NS & randomness; answering Burk

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 3:59:09 PM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:

A spin-off topic from the on-going Alan Kleinman topic.

> > On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 2:29:14 PM UTC-8, Alan Kleinman MD PhD wrote:
> >
> > [snip....]
> >
> > For any Evolutionist:
> >
> >>> 2. How can selection be non-random and undirected at the same time?
> >>
> >> Selection is random when you have many different causes of death in a population. Selection is non-random or directional when you have a single cause of death affecting a population like and antibiotic acting on a population of bacteria which targets a single gene. These types of selection pressures kill the weakest members of the population first. If any members have any degree of resistance to the drug, they are candidates for the rmns phenomenon. Some lucky member of the remaining population can get a lucky mutation on replication and become more resistant to the drug. There are instances of single selection pressures which are not directional. A common one is bleach. Bleach denatures many biological molecules, to many genetic targets and therefore rmns does not work in this instance even though it is a single selection pressure.
> >>
> >
> > Alan, like almost all Evolutionists, contends the selection process behaves non-randomly. I'm challenging the claim that natural selection behaves or acts non-randomly.
> >
> > WHERE was THIS idea obtained?
> >
> > Since the phrase "natural selection" is original to Darwin, where did Darwin define and explain his theory as behaving non-randomly?
>
> Here, for instance:
>
> It may metaphorically be said that natural selection is daily and hourly
> scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest;
> rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good;
> silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity
> offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its
> organic and inorganic conditions of life. We see nothing of these slow
> changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the long lapse of
> ages, and then so imperfect is our view into long past geological ages,
> that we only see that the forms of life are now different from what they
> formerly were.
>
> Although natural selection can act only through and for the good of each
> being, yet characters and structures, which we are apt to consider as of
> very trifling importance, may thus be acted on. When we see leaf-eating
> insects green, and bark-feeders mottled-grey; the alpine ptarmigan white
> in winter, the red-grouse the colour of heather, and the black-grouse
> that of peaty earth, we must believe that these tints are of service to
> these birds and insects in preserving them from danger. Grouse, if not
> destroyed at some period of their lives, would increase in countless
> numbers; they are known to suffer largely from birds of prey; and hawks
> are guided by eyesight to their prey--so much so, that on parts of the
> Continent persons are warned not to keep white pigeons, as being the
> most liable to destruction. Hence I can see no reason to doubt that
> natural selection might be most effective in giving the proper colour to
> each kind of grouse, and in keeping that colour, when once acquired,
> true and constant. Nor ought we to think that the occasional destruction
> of an animal of any particular colour would produce little effect: we
> should remember how essential it is in a flock of white sheep to destroy
> every lamb with the faintest trace of black. In plants the down on the
> fruit and the colour of the flesh are considered by botanists as
> characters of the most trifling importance: yet we hear from an
> excellent horticulturist, Downing, that in the United States
> smooth-skinned fruits suffer far more from a beetle, a curculio, than
> those with down; that purple plums suffer far more from a certain
> disease than yellow plums; whereas another disease attacks
> yellow-fleshed peaches far more than those with other coloured flesh"
>

I still don't see it. Can you isolate some sentences, phrases, and words that indicate non-random?

>
> IF NS were random, we would not be able to answer the question: "why was
> this trait selected over the other trait", we would not see clear
> patterns that some traits are selected against and some selected for,
> and we would never be able to predict what will happen to a species if
> the environment changes in a specific way.
>

Alan says NS acts randomly AND non-randomly, are you saying both too or just the latter?

> That is all that "non-random" means - a causal mechanism that allows
> explanations and permits predictions.
>

Alan says it means "directional." I don't need to provide the quotation, do I?


Ray

[jonathan]

A single amoeba might move randomly about, but a collection of
them might start moving in the same direction, one that
is beneficial to them all.

A single termite might act randomly by itself, but a colony
of them can build an intricate nest.

An individual person might have free will and
can act randomly, but society and laws impose
constraints on that freedom that tend to limit
the random acts of the individual.

In an evolving system the parts act randomly, while
the whole acts in an emergent or directed manner.

Just as a particle acts in a quantum manner, a random
cloud. While a collection can decohere to classicity
acting in a classical or non-random way.

From the perspective of the whole, parts will
appear to behave chaotically.

From the perspective of the parts, the whole
will display emergent behavior, appearing
.... mysterious.

Hence the unending debate between reductionist
science and holistic religion.

A simple frame of reference problem, as in
both sides see nature through their own
preferred frame of reference, or bias.

The underlying problem is the attempt
to begin with parts to understand the whole.
The irreducible nature of emergence, such
as that intricate termite nest no single
termite can account for, makes it impossible
to get a complete understanding of the whole
from a part perspective.

But reverse the lens, start with subjective
frame of reference to understand the parts
is possible. As the effects of all the parts
are reflected in the emergent behavior.













>
> Ray
>

[Dale]

Ray Martinez wrote:

> Selection is random when you have many different causes of death in a
> population. Selection is non-random or directional when you have a
single
> cause of death affecting a population

I don't think random has any relationship to cardinality, I think its an
ordinality thing

--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

[solar penguin]

Allow me.

"natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising ... rejecting that

which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good"

-- In other words, not randomly deciding what to reject and what to
preserve.

"silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity
offers, at the improvement of each organic being"

-- In other words, it doesn't randomly sometimes try to improve and
sometimes harm each organic being.

"natural selection can act only through and for the good of each being"

-- In other words, it doesn't randomly choose between the good and the
bad of each being.

"smooth-skinned fruits suffer far more from a beetle, a curculio, than
those with down"

-- In other words, it isn't random which fruits suffer most.

"purple plums suffer far more from a certain disease than yellow plums"

-- In other words, it isn't random which plum suffers most.

"another disease attacks yellow-fleshed peaches far more than those with
other coloured flesh"

-- In other words, it isn't random which peaches will be attacked the
most.

