equation has
precious
little scientific meaning by itself? That's really important to see,
because it's directly analogous to your use of pop-gen to support
the
scientific stature of biol-evol.
<clip>
-------------------------
ppreciate your response and detailed example. Nice "kinematics". My
critique of "alleles" as a variable still stands ... I've nothing to
defend, or believe. You must demonstrate "alleles" "downward"
quantitative
structure, and may not point at high-level behavioral results to do
this.
Same goalposts. What you're telling me is that you CANNOT do my
requested
calculation : from base-pair changes to population change.
--------------
Continuing my comments:
> Though I don't know, it would not surprise me if a relatively simple
> case like coloration has been described step by step; perhaps it is as
> simple as a change in one protein. But it doesn't matter if it has
> not. By (what I believe to be your) definition of a "real science", no
> science qualifies.
Firstly, if you believe a "... change in one protein..." deserves
the
term SIMPLE then you have never studied, tried to calculate or
measure protein 3-dim structure. It illustrates a limiting and
dangerous frame-of-mind.
Secondly, you're dead wrong about real science.
> Newton, for instance, managed to do quite a lot of excellent work on
> gravity, without the slightest idea about what gravity ultimately *is*
> or what causes it. He did what all scienitists do: recognize
> regularities in nature and describe how they interact.
Science has very modest interest in phrases like:
"... what X ( X=gravity, wavefunction ...) ultimately is ..."
That's coffee-table chatter. Or once every couple-centuries along
comes
Einstein. But every scientist requires a fundamental dynamic, from
which
quantitative predictions can be made and the theory extended. And
measurement method(s) by which those predictions may be tested.
This
duo is the very guts of scientific method. The mathematics
foundation
is NOT an option ... better to say that verbal expression of
foundation
concepts is like a homely first wife, to be exchanged for a younger
model at connivance. But the diffy-Qs are a faithful mistress.
Not only has this dual requirement been wildly successful in
allowing
human control of natural processes, but also provides a means of
keeping
out rif-raff ( Freud comes to mind ...). OKey, string-theory snuck
in,
but it's a long time between new particle accelerators ... %^]
> Mendel invented genetics without ever seeing a gene. AFAIK, population
> genetics works just fine on a level that Mendel would have understood.
I have never debated, nor do I doubt that natural history has many
true
things to tell us.
> Greg Guarino
True, I've talked way too much and said nothing clever. Everyone I
know
who does science does it the way I've described.
-----------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/tree/browse_frm/thread/ac52c73b1fc53deb/501f02d8ded94ddd?rnum=191&q=natural+selection+favorable+measured&_done=%2Fgroup%2Ftalk.origins%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fac52c73b1fc53deb%3Ftvc%3D1%26q%3Dnatural%2Bselection%2Bfavorable%2Bmeasured%26#doc_376ab23e119594ad
> Other than noting that no bacteria reproduces in high concentrations
> of streptomycin how was their reproductive potential measured ?
BSpace:
See:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/
and
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/molecular-genetics/
Reading these two notes helps to understand the kind of discussions
that appear in this n.g. It was news to me. Evidently there's a hot,
bloody ongoing debate within the biol-evol community about necessary
and
appropriate levels-of-description for biology processes. Call these
two
the Cytosolic-olians and the polypeptid-arillians -- my impression is
the
conflict is more about agenda and social_power than science -- but,
YMMV
so read the articles and find your own conclusions.
Anyrate, looks like "talk.origins" as a social venue belongs to the
former
group C-olians , which explains much smarmy, 19th century kant and
an utter refusal to even confront the requirement for a bio-polymer
level
attack on evolutionary questions. It's a matter of social clan, not a
matter of pushing scientific boundaries.
So don't have-a-cow when your prodding elicits the same, drab
responses.
>> Other than noting that certain individuals contributed more offspring
>> than others how were their successfulness measured ?
> Other than measuring the distance between two points, how do you
> measure the distance between two points?
> Do you honestly think that you are fooling anyone with this pathetic
> nonsense?
> RF
Cheezy paraphrase, RF: Better to try ..." Other than measuring the
distance between two events, how do you measure the displacement
between
two events?"
But, then one is tempted to suggest ... temperature? The
phase_space of each "event" is very large.
nss
-------------
--------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/tree/browse_frm/thread/ac52c73b1fc53deb/e78545b114b487ee?rnum=261&q=natural+selection+favorable+measured&_done=%2Fgroup%2Ftalk.origins%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fac52c73b1fc53deb%3Ftvc%3D1%26q%3Dnatural%2Bselection%2Bfavorable%2Bmeasured%26#doc_039cf6188032f9c9
> Can you give an example of a "formal definition" of a scientific term
> as you mean it? For example, who created the term "gravity," what is
> it's definition, and where was it defined?
STM:
Scientific terms are ALWAYS formally defined in-terms-of the equations
by
which quantitative effects may be derived from asserted causes. This
of-course includes probabilistic behavior, but we don't NEED that for
a Newtonian "gravity" example.
G*(ma)*(mb)
Fg = -------------
|(ra) - (rb)|^2
Do you see? "Gravity" is defined by an equation that tells us how-to
calculate a quantitative value. Now, you may still quibble that
"gravitational force" chases-the-tail of "gravity. But Newtons 1st
Law
tells us what to expect quantitatively from any (net) force, in terms
of
measurable behavior.
<sum>F = M*(D2)R/(DT2)
Equating we have the "dynamics" equation:
MA = Gm/r^2 ... which differential equation may be solved for
an
appropriate "position" variable "r" as a function of various
dummy
variables ( time, angle) . See WIKIPEDIA or any Junior-level
classical mechanics text for details.
The crucial point is that the scientific term "gravity" is so defined
as
to produce quantitative predictions. These predictions may be tested
by
measurement, in this case of position as a function of angle or time.
The
variable MASS may be determined independently.
Do you see? Verbal descriptions, explanations, justifications etc are
"external" and (almost) irrelevant to the science. Definitions come
through the predictive equations. It's a stricture on ANY discipline
wishing to call itself a science. And no, your opinion on this matter
really does not count.
> Does your opinion count? If so, why? All I see here is an asssertion
> about what constitutes "true science". But I see no argument for the
> truth of that assertion. There's a hint of a "no true Scotsman" sort of
> claim, and if I point to scientific terms that aren't defined by
> equations, you will probably just tell me that they aren't really
> scientific terms.