OTOH whether you think Darwin was right or wrong about non-randomness is
another thing...

[Dana Tweedy]

>> most liable to destruction. Nor ought we to think that the occasional destruction

>> of an animal of any particular colour would produce little effect: we
>> should remember how essential it is in a flock of white sheep to destroy
>> every lamb with the faintest trace of black. In plants the down on the
>> fruit and the colour of the flesh are considered by botanists as
>> characters of the most trifling importance: yet we hear from an
>> excellent horticulturist, Downing, that in the United States
>> smooth-skinned fruits suffer far more from a beetle, a curculio, than
>> those with down; that purple plums suffer far more from a certain
>> disease than yellow plums; whereas another disease attacks
>> yellow-fleshed peaches far more than those with other coloured flesh"
>>
>
> I still don't see it. Can you isolate some sentences, phrases, and words that indicate non-random?

There are several places above where Darwin points out how natural
selection does not act randomly. For example:

"When we see leaf-eating insects green, and bark-feeders mottled-grey;
the alpine ptarmigan white in winter, the red-grouse the colour of
heather, and the black-grouse that of peaty earth, we must believe that
these tints are of service to these birds and insects in preserving them
from danger."

If natural selection were random, then the color of the birds and
insects above would not matter. Instead, the birds and insects above
that survive most often are the ones that match the color of their
surroundings. This is not a random happenstance, but a effect of
natural selection.

"Hence I can see no reason to doubt that natural selection might be most
effective in giving the proper colour to each kind of grouse, and in
keeping that colour, when once acquired,true and constant."

Here Darwin explains not only adaptive selection, but stabilizing
selection as well. The color of the grouse is adaptive to the
population, (providing camouflage against predators) but also keeping
the population that color (selection stabilizing the colors that
surviving grouse can have)


Note too above that Darwin uses examples from plants above, showing that
his focus was not just on "sexually reproducing animal species" as you
keep asserting.

>
>>
>> IF NS were random, we would not be able to answer the question: "why was
>> this trait selected over the other trait", we would not see clear
>> patterns that some traits are selected against and some selected for,
>> and we would never be able to predict what will happen to a species if
>> the environment changes in a specific way.
>>
>
> Alan says NS acts randomly AND non-randomly, are you saying both too or just the latter?

Natural selection acts without conscious intent, and provides a non
random force on the phenotype of the population. What Dr. Kleinman
meant when he said it acts randomly is best asked to Dr. Kleinman.

>
>> That is all that "non-random" means - a causal mechanism that allows
>> explanations and permits predictions.
>>
>
> Alan says it means "directional." I don't need to provide the quotation, do I?

Providing a quotation is always appropriate, especially when you are the
one claiming what someone else said, as you often misunderstand, and
misstate what others have said.


>
>
> Ray
>

[Mark Isaak]

On 11/18/15 7:38 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> [...]

> I still don't see it. Can you isolate some sentences, phrases,
> and words that indicate non-random?

You could start with the title. Note the word "Favoured."

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[Ray Martinez]

On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 11:44:03 AM UTC-8, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 11/18/15 7:38 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > [...]
> > I still don't see it. Can you isolate some sentences, phrases,
> > and words that indicate non-random?
>
> You could start with the title. Note the word "Favoured."

Favored doesn't mean non-random; so you're saying it, not Darwin.

Ray

[Robert Camp]

Interesting. What is it you imagine Darwin meant when he said "favoured"?

[Ray Martinez]

In other words, you're STIPULATING "good" to mean "non-random" and "bad" to mean "random."

We are told unless indicated otherwise a scientific text is to be understood literally. Note the fact that "good" does not mean "non-random," never has. Both terms are not synonyms. You can say it means "non-random" but Darwin didn't say it, he said "good." If you persist in saying that "good" means "non-random" then you're making up a definition for a special reason and need.

In reality all Darwin said is that the good = existence or that which was not selected, and the bad = not existing or that which was selected.

In other words he said what God said in Genesis (without even knowing it). God or invisible Director looked at His creation (= what exists) and said it is good.

> "silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity
> offers, at the improvement of each organic being"
>
> -- In other words, it doesn't randomly sometimes try to improve and
> sometimes harm each organic being.
>

Your explanation, and the Darwin quote, have zero correspondence. No word or phrase in the Darwin quote at hand means "not randomly."

In reality all Darwin said is that NS operates quietly, without being perceived, when opportunity arises, to better living things.

Below you repeat your made up definitions.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Word meanings are decided by (listen closely) what the term meant at the time the author wrote it, OR what the author intended the term to mean when he or she wrote it. To invoke the latter one must provide evidence in support. So far your evo brothers have **asserted a stipulated meaning.** Until supported with evidence said term means whatever it meant in 1859.

So let's reproduce Darwin's title and replace "favoured" with non-random:

"On The Origin Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection, Or The Preservation Of [Non-Random] Races In The Struggle For Life."

Doesn't work, does it?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 11:44:03 AM UTC-8, Mark Isaak wrote:

Don't forget, some scientists like Nobel winner Jacques Monod said NS a random process. And one can place more capital letters after Monod's name than Alan Kleinman's.

Ray

[Robert Camp]

Partially - if by "works" you mean communicates the exact same meaning.
It's awkward, it's something Darwin would never have said, in fact it's
something no one would say because random as an adjective is never
really used to modify nouns like Races, but it is something of a start.

In any case, I never said Favoured means non-random (neither did Mark,
by the way). You asked for phrases "that indicate non-random." You
didn't ask for synonyms. Favoured indicates non-random because in this
context it means selected for reproductive success - a non-random
process. You would know this if you'd read the book, or were capable of
actually, you know, learning things.

But back to the question you are apparently afraid to answer - What is

[Robert Camp]

Produce a cite to Monod saying that natural selection is a random
process. When you think you've found something (and before you post it),
try evaluating it in the light of the difference between mutation and
selection.

[Rolf]

"Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
news:n2oiml$iuc$1...@dont-email.me...

I am looking forward to his reply.
Rolf

[Robert Camp]

Don't get too excited. It will take some time to translate it into English.

[Burkhard]

I'm at a conference in Mexico at the moment and a bit pressed for time
and lacking internet access, but I saw that Solar Penguin gave a very
good answer in the meantime.

Pretty much every sentence of the quote (which is why I chose it) - they
all state the criteria that causally influenced the selection in this
case - so there is always a known causal factor.

Starting right at the beginning:

"It may metaphorically be said that natural selection is daily and
hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the
slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all
that is good"

So there are certain conditions ('being good" vs "being bad" that
causally determine the outcome of the selection - hence they can't be
random.

Here a simple illustration, if you struggle with either Darwin's prose
or the meaning of "random':

Take three rabbit breeders, John, Paul and Ringo. They all have a
population of rabbits which come in brown, grey and white. Every evening
they select one for dinner:

John loves all his rabbits equally, so he puts on blindfolds when he
selects one: random selection. We can't predict which rabbit he'll
select, and if it is going to be grey , white or brown. Once he selected
a rabbit, we can't give a reason why THIS rabbit was chosen apart form
saying: bad luck. And we can't predict how the population will change
over time: brown might become more prevalent, grey might become more
prevalent, white might become more prevalent, or the relative
proportions might stay the same.

Paul by contrast was as a child bitten by a brown rabbit, and has a
subconscious hatred of brown rabbits. He is not aware of this fact, but
as long as there are brown rabbits available, he'll pick one and eat it.
Non-random: we can predict what color the next rabbit he'll select will
have, once a brown rabbit was selected we can explain this choice (See,
it's like this, he was bitten as a child by a brown rabbit, he does, so
he always picks on them), and we can predict how the population will
change (brown rabbits will become rare). But it is also
"non-directional" or non-goal driven: Paul is not planning to have a
world without brown rabbits, this is just a side effect of his
subconscious phobia.

Ringo is a proper breeder who also sells rabbits. He knows that brown
rabbits get the least amount of money, so he wants to get rid of them.
He knows enough about animal husbandry to realize that if he prevents
brown rabbits from breeding (by eating them while they are still very
young, and other methods) he will eventually only have white and grey
rabbits. So he selects brown rabbits for dinner. Non-random: just as
with Paul, we can predict his choice, explain his choice once it was
made, and predict the impact it will have on the make up of the
population. But this time the action is also goal driven and directed.
Ringo selects brown rabbits "in order to" change the population.

John is randomly selecting. Paul and Ringo are both examples of NS -
Paul undirected, Ringo directed which makes Ringo also an example of
artificial selection.

>
>>
>> IF NS were random, we would not be able to answer the question: "why was
>> this trait selected over the other trait", we would not see clear
>> patterns that some traits are selected against and some selected for,
>> and we would never be able to predict what will happen to a species if
>> the environment changes in a specific way.
>>
>
> Alan says NS acts randomly AND non-randomly, are you saying both too or just the latter?

NS as commonly understood is non-random. That does not preclude that
lots of members of a population will die form random events - Alan seems
to call this random NS, which is non-standard at the very least.

>
>> That is all that "non-random" means - a causal mechanism that allows
>> explanations and permits predictions.
>>
>
> Alan says it means "directional." I don't need to provide the quotation, do I?

I must admit I rarely read his posts these days with any attention - he
is a broken record who repeats the same claim without responding to the
counter arguments, so nothing new to learn. So yes, I'd need a quote to
get an idea of what he means.

Generally though, some people might argue that directional action is
never random. In my examples, this would be the case of Ringo, whose
selection has a direction or goal. The inverse is not true, there can
be non-random action that is not directional (the example of Paul)

Personally, I would not even accept that, though you get here a bit into
issues of semantics and definitions. Take again John in my examples
above. His selection is as random as it gets. But you could still say he
has a "goal" or "direction": his goal is "fairness", and sometimes
fairness is best achieved by designing a random choice. Which is why
sometimes, we draw lots to reach a decision. I think this just happened
in a US election, where a tie between the candidates was decided by
pulling straws. A random mechanism, designed to achieve a goal (an
appointment being made) in a fair way.

In the same way, artists can and do design random mechanisms to achieve
a goal (e.g. variation): e.g. by putting bags filled with paint in front
of a canvas and then shooting a shotgun at it. Or we use random number
generators in cryptography to achieve the goal of more difficult to hack
codes etc etc.

So I would say "randomness" and "directness" are not semantically
connected - some random processes are directed, many non-random
processes are undirected, the best we might claim is that many directed
processes are not random, as a matter of contingent fact.

But as I said, this is a bit an issue of semantics - is "fairness" the
direction of goal of John's selection?


>
>
> Ray
>

[Burkhard]

No he doesn't He points out that "good" and "bad" in the quote are
criteria for the selection. If a selection is caused by criteria, any
criteria, it is not random. That is the word meaning of "random"

>
> We are told unless indicated otherwise a scientific text is to be understood literally.

And Darwin says explicitly here that the sentence is metaphorical - not
that it matters in this case

>Note the fact that "good" does not mean "non-random," never has. Both terms are not synonyms.

Nobody claims they are. What they are though are examples of criteria.
And a selection that abides by criteria is not random as a mater of the
meaning of "random"

>You can say it means "non-random" but Darwin didn't say it, he said
"good." If you persist in saying that "good" means "non-random" then
you're making up a definition for a special reason and need.
>

Not at all, he applies generally valid rules of the syntax of English.
A sentence of the syntactic form "A is selected because of X" always
describes a non-random process because of the syntactic rules of
"because of"

[Ray Martinez]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html

[Begin quoting]

"Some modern evolutionary biologists do make much of chance. The Nobel Prize-winning molecular biologist Jacques Monod wrote [1972:114][John Wilkins]:


'The initial elementary events which open the way to evolution in the intensely conservative systems called living beings are microscopic, fortuitous, and totally unrelated to whatever may be their effects upon teleonomic functioning.
But once incorporated in the DNA structure, the accident -- essentially unpredictable because always singular -- will be mechanically and faithfully replicated and translated: that is to say, both multiplied and transposed into millions or thousands of millions of copies. Drawn from the realm of pure chance, the accident enters into that of necessity, of the most implacable certainties. For natural selection operates at the macroscopic level, the level of organisms' [Monod].