> But really, how silly is this? If we believed you, we'd have to suppose
> that there was no science of chemistry before Shrodinger, no scentific
> theory of atoms until Bohr, at a minimum, and so on. Mathematics is a
> tool of science, not its sine qua non.
> Is "mafic" a scientific term? What about "Quercus agrifolia"?
JH:
I expected better ... as no chemist needs be ashamed. Boyles and
Charles
Law predate ES, as does Maxwells kinetic theory. Gibbs too, and many
others ... Let's not forget 19th electro-chemists and spectroscopists
half-of-whom were chemists.
Yep, 18th & 19th Century chemists got quantitative and got molecular
as
fast as they could. What is YOUR problem?
-----------------------------------------------
}}}
backspace
> > Point 2 is where the "bright brittle voice of logic folly" intrudes as
> > Berlinski put it. "Propagate" and "suited to propagate" alludes to the
> > same fact but doesn't tell us why the traits were suitable to
> > propagate.
> what part of 'differential reproduction' do you refuse to understand?
What is the difference in concepts that is encoded using the symbols
strings "reproduction" and "differential reproduction".
"reproduction" isn't a concept it is a means of encoding for a concept
- what's the concept and who says so?
fnord
wf3h
> On Jun 5, 11:21 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > Point 2 is where the "bright brittle voice of logic folly" intrudes as
> > > Berlinski put it. "Propagate" and "suited to propagate" alludes to the
> > > same fact but doesn't tell us why the traits were suitable to
> > > propagate.
> > what part of 'differential reproduction' do you refuse to understand?
>
> What is the difference in concepts that is encoded using the symbols
> strings "reproduction" and "differential reproduction".
the word 'differential'.
for a self described language guru you seem not to know too much about
language.
> "reproduction" isn't a concept it is a means of encoding for a concept
> - what's the concept and who says so?
irrelevant, vague and meaningless question. try getting to at least
the 20th century. you're stuck in the 3rd century as i've proved
before.
Kermit
> On Jun 5, 11:21 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > Point 2 is where the "bright brittle voice of logic folly" intrudes as
> > > Berlinski put it. "Propagate" and "suited to propagate" alludes to the
> > > same fact but doesn't tell us why the traits were suitable to
> > > propagate.
> > what part of 'differential reproduction' do you refuse to understand?
>
> What is the difference in concepts that is encoded using the symbols
> strings "reproduction" and "differential reproduction".
Differential:
" adjective: relating to or showing a difference ("Differential
treatment")"
Some individual organisms will reproduce more successfully than others
in their genepool.
> "reproduction" isn't a concept it is a means of encoding for a concept
> - what's the concept and who says so?
When you know what "reproduction" means in a biological context, and
can speak plain English, you can consider learning enough about
evolutionary science to criticize it. If you still want to.
You, however, will never get to that point. wf3h is right - you
believe in the magic of words, and think that evolution isn't real as
long as you manipulate the symbols with the right incantations. Please
justify your bizarre notion that words have no meaning without
identifying some authority first.
>
> fnord
Kermit
backspace
> well, no. they can be descriptive of a process and 'motive' is
> irrelevant. it can't be helped that creationist produces a crabbed
> concept of vocabulary and can not conceive of a process that is self
> directed...like a rock falling from a cliff
Did the rock have intent? Are you a pantheist who believes that the
words coming out of your mouth are illusions created by the banging
atoms in your head.
> The intent is the issue not
The intent is always the issue within my theistic belief system, if
what you say you have no intention why should I believe what you say?
> > What went wrong in society is that starting with Patrick Matthews this
> > rule of language no longer was adhered to by the materialists, thus
> > their concept isn't clear. They mean that there was no intent 3bil
> > years ago yet something "selection" 3bil years ago. If there was no
> > "selection" or decision then why are you using selection ?-
> because if you look up virtually any word in the dictionary you'll
> see it has multiple meanings. creationists pretend language is clear,
> crisp and well defined.
"Selectus" was well defined, what isn't defined is the pragmatics
people have with the words today. Note carefully what John Wilkins
wrote about this very issue:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/cc737705dbc10c8e/877845bc2f2a4be0?lnk=st&q=&rnum=2#877845bc2f2a4be0
"...No. Voluntaristic means that it implies agency, conscious or not.
If you use a term of agency, it is a *psychological* leap to inferring
a conscious agent. This is why "natural selection" was not good use
for ordinary language users to understand natural selection (and you
are clearly an ordinary language user in this respect). SotF was a
problem for the implication, but not the fact, that it was a
tautology. It isn't. Neither term is wholly satisfactory, but not
because there is a problem
with natural selection, but with ordinary *language*. This is why NS
is now a mathematical equation, which doesn't have those problems of
implications and connotations of ordinary language. Reality is about
facts not language. I have previously thrice listed these equations.
You can harp on the linguistic meanings all you like - it is a problem
with your understanding of natural selection, not with natural
selection itself. .."
He says: "... not because there is a problem with natural
selection....." There isn't a problem with who's concept that is
being labeled Natural selection , Darwin or Patrick Matthews? Which
individual is being referred to because the Springer Journal article
on Matthews noted how one person's natural selection isn't another
person's idea of natural selection as per
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/7389f2ce36436a27/4ba42343d7a0fb91#4ba42343d7a0fb91
This was a conclusion I came to independently and was pleasantly
surprised to have found an actual journal citation for it because the
moment you say you are a YEC then people automatically ignore what you
say because of who you are.
wf3h
> On Jun 5, 2:11 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > well, no. they can be descriptive of a process and 'motive' is
> > irrelevant. it can't be helped that creationist produces a crabbed
> > concept of vocabulary and can not conceive of a process that is self
> > directed...like a rock falling from a cliff
>
> Did the rock have intent? Are you a pantheist who believes that the
> words coming out of your mouth are illusions created by the banging
> atoms in your head.
unfortunately, creationism is almost directly related to pantheism.
since creationists deny the existence of natural law, and assume god
is a force of nature like electricity, it's creationism that is a
derivative of pantheism
>
> > The intent is the issue not
>
> The intent is always the issue within my theistic belief system, if
> what you say you have no intention why should I believe what you say?
yeah i know it's the issue with your belief. that's why you can't
understand science. even other creationists, as you admit, do not
agree with your position. sorry
>
> > > What went wrong in society is that starting with Patrick Matthews this
> > > rule of language no longer was adhered to by the materialists, thus
> > > their concept isn't clear. They mean that there was no intent 3bil
> > > years ago yet something "selection" 3bil years ago. If there was no
> > > "selection" or decision then why are you using selection ?-
> > because if you look up virtually any word in the dictionary you'll
> > see it has multiple meanings. creationists pretend language is clear,
> > crisp and well defined.