"This conception of genetic changes as accidental and unique, about which no laws may be formulated, is fundamentally flawed, for all that it reappears in a number of influential works on evolution. Causes of genetic change are being uncovered routinely, and they involve better or worse understood mechanisms that are very far from random, in the sense that there are very clear causes for the changes, and that they can be specified in detail over general cases. Monod's use of the phrase "realm of pure chance" is rhetoric and is misleading at best, simply false at worst" [John Wilkins].

"Yet, it is often claimed that randomness drives evolution, as in the quotation from Monod above" [John Wilkins].

[End quoting]

Ray

[Burkhard]

Errrm, Ray, both the Monod quote and John's comments are about the
mutation part of evolution, not Natural selection. In fact, Monod argues
the exact opposite of what you claim - it is right here - I insert where
the transition form random to non-random happens in the argument:

But once incorporated in the DNA structure, the accident (RANDOM
MUTATION) -- essentially unpredictable because always singular (RANDOM
MUTATION) -- will be mechanically and faithfully replicated and

translated: that is to say, both multiplied and transposed into millions
or thousands of millions of copies. Drawn from the realm of pure chance

(RANDOM), the accident enters into that of necessity (NON RANDOM), of

the most implacable certainties. For natural selection operates at the
macroscopic level, the level of organisms'

So you start with the random mutation, which is then transformed by NS
("enters into that", in Monod's words) into the field of necessity, and
with that non-randomness.

[Ray Martinez]

Which means not at all. You're engaged in damage control.

> - if by "works" you mean communicates the exact same meaning.
> It's awkward, it's something Darwin would never have said, in fact it's
> something no one would say because random as an adjective is never
> really used to modify nouns like Races, but it is something of a start.
>
> In any case, I never said Favoured means non-random (neither did Mark,
> by the way).

Mark said it.

> You asked for phrases "that indicate non-random." You
> didn't ask for synonyms.

Why did Mark offer "favoured"?

I asked for phrases because no single word or term in the text at issue means non-random. Mark attempted to identify a synonym, he failed.

> Favoured indicates non-random because in this
> context it means selected for reproductive success - a non-random
> process. You would know this if you'd read the book, or were capable of
> actually, you know, learning things.

Again, the issue is where did theory founder relate a non-random process? All you and others have done is assert various passages to mean non-random. But NS is understood as natural or undirected. So if the process is non-random what is meant by undirected? Alan Kleinman MD PhD refused to answer. In my mind this indicates much.

>
> But back to the question you are apparently afraid to answer - What is
> it you imagine Darwin meant when he said "favoured"?

Whatever exists.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Stop right there.

The entire essay exists to chastise Monod for saying evolution a pure chance process.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html

John Wilkins: "Some modern evolutionary biologists do make much of chance. The Nobel Prize-winning molecular biologist Jacques Monod wrote....[followed by the quotation]

Then Wilkins writes:

"This conception of genetic changes as accidental and unique, about which no laws may be formulated, is fundamentally flawed, for all that it ***reappears in a number of influential works on evolution.*** Causes of genetic change are being uncovered routinely, and they involve better or worse understood mechanisms that are very far from random, in the sense that there are very clear causes for the changes, and that they can be specified in detail over general cases. ***Monod's use of the phrase 'realm of pure chance' is rhetoric and is misleading at best, simply false at worst"*** (asterisk emphasis added).

THEN after much explication, Wilkins writes:

"Yet, it is often claimed that randomness drives evolution, ***as in the quotation from Monod above.*** We have to ask, where does chance really enter into evolution?" (asterisk emphasis added).

The last sentence by Wilkins, above, reinforces the point. Wilkins is now going to explicate mutation whereas before he was ultimately explicating the error of Monod who used the phrase "realm of pure chance" to describe evolution, a phrase that Wilkins re-quoted in his quote above.

>In fact, Monod argues
> the exact opposite of what you claim - it is right here - I insert where
> the transition form random to non-random happens in the argument:
>
> But once incorporated in the DNA structure, the accident (RANDOM
> MUTATION) -- essentially unpredictable because always singular (RANDOM
> MUTATION) -- will be mechanically and faithfully replicated and
> translated: that is to say, both multiplied and transposed into millions
> or thousands of millions of copies. Drawn from the realm of pure chance
> (RANDOM), the accident enters into that of necessity (NON RANDOM), of
> the most implacable certainties. For natural selection operates at the
> macroscopic level, the level of organisms'
>
> So you start with the random mutation, which is then transformed by NS
> ("enters into that", in Monod's words) into the field of necessity, and
> with that non-randomness.

John Wilkins: "Yet, it is often claimed that randomness drives evolution, as in the quotation from Monod above. We have to ask, where does chance really enter into evolution?"

If you're correct then Wilkins has made an error, not me.

Ray

[Robert Camp]

On 11/21/15 1:18 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 5:54:02 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
>> On 11/20/15 5:24 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 11:44:03 AM UTC-8, Mark Isaak
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 11/18/15 7:38 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> [...] I still don't see it. Can you isolate some sentences,
>>>>> phrases, and words that indicate non-random?
>>>>
>>>> You could start with the title. Note the word "Favoured."
>>>>
>>>> -- Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
>>>> "Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those
>>>> who have found it."
>>>> - Vaclav Havel
>>>
>>> Don't forget, some scientists like Nobel winner Jacques Monod
>>> said NS a random process. And one can place more capital letters
>>> after Monod's name than Alan Kleinman's.
>>
>> Produce a cite to Monod saying that natural selection is a random
>> process. When you think you've found something (and before you post
>> it), try evaluating it in the light of the difference between
>> mutation and selection.
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html
>
> [Begin quoting]

<snip non-Monod quote>

> 'The initial elementary events which open the way to evolution in the
> intensely conservative systems called living beings are microscopic,
> fortuitous, and totally unrelated to whatever may be their effects
> upon teleonomic functioning. But once incorporated in the DNA
> structure, the accident -- essentially unpredictable because always
> singular -- will be mechanically and faithfully replicated and
> translated: that is to say, both multiplied and transposed into
> millions or thousands of millions of copies. Drawn from the realm of
> pure chance, the accident enters into that of necessity, of the most
> implacable certainties. For natural selection operates at the
> macroscopic level, the level of organisms' [Monod].

This is why I advised that you think before you post. The only quote
from Monod here says exactly the opposite of what you claim he says.
It's right there in front of your face - "Drawn from the realm of

> pure chance, the accident enters into that of necessity, of the most
implacable certainties."

Natural selection is the antithesis of a random process. You don't need
a scientist to explain this, you just need to understand English.

(As I asked for a cite to Monod, I'll ignore the stuff from Wilkins whom
I'm confident you've misinterpreted as badly as you did Monod.)

<snip more non-Monod quotes>

[Robert Camp]

This will all be easier once you learn English. Look up "partially" in
the dictionary.

And please, try not to be so silly as to think you could actually do damage.

>> - if by "works" you mean communicates the exact same meaning. It's
>> awkward, it's something Darwin would never have said, in fact it's
>> something no one would say because random as an adjective is never
>> really used to modify nouns like Races, but it is something of a
>> start.
>>
>> In any case, I never said Favoured means non-random (neither did
>> Mark, by the way).
>
> Mark said it.

He said nothing of the kind. It seems your inability to correctly
interpret plain English extends to your own remarks. You said, "Can you
isolate some sentences, phrases, and words that indicate non-random?" To
which Mark answered, "Note the word "Favoured.""

You asked for a word that would "indicate" (i.e., point to, be a sign
of, be evidence of, bespeak of, testify to) "non-random." Mark gave you
one. There was never any suggestion of synonymity.

>> You asked for phrases "that indicate non-random." You didn't ask
>> for synonyms.
>
> Why did Mark offer "favoured"?

Because it "indicates non-random." It "points to," "bespeaks of,
"testifies to" non-randomness.

How is this not painfully obvious?

> I asked for phrases because no single word or term in the text at
> issue means non-random. Mark attempted to identify a synonym, he
> failed.

No, you've failed at the most basic level of comprehension. "Favoured"
is not a synonym of non-random but it most definitely (in the context of
Darwin's use) and ridiculously obviously _indicates_ a process of choice
(selection). That *is* non-randomness.

>> Favoured indicates non-random because in this context it means
>> selected for reproductive success - a non-random process. You would
>> know this if you'd read the book, or were capable of actually, you
>> know, learning things.
>
> Again, the issue is where did theory founder relate a non-random
> process?

Do you mean "the" theory founder? If so, the answer is in the word
"Favoured."

How is this still not getting through?

> All you and others have done is assert various passages to
> mean non-random. But NS is understood as natural or undirected. So if
> the process is non-random what is meant by undirected?

It means that no agency is doing any directing. It does *not* mean there
is no direction. In fact there is such a thing as directional selection.

This is one of those cases in which you're going to have to try hard to
look beyond your cartoon version of reality - where everything confirms
what you want to believe - and appreciate the nuances in the use of
certain terms (e.g., directed and direction).

> Alan Kleinman
> MD PhD refused to answer. In my mind this indicates much.

Consider that not getting an answer from someone is quite likely not the
same as a refusal to answer.

>> But back to the question you are apparently afraid to answer - What
>> is it you imagine Darwin meant when he said "favoured"?
>
> Whatever exists.

So to your mind, when Darwin said "...or the Preservation of Favoured
Races..." he meant "or the continued existence of existing races," is
that right? Are you sure you want to stick with an interpretation of the
word "favoured" that strips it, and the phrase in which it's used, of
all meaning?

[Burkhard]

Not quite, for emphasising chance over the other processes. But we are
not discussing the entire process of evolution, your claim was that
Monod claims NS is a random process. He doesn't, not in your quote at
least.

>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html
>
> John Wilkins: "Some modern evolutionary biologists do make much of chance. The Nobel Prize-winning molecular biologist Jacques Monod wrote....[followed by the quotation]
>
> Then Wilkins writes:
>
> "This conception of genetic changes as accidental and unique, about which no laws may be formulated, is fundamentally flawed, for all that it ***reappears in a number of influential works on evolution.*** Causes of genetic change are being uncovered routinely, and they involve better or worse understood mechanisms that are very far from random, in the sense that there are very clear causes for the changes, and that they can be specified in detail over general cases. ***Monod's use of the phrase 'realm of pure chance' is rhetoric and is misleading at best, simply false at worst"*** (asterisk emphasis added).
>
> THEN after much explication, Wilkins writes:
>
> "Yet, it is often claimed that randomness drives evolution, ***as in the quotation from Monod above.*** We have to ask, where does chance really enter into evolution?" (asterisk emphasis added).
>
> The last sentence by Wilkins, above, reinforces the point. Wilkins is now going to explicate mutation whereas before he was ultimately explicating the error of Monod who used the phrase "realm of pure chance" to describe evolution, a phrase that Wilkins re-quoted in his quote above.

Both Monod and Williams are discussing here the mutation aspect of
evolution. Monod emphasizes this aspect and its random nature, Wilkins
urges caution. None of this has anything to do with natural selection,
which is what your claim was about.