>
> "Selectus" was well defined, what isn't defined is the pragmatics
> people have with the words today. Note carefully what John Wilkins
> wrote about this very issue:
pragmatics are irrelevant. what's relevant is a concept you can't
understand: empricism. it's a word that does not fit into the 3rd
century creationist lexicon you've created for yourself. sorry.
>
> This was a conclusion I came to independently and was pleasantly
> surprised to have found an actual journal citation for it because the
> moment you say you are a YEC then people automatically ignore what you
> say because of who you are.
and they are correct to do so. your view has led nowhere for 2000
years. you can't explain the movement of a rock let alone the
development of a cell. your view is useless.
backspace
> > "Selectus" was well defined, what isn't defined is the pragmatics
> > people have with the words today. Note carefully what John Wilkins
> > wrote about this very issue:
> pragmatics are irrelevant. what's relevant is a concept you can't
> understand: empricism. it's a word that does not fit into the 3rd
> century creationist lexicon you've created for yourself. sorry.
http://www.antievolution.org/cs/dances_with_popper
"...(Dembski’s phrasing of “undirected natural causes” excludes
natural selection, since natural selection is constrained and thus
guided by local environmental conditions and factors like co-
evolution. If Dembski wishes to redefine “guided” as “guided by an
intelligent agent”, he needs to do so explicitly.)....."
Pragmatics is always relevant. "guided" has no single true meaning it
can be used in the intention or non-intention sense just like "non-
random" is used in the intention sense on Wikipedia's statistics
articles. IT is not for Dembski to figure out what Elsberry's
pragmatics is with "guided" in the relevant contexts he is is using
it - Elsberry must tell us. It seems he is using "guided" as a proxy
for "what happens happens".
wf3h
> On Jul 27, 5:29 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > "Selectus" was well defined, what isn't defined is the pragmatics
> > > people have with the words today. Note carefully what John Wilkins
> > > wrote about this very issue:
> > pragmatics are irrelevant. what's relevant is a concept you can't
> > understand: empricism. it's a word that does not fit into the 3rd
> > century creationist lexicon you've created for yourself. sorry.
>
> http://www.antievolution.org/cs/dances_with_popper
> "...(Dembski’s phrasing of “undirected natural causes” excludes
> natural selection, since natural selection is constrained and thus
> guided by local environmental conditions and factors like co-
> evolution. If Dembski wishes to redefine “guided” as “guided by an
> intelligent agent”, he needs to do so explicitly.)....."
>
> Pragmatics is always relevant.
well...no. it's relevant only insofar as it deals with both the
context and context of the message. and you ignore both. that's
typical of creationists for whom religion is a propaganada tool,
rather than a concept for exploring the nature of god.
"guided" has no single true meaning it
> can be used in the intention or non-intention sense just like "non-
> random" is used in the intention sense on Wikipedia's statistics
> articles. IT is not for Dembski to figure out what Elsberry's
> pragmatics is with "guided" in the relevant contexts he is is using
> it - Elsberry must tell us. It seems he is using "guided" as a proxy
> for "what happens happens".
no one cares what demsbski thinks. he's irrelevant. his analysis of
the no free lunch theorem, as david wolpert (inventor of the NFL
theorem) is fatally flawed, so dembski's pragmatics are well
known...and wrong
just like yours.
hersheyh
> Darwin:
> ".....As the differences became greater, the inferior animals with
> intermediate characters, being neither very swift
> nor very strong, would not have been used for breeding, and will thus
> have tended to disappear....."
>
> === rephrase ===
> ......... the inferior animals ............ would not have been used
> for breeding, and will thus have tended to disappear....."
>
> === Tautological essence ===
> ".... the inferior animals .....disappear....."
I choose to look at the rest of this quote-mined phrase. I suspected
it was quote-mined precisely because of the part that says "would not
have been used for breeding". Note that the discussion here is about
*artificial* selection leading to different breeds with different
properties (and uses to the breeder) as an analogy to formation of
different "breeds" (races, subspecies, species) to the needs of
different environments (which shape organisms in the same way that
different breeders do, but without intelligent foresight).
"As has always been my practice, I have sought light on this head from
our domestic productions. We shall here find something analogous. It
will be admitted that the production of races so different as short-
horn and Hereford cattle, race and cart horses, the several breeds of
pigeons, etc., could never have been effected by the mere chance
accumulation of similar variations during many successive generations.
In practice, a fancier is, for instance, struck by a pigeon having a
slightly shorter beak; another fancier is struck by a pigeon having a
rather longer beak; and on the acknowledged principle that "fanciers
do not and will not admire a medium standard, but like extremes," they
both go on (as has actually occurred with the sub-breeds of the
tumbler-pigeon) choosing and breeding from birds with longer and
longer beaks, or with shorter and shorter beaks. Again, we may suppose
that at an early period of history, the men of one nation or district
required swifter horses, while those of another required stronger and
bulkier horses. The early differences would be very slight; but, in
the course of time, from the continued selection of swifter horses in
the one case, and of stronger ones in the other, the differences would
become greater, and would be noted as forming two sub-breeds.
Ultimately after the lapse of centuries, these sub-breeds would become
converted into two well-established and distinct breeds. As the
differences became greater, the inferior animals with intermediate
characters, being neither very swift nor very strong, would not have
been used for breeding, and will thus have tended to disappear. Here,
then, we see in man's productions the action of what may be called the
principle of divergence, causing differences, at first barely
appreciable, steadily to increase, and the breeds to diverge in
character, both from each other and from their common parent."