>
>> In fact, Monod argues
>> the exact opposite of what you claim - it is right here - I insert where
>> the transition form random to non-random happens in the argument:
>>
>> But once incorporated in the DNA structure, the accident (RANDOM
>> MUTATION) -- essentially unpredictable because always singular (RANDOM
>> MUTATION) -- will be mechanically and faithfully replicated and
>> translated: that is to say, both multiplied and transposed into millions
>> or thousands of millions of copies. Drawn from the realm of pure chance
>> (RANDOM), the accident enters into that of necessity (NON RANDOM), of
>> the most implacable certainties. For natural selection operates at the
>> macroscopic level, the level of organisms'
>>
>> So you start with the random mutation, which is then transformed by NS
>> ("enters into that", in Monod's words) into the field of necessity, and
>> with that non-randomness.
>
> John Wilkins: "Yet, it is often claimed that randomness drives evolution, as in the quotation from Monod above. We have to ask, where does chance really enter into evolution?"
>
> If you're correct then Wilkins has made an error, not me.

Nope, John talk s here about mutations. His point is that as we learn
more about the mechanism behind mutations, the less random that part of
evolution will become.

Your claim was that Monod argued NS was random. He doesn't. On the
contrary, the says explicitly that this is in the realm of "necessity",
so not random. He stresses however the random nature of mutations. John
argues that this must no be misunderstood as saying we can't find out
the causal factors behind mutations, which would further decrease the
degree of randomness. So far from saying that NS is random, the issue
here is if even mutations are be non-random.
>
> Ray
>

[Mark Isaak]

Ray, it is atypical for you to bear false witness so blatantly.

>> You asked for phrases "that indicate non-random." You
>> didn't ask for synonyms.
>
> Why did Mark offer "favoured"?

Because you asked me to. You asked for "sentences, phrases, and words
that indicate non-random." I offered one, "favoured", which fit your
request perfectly.

> I asked for phrases because no single word or term in the text at
> issue means non-random. Mark attempted to identify a synonym, he failed.

You did not ask for a synonym. I provided, at your request, a word
which does not mean, but which *indicates*, non-randomness.

For analogy, "eastward" is obviously not a synonym of "non-random". But
if things are moving consistently eastward, then they are not moving
randomly, and so "eastward" indicates non-random.

>> [...]

>> But back to the question you are apparently afraid to answer - What is
>> it you imagine Darwin meant when he said "favoured"?
>
> Whatever exists.

You must have worked extremely hard to warp your mind so unnaturally as
to believe a word means something that far from its meaning. Doesn't it
hurt to do that?

[jillery]

On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 11:19:49 -0600, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

In your haste to post your excellent explanation by analogy, you
forgot to explain one very important point...


What happened to George?
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[jillery]

On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:48:42 -0800, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:

>> Mark said it.
>
>Ray, it is atypical for you to bear false witness so blatantly.

IMO it's totally typical. Just sayin'.

[Burkhard]

Oh, he is in there all right - I always thought he had something
rabbit-y about him :o)
>

[Rodjk #613]

There are two errors here. Ray, one is on your part because you don't understand what Monod or Wilkins is saying.

The other mistake is on the part of the people who are still discussing this with you. Don't you get it? It isn't that this guy can't understand you, it is because he won't. You are knocking your head against a mountain thinking they he will understand. He won't, because he does not want to.

So why bother?

Rodjk #613

[jillery]

On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 22:23:03 -0600, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

>>> John is randomly selecting. Paul and Ringo are both examples of NS -
>>> Paul undirected, Ringo directed which makes Ringo also an example of
>>> artificial selection.
>>
>>
>>
>> In your haste to post your excellent explanation by analogy, you
>> forgot to explain one very important point...
>>
>>
>> What happened to George?
>

>Oh, he is in there all right - I always thought he had something
>rabbit-y about him :o)

I harely recognized him.

[jillery]

Because he's a sounding board?

[Burkhard]

Must have been his age, he lost most of his hare and was living on
burrowed time

[Ray Martinez]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html

Following the Monod quotation:

John Wilkins: "Monod's use of the phrase 'realm of pure chance' is rhetoric and is misleading at best, simply false at worst....Yet, it is often claimed that randomness drives evolution, as in the quotation from Monod above. We have to ask, where does chance really enter into evolution?"

> Natural selection is the antithesis of a random process.

Fine, I have nothing invested against. So why is NS described as undirected?

> You don't need
> a scientist to explain this, you just need to understand English.
>

Where in the English language does "favoured" or "necessity" mean or imply non-randomness?

You've defended "favoured" to **indicate** non-random and now you're doing the same with "necessity." Yet non-random, or any synonym, does not appear in either definition. I'm willing to concede that Monod and Darwin were using stipulated definitions, **which is perfectly legitimate,** but you need to produce evidence or something that supports these stipulations. Without a corresponding connection your claim that both terms convey a non-random process is entirely asserted.

> (As I asked for a cite to Monod, I'll ignore the stuff from Wilkins whom
> I'm confident you've misinterpreted as badly as you did Monod.)
>
> <snip more non-Monod quotes>

I quoted and cited Monod via another scholar, which is perfectly legitimate. The link is pasted above. We have a Monod quote and criticism by Wilkins.

Your "response" implies that you're unwilling to consider the possibility that Wilkins and/or Monod (two fellow Atheists) might have erred only because a Creationist is involved in the discovery.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 12:18:59 PM UTC-8, Ray Martinez wrote:

[snip all content....]

>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html
>
> Following the Monod quotation:
>
> John Wilkins: "Monod's use of the phrase 'realm of pure chance' is rhetoric and is misleading at best, simply false at worst....Yet, it is often claimed that randomness drives evolution, as in the quotation from Monod above. We have to ask, where does chance really enter into evolution?"
>

"Monod's use of the phrase 'realm of pure chance' is rhetoric and is misleading at best, simply false at worst...." (John Wilkins).

Based on following explication (not reproduced here) Wilkins is talking about Monod's description of mutation, not NS or evolution in general.

"Yet, it is often claimed that randomness drives evolution, as in the quotation from Monod above. We have to ask, where does chance really enter into evolution?" (John Wilkins).

Quote above is only referring to mutation, not NS or evolution in general. So Wilkins is NOT criticizing Monod for saying NS or evolution is random, but for saying what he said about mutation.

If I'm now right then I admit my previous understanding to be error and retract saying Monod and Wilkins were talking about NS or evolution in general, when in fact both were only addressing mutation.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Monod also acknowledged necessity but that is beside the point in regard to the issue seen above.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 7:03:59 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:

[snip all content....]

I'm not ignoring your replies. When I have the time.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 1:54:03 PM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:

Yes, I have now acknowledged in a retraction post.

> In fact, Monod argues
> the exact opposite of what you claim - it is right here - I insert where
> the transition form random to non-random happens in the argument:
>
> But once incorporated in the DNA structure, the accident (RANDOM
> MUTATION) -- essentially unpredictable because always singular (RANDOM
> MUTATION) -- will be mechanically and faithfully replicated and
> translated: that is to say, both multiplied and transposed into millions
> or thousands of millions of copies. Drawn from the realm of pure chance
> (RANDOM), the accident enters into that of necessity (NON RANDOM), of
> the most implacable certainties. For natural selection operates at the
> macroscopic level, the level of organisms'
>
> So you start with the random mutation, which is then transformed by NS
> ("enters into that", in Monod's words) into the field of necessity, and
> with that non-randomness.

With my retraction in place the original issue remains: Where did Darwin say or indicate non-random selection process? Since the Evolutionists have yet to identify any word or term that means non-random, you're left with your claims based entirely on assertion that a stipulation, however valid, is in place.

Ray

[Robert Camp]

Wilkins is talking about Monod's comments regarding mutation (Wilkins:
"This conception of genetic changes as accidental and unique..."). He's
saying that Monod errs in qualifying the causes of mutation as random
and "pure chance." Wilkins' point is that there is plenty we can know
about the causes of mutation.

None of that, however, affects the more salient concept of mutation as
_random with respect to need_, i.e., regardless of the cause of genetic
changes, they don't occur in response to a requirement on the part of
the organism or species. In that context, they simply occur, are either
harmful, beneficial or neutral, and in the case of the first two are
subject to selection.

>> Natural selection is the antithesis of a random process.
>
> Fine, I have nothing invested against. So why is NS described as
> undirected?

Because there is no one doing the directing.

>> You don't need a scientist to explain this, you just need to
>> understand English.
>
> Where in the English language does "favoured" or "necessity" mean or
> imply non-randomness?

In *every* case where someone uses either of those words. To favor
something is to choose it (for some reason). And to choose something for
a reason is to apply criteria (rather than closing your eyes and blindly
throwing darts). And to have criteria for a choice is to necessarily
adopt a non-random process.

"Necessity" has less of a purposive connotation, but the rationale for
implication of non-random is substantially the same as for "favored."

> You've defended "favoured" to **indicate** non-random and now you're
> doing the same with "necessity." Yet non-random, or any synonym, does
> not appear in either definition. I'm willing to concede that Monod
> and Darwin were using stipulated definitions, **which is perfectly
> legitimate,** but you need to produce evidence or something that
> supports these stipulations. Without a corresponding connection your
> claim that both terms convey a non-random process is entirely
> asserted.

I need provide nothing more than common sense. As I said before, if you
understand English, if you appreciate the way words interact in any kind
of relatively grammatically correct sentence - you know that favored is
unavoidably non-random.

>> (As I asked for a cite to Monod, I'll ignore the stuff from Wilkins
>> whom I'm confident you've misinterpreted as badly as you did
>> Monod.)
>>
>> <snip more non-Monod quotes>
>
> I quoted and cited Monod via another scholar, which is perfectly
> legitimate. The link is pasted above. We have a Monod quote and
> criticism by Wilkins.
>
> Your "response" implies that you're unwilling to consider the
> possibility that Wilkins and/or Monod (two fellow Atheists) might
> have erred only because a Creationist is involved in the discovery.

My response implies nothing but what it says: that you were wrong about
Monod, and that you were misinterpreting Wilkins. Both of these
assertions are plainly true.

I have no problem considering that either Monod or Wilkins might be
wrong about something. Your history, however, strongly suggests that you
would be the last person to demonstrate it.

[Dana Tweedy]

Because nothing is directing the selection process. It's the
environment itself that provides the selection pressure.

>
>> You don't need
>> a scientist to explain this, you just need to understand English.
>>
>
> Where in the English language does "favoured" or "necessity" mean or imply non-randomness?

Everywhere the English language is spoken, or understood.

>
> You've defended "favoured" to **indicate** non-random and now you're doing the same with "necessity." Yet non-random, or any synonym, does not appear in either definition.

Ray, do you understand that if something is "favored" it's preference
was not random? Do you understand that necessity means it's not a
random happenstance?

> I'm willing to concede that Monod and Darwin were using stipulated definitions, **which is perfectly legitimate,** but you need to produce evidence or something that supports these stipulations.

Ray, your inability to understand the English Language is not a problem
for either Monod, or Darwin.

> Without a corresponding connection your claim that both terms convey a non-random process is entirely asserted.

Ray, why would either of those terms NOT convey a that they aren't
random? If you favor a particular choice, your picking that choice is
not random. If you are forced, by necessity, to choose a particular
item, how is that a random choice?

>
>> (As I asked for a cite to Monod, I'll ignore the stuff from Wilkins whom
>> I'm confident you've misinterpreted as badly as you did Monod.)
>>
>> <snip more non-Monod quotes>
>
> I quoted and cited Monod via another scholar, which is perfectly legitimate.

The problem was you completely misunderstood what Monod, and Wilkens
were talking about, and used them to support a claim that had no
validity.

> The link is pasted above. We have a Monod quote and criticism by Wilkins.

Neither of which supported your claim. That shows it was you that got
it wrong, and no one else.

>
> Your "response" implies that you're unwilling to consider the possibility that Wilkins and/or Monod (two fellow Atheists) might have erred only because a Creationist is involved in the discovery.