>
> Darwin:
> "...Here, then, we see in man's productions the action of what may be
> called the principle of divergence, causing differences, at first
> barely appreciable, steadily to increase, and the breeds to diverge in
> character, both from each other and from their common parent...."
>
> The principle of divergence refers to Darwin's tautology: "..... the
> inferior animals disappear...." or those that died were less
> improved...." The failure to notice the tautology then leads one to
> think that Darwin had rock solid logic and that therefore because the
> dinosaurs died because they were less improved or inferior that
> therefore a monkey gave birth to a talking monkey. Which doesn't
> follow logically of course.
>
> This is what tautologies does to your thinking, it forces you to
> accept a banality because it is formulated in such a way that the
> "truth of the proposition cannot be disputed " to use the immortal
> words of Darwin himself.
This only shows that backspace is not just an idiot, but a quote-
miner.
Chris
Chris
backspace
> The concept a reader had
>
> > with it in 1870 has nothing to do with what PZ Myers intends with it.
> > It was a strategic move of language deceit in the same way adaptation,
> > selection and modification is used, words we use in 99% of cases to
> > express our volitional intent. A volition that wasn't there 3bil years
> > ago when something happened to happen.
> irrelevant. the concept of 'volition' is absent in science.
The concept of volition is separate from your belief that the
bouncing atoms in your head generates your reality. If the atoms
bounced differently you would tell me you are a boiled egg. "Science"
here is as an abstract authority because the word can be used in many
contexts with different meanings. It functions in some respects as a
tautology as in "Creationism isn't science". IF we take "science" to
mean materialism it should read " Creationism isn't materialistic"
which is tautological because Creationism is defined as not being
materialistic. At the pragmatics level "Creationism isn't science" is
a form of hyperbole, says the same thing twice as the atheist hammers
his fist on the table shouting: "Creationism isn't science"! Of
course not because it is defined as not being materialistic but saying
the same thing twice pragmatically isn't going to make "Creationism
isn't science" the truth.
> science did not exist then. the concepts we think of in science
> started to be structured in the 16th and 17th century.
Science in another context is shorthand for the process whereby we
provide a description that at the very least is well reasoned.
Creationists like Maxwell, Pasteur provided such descriptions
resulting in the Internet and curing of diseases. Darwin gave us a
reformulation of Matthews and Hutton: "The dinosaurs died because they
were less improved" or propositions which cannot be disputed. From
this mythological basis DAwkins refers to genes as "replication
mechanisms" steeped in the myth of the strong god killing the weak
seamonster, but genes replicating is an informational event. Dawkins
simplistic stories was rebutted by Wilkins in his audio podcast on his
site, probably why he and Myers had a fallout .
wf3h
> On Jun 8, 1:03 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > The concept a reader had
>
> > > with it in 1870 has nothing to do with what PZ Myers intends with it.
> > > It was a strategic move of language deceit in the same way adaptation,
> > > selection and modification is used, words we use in 99% of cases to
> > > express our volitional intent. A volition that wasn't there 3bil years
> > > ago when something happened to happen.
> > irrelevant. the concept of 'volition' is absent in science.
>
> The concept of volition is separate from your belief that the
> bouncing atoms in your head generates your reality.
which has nothing to do with evolution, except insofar as creationists
are unable to construct a way to determine what 'reality' is, their
ideology being based on myth and fable.
If the atoms
> bounced differently you would tell me you are a boiled egg. "Science"
> here is as an abstract authority because the word can be used in many
> contexts with different meanings.
which, of course, is true for such words as 'god', 'jesus', 'gospel',
'truth' and any other construct creationists wish to posit as 'truth'.
the difference is creationism has no way to test itself whereas
science (evolution) does.
so your point is irrelevant.
It functions in some respects as a
> tautology as in "Creationism isn't science".
you have an obsession with 'tautology'. to you it explains everything.
in your worldview, EVERYTHING is a 'tautology'; therefore you're
saying nothing.
IF we take "science" to
> mean materialism it should read " Creationism isn't materialistic"
> which is tautological because Creationism is defined as not being
> materialistic. At the pragmatics level "Creationism isn't science" is
> a form of hyperbole, says the same thing twice as the atheist hammers
> his fist on the table shouting: "Creationism isn't science"! Of
> course not because it is defined as not being materialistic but saying
> the same thing twice pragmatically isn't going to make "Creationism
> isn't science" the truth.
if you define science as the belief that fish are purple then you'll
draw certain conclusions from that. if you define it as 'materialism'
then you'll draw conclusions
that does not mean your view of 'science' is valid. creationists
routinely define 'science' as an alice-in-wonderland concept; the word
means exactly what they want it to mean. the fact no scientists use
the concept as creationists define it is of absolutely no interest to
creationists at all.
therefore your view is useless, as is your creationism.
>
> > science did not exist then. the concepts we think of in science
> > started to be structured in the 16th and 17th century.
>
> Science in another context is shorthand for the process whereby we
> provide a description that at the very least is well reasoned.
well...no. you left out the subject of science: nature. you left out
the METHOD of science which is empiricism. that's like talking about
human beings without mentioning 'brain'.
your view is, again, useless.
> Creationists like Maxwell, Pasteur provided such descriptions
> resulting in the Internet and curing of diseases
actually they didn't. because they didn't use 'creationism' to do
anything. none of their concepts mentions god, proves god, or uses god
to examine nature. the very fact creationism is conspicuous by its
absence shows how useless it really is.
. Darwin gave us a
> reformulation of Matthews and Hutton: "The dinosaurs died because they
> were less improved" or propositions which cannot be disputed. From
> this mythological basis DAwkins refers to genes as "replication
> mechanisms" steeped in the myth of the strong god killing the weak
> seamonster, but genes replicating is an informational event. Dawkins
> simplistic stories was rebutted by Wilkins in his audmio podcast on his
more useless quote mining. in this entire post you've said absolutely
nothing about anything at all. with all your word salad all you've
demonstrated is that your concepts of science, and of god, are totally
and completely without merit. creationism, as you demonstrate, is
useless.
Kermit
> On Jun 5, 12:25 am, unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com wrote:
This mercifully short post of yours demonstrates some of the profound
language problems you have (and it's not English being a second
language for you that's the problem). Let's look at a couple of them.
>
> > Because there was a selection, but not by a mind. Words change. In
> > fact, this tendency of the human mind to see intent where there is
> > none is part of the reason you and other Creationists see "design"
> > where there is none. You might want to look inside yourself if this
> > anthropomorphizing annoys you.
>
> Some see design where others don't , they can't all use the same word
> for this reason.
Some folks run while others don't; they can't all use the same word
for this reason.
Some folks see when others don't, they can't all use the same word for
this reason.
Some folks make love when others don't, they can't all use the same
word for this reason.
Some folks sing when others don't, they can't all use the same word
for this reason.
Some folks worship gods when others don't, they can't all use the same
word for this reason.
Some folks sleep when others don't, they can't all use the same word
for this reason.
Do these sentences make sense to you?
> Use words which reflect your intent such as "whatever
> happens happens".
That is not my intent; my intent is communication. That is not what I
was trying to communicate; your sentence is so vacuous and void of
content that it means nothing.
Creationists see design != whatever happens. It is a very specific
act.
Moreover, I make the claim that the design is not there to see, in at
least some cases. You have not addressed this at all. One is forced to
suspect that you cannot refute this, or even make a counter claim.
Perhaps you think that handwaving is more likely to distract the
reader from considering my assertions. I don't know, I can only guess
at your motives. Whatever they are, it doesn't change the meaning of
your words. Perhaps more to the point, it doesn't give your words
meaning.
>
> > From the UC Berkely online biological dictionary:
> > "selection -- Process which favors one feature of organisms in a
> > population over another feature found in the population. This occurs
> > through differential reproduction—those with the favored feature
> > produce more offspring than those with the other feature, such that
> > they become a greater percentage of the population in the next
> > generation."
>
> Which is a reformulation of Darwins theory of evolution tautology in
> origin:
You keep claiming that it is a tautology, but we keep showing you why
it is not. Are you incapable of learning (which would be pathetic), or
are you determined to not learn (which would be contemptible, and
arguably evil).
> Those favored become more common, those not favored don't because they
> are dead.
The "favored" refers to "reproductively more successful". there are
many ways to be less successful, and being dead is only one of them.
See some of the wonderful subtleties and complexities you lose by
deliberately reducing distinctions in language?
I can't help but see this as a dark habit on your part, perhaps
because of associations with Orwell's _1984_.
> Those favored monkeys then gave birth to humans , those not
> favored died.
Monkeys always give birth to monkeys, when they give birth. Eventually
the monkeys in one line of descent became apes, and eventually one
line of descent in the apes led to humans. The process required
millions of generations, and thousands at least in the genepool for
each generation. There are plenty of monkeys left which aren't human,
so obviously the other monkeys did not necessarily die out before
their time.
When you are determined to remain ignorant, and have taken the
strategy of trying word magic to make the bad ideas go away, you only
end up wallowing in a fetid pool of misconceptions, helpless
ignorance, and fearful darkness. This is a dreadful way to spend a
life.
Kermit
Kermit
> On Jun 8, 1:03 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > The concept a reader had
>
> > > with it in 1870 has nothing to do with what PZ Myers intends with it.
> > > It was a strategic move of language deceit in the same way adaptation,
> > > selection and modification is used, words we use in 99% of cases to
> > > express our volitional intent. A volition that wasn't there 3bil years
> > > ago when something happened to happen.
> > irrelevant. the concept of 'volition' is absent in science.
>
> The concept of volition is separate from your belief that the
> bouncing atoms in your head generates your reality.
Evidence? I would think that if the mind is a process of the brain,
then the physical state of the brain would have very much to do with
volition, and thinking about it.
I suppose if one were a medieval thinker, one would consider volition
without any attention paid to evidence, Why anybody would want ot
think about things while ignoring what we already know about it
puzzles me.
> If the atoms
> bounced differently you would tell me you are a boiled egg.
Good; we agree. If one were insane, one would think different
thoughts, yes. This is a trivial but encouraging connection with
reality on your part.
> "Science"
> here is as an abstract authority because the word can be used in many
> contexts with different meanings.
In most contexts it means the same thing.
> It functions in some respects as a
> tautology as in "Creationism isn't science".
No it doesn't. Why do you say that? Creationism once made scientific
claims, but they were falsified generations ago. Hence any Creationism
still around is not science.
> IF we take "science" to
> mean materialism
Why on Earth would we do that?
We could say 'if we take "Science" to mean tapioca pudding', but to
what end?
Science is a community of people who have learned to follow certain
practices, with the purpose fo learning how the world works. These
various practices can be summed up as "methodological naturalism".
This is not philosophical materialism.
> it should read " Creationism isn't materialistic"
> which is tautological because Creationism is defined as not being
> materialistic.
It is defined as much more than that. It is not normally defined as
"not tapioca pudding" either, but that doesn't mean it *is, nor does
it mean that observing this is a tautology. It is not obviously clear
from the usual definition of Creationism that it is not science. In
fact, as I point out, it is not science only because the synthetic
statements it has made have been falsified (to the extent that they
were falsifiable). This was not a logical outcome, but an existential
outcome of the evidence.
> At the pragmatics level "Creationism isn't science" is
> a form of hyperbole, says the same thing twice as the atheist hammers
> his fist on the table shouting: "Creationism isn't science"!
You might want to talk to those Creationists who claim that
Creationism *is science.
> Of
> course not because it is defined as not being materialistic but saying
> the same thing twice pragmatically isn't going to make "Creationism
> isn't science" the truth.
Wait - you're claiming that this is a tautology, but it's not true?
You are one confused fella.
>
> > science did not exist then. the concepts we think of in science
> > started to be structured in the 16th and 17th century.
>
> Science in another context is shorthand for the process whereby we
> provide a description that at the very least is well reasoned.
You miss the point completely. Is this deliberate?
Science is all about the *evidence*. The reasoning involved is simply
the best way to describe and model the evidence. And the evidence
itself is tested (verified) and the model is tested. If it can't be
tested, it isn't science.
> Creationists like Maxwell, Pasteur provided such descriptions
> resulting in the Internet and curing of diseases.
They did not dispute Darwin, did they? Do you have any quotes by
either scientist rejecting evolutionary science?
> Darwin gave us a
> reformulation of Matthews and Hutton: "The dinosaurs died because they
> were less improved"
This was not a reformulation of Hutton or Matthews. What would this
have to do with modern evolutionary science, anyway?
> or propositions which cannot be disputed.
Well, they could be if one had the evidence. For instance, inherited
traits are not blended, as Darwin thought, He was wrong in that. It
took the incorporation of the science founded by Mendel, genetics, to
get modern evolutionary biology on track in that respect.
> From
> this mythological basis
Your lies do not have the status of myth.
> DAwkins refers to genes as "replication
> mechanisms" steeped in the myth of the strong god killing the weak
> seamonster, but genes replicating is an informational event.
It's a chemical event. It is only informational to the degree that we
interpret it as such.
> Dawkins
> simplistic stories was rebutted by Wilkins in his audio podcast on his
> site, probably why he and Myers had a fallout .
I doubt that either Wilkins nor Myers look to Darwin as a prophet; but
I'll say no more on what they think; they can do that themselves.
You have never addressed the evidence. You are a child of monkeys, as
am I. No word magic is strong enough to make reality go away.
Kermit
Stephanus Janse van Rensburg
> > DAwkins refers to genes as "replication
> > mechanisms" steeped in the myth of the strong god killing the weak
> > seamonster, but genes replicating is an informational event.
> It's a chemical event. It is only informational to the degree that we
> interpret it as such.
Listen to the podcast by Wilkins on scienceblogs where he had a link
to it. He said that when a CD id copied we have a mathematical
abstraction taking place. Some physists now say that we don't even
know atoms and electrons exist, another author that he treats QM as
pure math, whether those particles actually exist we don't know.
What you refer to as a chemical event is true in the same way the CD
player a QM electron event takes place when the laser shines on its
surface, but at a higher layer of abstraction we are dealing with
information. Information is information it is neither matter nor
energy, which is why materialism is doomed.
Ray Martinez
> Darwin:
> ".....As the differences became greater, the inferior animals with
> intermediate characters, being neither very swift
> nor very strong, would not have been used for breeding, and will thus
> have tended to disappear....."
>
> === rephrase ===
> ......... the inferior animals ............ would not have been used
> for breeding, and will thus have tended to disappear....."
>
> === Tautological essence ===
> ".... the inferior animals .....disappear....."
>
> "...Here, then, we see in man's productions the action of what may be
> called the principle of divergence, causing differences, at first
> barely appreciable, steadily to increase, and the breeds to diverge in
> character, both from each other and from their common parent...."
>
> The principle of divergence refers to Darwin's tautology: "..... the
> inferior animals disappear...." or those that died were less
> improved...." The failure to notice the tautology then leads one to
> think that Darwin had rock solid logic and that therefore because the
> dinosaurs died because they were less improved or inferior that
> therefore a monkey gave birth to a talking monkey. Which doesn't
> follow logically of course.
>
> This is what tautologies does to your thinking, it forces you to
> accept a banality because it is formulated in such a way that the
> "truth of the proposition cannot be disputed " to use the immortal
> words of Darwin himself.
Once again Backspace has exposed the convoluted and deranged----brain
damaged----mind of Charles Darwin.
Darwinists MUST deny the obvious since they have no choice.
Refutations, like the one seen above, is why at least half of all
adults in the U.S are anti-evolutionists.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> Tim DeLaney wrote:
> > accept the fact of evolution. Even if he were a babbling idiot who
> > used the most fallacious arguments ever propounded, evolution would
> > still be a fact, and the ToE would still be accepted by the vast
> > majority of scientists. They accept it because of the mountain of
> > evidence uncovered by scientists of many different disciplines, not
> > because of Charles Darwin's reasoning.
>
> > Your post is an example of the "ad hominem" fallacy. Do you see why?
>
> > Tim
>
> EVOLUTIONIST TRICKERY #3490
> When the post cannot be refuted, call it a fallacy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
....or a quote mine.
Excellent observation, Adman.
Ray
Ray Martinez
Very typical Darwinian ignorance.
Evolution was accepted based on Darwin 1859.
Your comments admit what we already know: that evolution is accepted
despite being a theory made of swiss cheese. Evolution is a
religion----the only choice for the Atheist.
Ray
> Your post is an example of the "ad hominem" fallacy. Do you see why?
>
> Tim- Hide quoted text -
wf3h
really? this is true only if matter doesn't exist.
good luck in proving that.
wf3h
ray ignores one simple fact:
backspace is crying 'wolf'. to him, EVERYTHING is a tautology. he's
unable to define ANY concept, even creationism, in his language, that
is NOT a tautology
what backspace has shown...and what ray's bought into...is the fact
that creationism is an idea of the universe that is useless for
telling anything ABOUT the universe. it's useful for telling us about
fairy tales believed by intellectually limited adults.
but it's useless for telling us about the world.
Kermit
Whatever the nature of material, however insubstantial it may be on
the bottom, I have not yet heard anything to make me think there is
anything else but matter and energy. If you think that ultimately
physics will be a way of describing energy through math, I have no
trouble with that emotionally, nor any reason to dispute that
possibility. I suspect you're right, but I am neither mathematician
nor scientist, so I can't make a strong case for it empirically or
theoretically.
If material events are best described mathematically, fine. I love
dancing, and it amuses me to say that the whole universe is a dance
(or symphony, or mathematical abstraction, or...). But you're only
saying that matter and energy may best be described mathematically.
That is *not claiming that there is anything else, or that they
(really the same stuff) don't exist.
I remember as a lad being fascinated when I heard that solid stuff was
mostly empty space. But it still hurts to kick a rock too hard, and
mental illness is still not caused by demons.
Kermit
Kermit
It was based on the evidence, presented by Darwin and others before
him, and because his excellent model was testable and fit those facts.
As evidence continued to accumulate, his ideas had to be adapted to
the data, but the core ideas of common descent through modification,
and natural selection acting on random inheritable characteristics
have held up, and become the foundation of biology.
>
> Your comments admit what we already know: that evolution is accepted
> despite being a theory made of swiss cheese. Evolution is a
> religion----the only choice for the Atheist.
You still haven't offered any evidence that refutes it, and more
importantly, you have offered no alternative testable model that fits
all the data.
Also many evolutionary scientists (and lay people who accept their
work) are theists of various kinds.
>
> Ray
>
> > Your post is an example of the "ad hominem" fallacy. Do you see why?
>
> > Tim- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
Kermit
John S. Wilkins
"Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which
does not admit this can survive at the present day." Norbert Weiner,
_Cybernetics_ 1948:132
But the conclusion Weiner drew is that we should not try to treat
information as a physical property, *because* it is an abstraction, and
has no physical magnitude. Something the IDist need to understand.
Information is not physical because it doesn't matter - it's a property
of our *descriptions and representations*, not the world.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
John S. Wilkins
> > Dawkins
> > simplistic stories was rebutted by Wilkins in his audio podcast on his
> > site, probably why he and Myers had a fallout .
>
> I doubt that either Wilkins nor Myers look to Darwin as a prophet; but
> I'll say no more on what they think; they can do that themselves.
Paul and I had a falling out? Why wasn't I informed. Or him, for that
matter?
Paul and I can disagree on some matters (like Dawkins anti-religion
stance) and remain civil and friends. Sometimes even the civility
disappears but I know that when the dust settles, he'd happily buy me a
beer and I him.
And believe in the Prophet Darwin (PBUH) thou heretic!
John Harshman
> Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Dawkins
>>> simplistic stories was rebutted by Wilkins in his audio podcast on his
>>> site, probably why he and Myers had a fallout .
>> I doubt that either Wilkins nor Myers look to Darwin as a prophet; but
>> I'll say no more on what they think; they can do that themselves.
>
> Paul and I had a falling out? Why wasn't I informed. Or him, for that
> matter?
>
> Paul and I can disagree on some matters (like Dawkins anti-religion
> stance) and remain civil and friends. Sometimes even the civility
> disappears but I know that when the dust settles, he'd happily buy me a
> beer and I him.
>
> And believe in the Prophet Darwin (PBUH) thou heretic!
Did someone mention beer?
hersheyh
Of course, in this case, backspace did, in fact, quote mine his little
piece completely out of context. I have, earlier in this thread,
included the context. It should be obvious to anyone with a brain
that when Darwin talks about "the inferior animals ... would not have
been used for breeding" he is discussing the analogy of *natural*
selection (i.e., selection by environmental factors) with artificial
(i.e., human-directed) selection as a way of producing different
breeds with different properties.
backspace
> "Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which
> does not admit this can survive at the present day." Norbert Weiner,
> _Cybernetics_ 1948:132
> But the conclusion Weiner drew is that we should not try to treat
> information as a physical property, *because* it is an abstraction, and
> has no physical magnitude. Something the IDist need to understand.
> Information is not physical because it doesn't matter - it's a property
> of our *descriptions and representations*, not the world.
Information is like the number 4 is neither here nor there, you can't
touch it or feel it but know it exists. Did the concept of "4" exist
before mankind of after? Whatever your answer will be based purely on
faith and faith is the evidence of things not seen. If "4" existed
before mankind , then in what concept or form did it exist, who
visualized it? If atoms consist of smaller particles what happens when
the last smallest particle has been found, what comes before that -
nothing? If nothing then everything consists of nothing which makes no
sense.
When the last human dies would the concept of "4" still exist? In
who's mind would it exist. Thus my conclusion is the same one that
Kurt Godel came to: God exists.
Space, time and matter had to come into existence all at once. If time
existed before space , when would you place an object. If matter
existed before space where would you put it.
At the abstract layer Trillions of partial differential equations are
being solved in real-time by humans, frogs, planets etc as they all
implement either knowingly or not control algorithms. Math is highest
form of language abstraction and John 1:1 says: "...... in the
beginning was Language....."
backspace
> On Jul 28, 1:11 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 3, 7:49 pm, "[M]adman" <ad...@hotmaill.et> wrote:
>
> > > Tim DeLaney wrote:
> > > > On Jun 3, 5:52 pm, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> Darwin:
> > > >> ".....As the differences became greater, the inferior animals with
> > > >> intermediate characters, being neither very swift
> > > >> nor very strong, would not have been used for breeding, and will thus
> > > >> have tended to disappear....."
>
> > > >> === rephrase ===
> > > >> ......... the inferior animals ............ would not have been used
> > > >> for breeding, and will thus have tended to disappear....."
>
> > > >> === Tautological essence ===
> > > >> ".... the inferior animals .....disappear....."
> Of course, in this case, backspace did, in fact, quote mine his little
> piece completely out of context. I have, earlier in this thread,
> included the context. It should be obvious to anyone with a brain
> that when Darwin talks about "the inferior animals ... would not have
> been used for breeding" he is discussing the analogy of *natural*
> selection (i.e., selection by environmental factors) with artificial
> (i.e., human-directed) selection as a way of producing different
> breeds with different properties.
Howard how were these animals inferiority measured other than noting
they are dead? What other independent metric of inferiority did Darwin
provide. He clearly stated in numerous passages that the bad ones
died while the good ones lived. This insanity continues right up to
this very day in various forms either pseudo sophisticated or
downright banal. All Darwin had was a dead bone after the event, he
looked at this dead bone, remembered Aristotle and said ".....ahhh
yes! .... ofcourse the animal wasn't constituted thus it
perished!...." That is all there is to this entire story which he
called Theory of Evolution,,, which is why there is no theory of
evolution entry on Wikipedia. There was one a few years ago but it
was removed and the link redirects to "Evolution" And evolution is
used in many contexts, as a single word it isn't a theory in the same
way "quantum" or "mechanics" alone isn't a theory but the Theory of
quantum mechanics is a theory. So again I ask, pleading with you
please What theory of Evolution are you talking about?
backspace
> It was based on the evidence, presented by Darwin and others before
> him, and because his excellent model was testable and fit those facts.
>
> As evidence continued to accumulate, his ideas had to be adapted to
> the data, but the core ideas of common descent through modification,
> and natural selection acting on random inheritable characteristics
> have held up, and become the foundation of biology.
It is the foundation of materialists stuck in a Victorian era time
warp using modern computers and journals to play a high level fantasy
role playing game with words and terms such as "descent with
modification" (who did the modifying ?) , words and terms that are
being used as one would cast magic spells: The words are used for
their rhetorical effect not as a mechanistic description of a process
in a well reasoned manner.
Caranx latus
Good example of self-referential writing.
Rich Mathers
Have you ever tried to interpret and understand what you write? Are
you perennially confused? Is the empirical world that hard to
discern? Have you given thought to the fact that you may have nothing
to offer?
Walter Bushell
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> Information is not physical because it doesn't matter
Eh, then explain the existence of sense organs and nervous systems.
On one small planet in the vastness of space (that we know about), but
one exception proves the rule, information shapes matter.
Kermit
> Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Dawkins
> > > simplistic stories was rebutted by Wilkins in his audio podcast on his
> > > site, probably why he and Myers had a fallout .
>
> > I doubt that either Wilkins nor Myers look to Darwin as a prophet; but
> > I'll say no more on what they think; they can do that themselves.
>
> Paul and I had a falling out? Why wasn't I informed. Or him, for that
> matter?
>
> Paul and I can disagree on some matters (like Dawkins anti-religion
> stance) and remain civil and friends. Sometimes even the civility
> disappears but I know that when the dust settles, he'd happily buy me a
> beer and I him.
>
> And believe in the Prophet Darwin (PBUH) thou heretic!
I'm pretty sure I intended to write "look to Dawkins as a prophet" but
perhaps I read Dawkins as Darwin instead. At this point, many hours
later, who can tell? Certainly not I. But the Inner Truth is so strong
in me that the statement stands as it is.
In any event, fair is fair, and you should respond to what I should
have intended to write, rather than what I actually wrote.
> --
> John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Kermit
Kermit
> On Jul 28, 9:16 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It was based on the evidence, presented by Darwin and others before
> > him, and because his excellent model was testable and fit those facts.
>
> > As evidence continued to accumulate, his ideas had to be adapted to
> > the data, but the core ideas of common descent through modification,
> > and natural selection acting on random inheritable characteristics
> > have held up, and become the foundation of biology.
>
> It is the foundation of materialists stuck in a Victorian era time
> warp
In what way are scientists stuck? I note that genetics and statistics
have become major parts of modern evolutionary theory. Evolutionary
development is a fast-growing field of biology, ecology was a the
science it is now before the twentieth century, computer analysis of
structural forces and nature's response, and more all show not simply
amassed data continuing to support the old theory.
Be specific; in what way is evolutionary science stuck? Give one or
two examples.
> using modern computers and journals to play a high level fantasy
> role playing game with words and terms such as "descent with
> modification" (who did the modifying ?) ,
Nobody did the modifying. You are clearly stuck in pre-medieval
magical thinking about language. Words change, their definition is
only a description of how they are used. When there is a need for a
new word, an old one is often co-opted for the task,and it acquires a
new meaning altogether (usually in addition to the old one, hence the
multiple meanings you find when looking up most words in the
dictionary).
Nature designs, responds, modifies, and occasionally lashes out with
an angry storm - all without thought, intent, or emotion. Until you
can understand this, you will continue to be isolated by your peculiar
inability to communicate.
You cannot grasp normal human ideas without understanding and using
metaphors.
> words and terms that are
> being used as one would cast magic spells:
We are not the one insisting that the words mean other than how they
are used, nor that they require minds behind them. Are you playing at
rhetorical games now, like a child playing house or cops and robbers?
You are the one who says that the universe literally came from spoken
words of Jesus, and you accuse us of magical thinking and casting
spells with words?
It would be cute if you were learning form it, as children do, but you
are only mimicking the form without any understanding of the content.
> The words are used for
> their rhetorical effect not as a mechanistic description of a process
> in a well reasoned manner.
The words describe a theory which explains the evidence. Your
inability to speak clearly does not make the evidence go away, nor
does it provide an alternative testable model to explain it.
Kermit
Burkhard
Seems to be a good starting point. The specific answer then will be
different for every species you investigate. With other words, you
confuse a general explanatory scheme with the specific hypothesis it can
generate for every individual case.
A bit like complaining that the theory of gravity only tells you things
fall to the ground, but that apart from noticing that they are on the
ground, it does not tell you who dropped your plates.
Greg G.
> On Jul 29, 4:54 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > "Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which
> > does not admit this can survive at the present day." Norbert Weiner,
> > _Cybernetics_ 1948:132
> > But the conclusion Weiner drew is that we should not try to treat
> > information as a physical property, *because* it is an abstraction, and
> > has no physical magnitude. Something the IDist need to understand.
> > Information is not physical because it doesn't matter - it's a property
> > of our *descriptions and representations*, not the world.
>
> Information is like the number 4 is neither here nor there, you can't
> touch it or feel it but know it exists. Did the concept of "4" exist
> before mankind of after? Whatever your answer will be based purely on
> faith and faith is the evidence of things not seen. If "4" existed
> before mankind , then in what concept or form did it exist, who
> visualized it? If atoms consist of smaller particles what happens when
> the last smallest particle has been found, what comes before that -
> nothing? If nothing then everything consists of nothing which makes no
> sense.
>
> When the last human dies would the concept of "4" still exist? In
> who's mind would it exist. Thus my conclusion is the same one that
> Kurt Godel came to: God exists.
Four is more than three and less than five, whether anybody is around
to think about or not. Lithium has three protons and Beryllium has
four so their effects on electrons are different and they act like
different chemicals even when nobody is watching. Chimpanzees and
crows can count, so the concept of 4 is discoverable by independent
means, whether it is an instinct encoded in DNA or is developed by the
function of every complex brain.
Christian apologists lately have been arguing that concepts are either
real or abstract, so they can say that abstract ideas require minds to
exist. What about properties of real objects? The mass of a rock is
not an object. It is a property that is dependent only on the
existance of the rock, not on a mind.
>
> Space, time and matter had to come into existence all at once. If time
> existed before space , when would you place an object. If matter
> existed before space where would you put it.
It could be that matter/energy is a consequence of the expansion of
space-time. If space expands between two objects, the potential energy
between them due to gravity increases. That energy could then be used
to create more matter.
>
> At the abstract layer Trillions of partial differential equations are
> being solved in real-time by humans, frogs, planets etc as they all
> implement either knowingly or not control algorithms. Math is highest
> form of language abstraction and John 1:1 says: "...... in the
> beginning was Language....."
I just checked twenty English translations of the Book of John and not
one uses the word "language" in that verse.
When your brain ceases to function, your weird ideas will vanish, but
reality will continue.