No, it's pointing out that the "creationist" can't read a simple
statement without completely distorting the statement to say something
it does not.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 11/23/15 1:37 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 12:18:59 PM UTC-8, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> [snip all content....]
>
>>
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html
>>
>> Following the Monod quotation:
>>
>> John Wilkins: "Monod's use of the phrase 'realm of pure chance' is rhetoric and is misleading at best, simply false at worst....Yet, it is often claimed that randomness drives evolution, as in the quotation from Monod above. We have to ask, where does chance really enter into evolution?"
>>
>
> "Monod's use of the phrase 'realm of pure chance' is rhetoric and is misleading at best, simply false at worst...." (John Wilkins).

Yes, but you were the one who misunderstood what Monod, and Wilkins were
talking about.

You were the one who mistakenly assumed that they meant Natural
Selection, instead of mutations.

>
> Based on following explication (not reproduced here) Wilkins is talking about Monod's description of mutation, not NS or evolution in general.

Which is what you got wrong.

>
> "Yet, it is often claimed that randomness drives evolution, as in the quotation from Monod above. We have to ask, where does chance really enter into evolution?" (John Wilkins).
>
> Quote above is only referring to mutation, not NS or evolution in general. So Wilkins is NOT criticizing Monod for saying NS or evolution is random, but for saying what he said about mutation.

and again, you were the only one who made that mistake.

>
> If I'm now right then I admit my previous understanding to be error and retract saying Monod and Wilkins were talking about NS or evolution in general, when in fact both were only addressing mutation.

Great, are you willing to go back over every other misunderstood point,
and misstated principle in your last decade of posting?


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

Necessity is part of what makes Natural Selection non random.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

He's there to tell Lenny about the rabbits....

DJT

[paul.i...@gmail.com]

Ray ranted:

> In other words, you're STIPULATING "good" to mean "non-random"
> and "bad" to mean "random."

No. I'm stipulating no such thing.

Re-read my post more carefully, and then please apologise for misrepresenting
me like that.

(* Snip rest of Ray's post based on misunderstanding my words *)

[Ernest Major]

Write out 100 times "Undirected is not a synonym of random."

Write out 100 times "Undirected is not a synomym of directionless."

Natural selection is described as undirected by people like you to
smuggle in the assumption that natural selection entails atheism.
Non-creationists are less likely to describe it as undirected - they'd
be more likely to describe it as non-teleological. If they did describe
it as undirected they would be expressing an opinion that it is not
driven by a single directing agency.

>
>> You don't need
>> a scientist to explain this, you just need to understand English.
>>
>
> Where in the English language does "favoured" or "necessity" mean or imply non-randomness?

Ask Dembski - his trichotomy has design and necessity at the two
alternatives to chance (randomness).

Favoured implies a bias towards the favoured, i.e. not random.

Necessity implies that only one outcome is possible, i.e. not random.

Also, write out 100 times "Processes can be partly random and partly
non-random. Differential reproductive success is such a process."

>
> You've defended "favoured" to **indicate** non-random and now you're doing the same with "necessity." Yet non-random, or any synonym, does not appear in either definition. I'm willing to concede that Monod and Darwin were using stipulated definitions, **which is perfectly legitimate,** but you need to produce evidence or something that supports these stipulations. Without a corresponding connection your claim that both terms convey a non-random process is entirely asserted.
>
>> (As I asked for a cite to Monod, I'll ignore the stuff from Wilkins whom
>> I'm confident you've misinterpreted as badly as you did Monod.)
>>
>> <snip more non-Monod quotes>
>
> I quoted and cited Monod via another scholar, which is perfectly legitimate. The link is pasted above. We have a Monod quote and criticism by Wilkins.
>
> Your "response" implies that you're unwilling to consider the possibility that Wilkins and/or Monod (two fellow Atheists) might have erred only because a Creationist is involved in the discovery.

As your subsequent retraction implies, his response recognises that your
desperate attempts to support the unsupportable have damaged your
ability to read for comprehension to the degree that you can read a
clear statement and infer the opposite meaning. I hope that you've
managed to compartmentalise this so that you can still function in the
world.

>
> Ray
>


--
alias Ernest Major

[Greg Guarino]

On 11/21/2015 12:19 PM, Burkhard wrote:
>> Alan says NS acts randomly AND non-randomly, are you saying both too
>> or just the latter?
>
> NS as commonly understood is non-random. That does not preclude that
> lots of members of a population will die form random events - Alan seems
> to call this random NS, which is non-standard at the very least.
>>
>>> That is all that "non-random" means - a causal mechanism that allows
>>> explanations and permits predictions.
>>>
>>
>> Alan says it means "directional." I don't need to provide the
>> quotation, do I?
>
> I must admit I rarely read his posts these days with any attention - he
> is a broken record who repeats the same claim without responding to the
> counter arguments, so nothing new to learn. So yes, I'd need a quote to
> get an idea of what he means.

Kleinman has - it seems - invented a new term: "random selection". I
have never heard it before, at least in the context of biology.

He used it in a recent discussion about drift and neutral fixations in
the EV simulation program. A couple of years ago he had repeatedly
asserted that EV could not fix new mutations with "selection turned
off". Faced with repeatable and undeniable evidence that it does in fact
do exactly that, he has seized upon the idea that "selection" - which he
now takes to mean *any* case in which not every member of the population
reproduces - cannot be "turned off" in EV. Thus all those multiple
fixations were due to his new kind of selection - "random selection",
and he was not actually wrong.

[Ernest Major]

IIRC, he used this term in the abstract to his 2014 paper. It's not
clear to me whether it means genetic drift, or selection in which
neither of a pair of alleles is lethal, or both of those situations.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ray Martinez]

What does "partially non-random" mean and imply?

> And please, try not to be so silly as to think you could actually do damage.
>
> >> - if by "works" you mean communicates the exact same meaning. It's
> >> awkward, it's something Darwin would never have said, in fact it's
> >> something no one would say because random as an adjective is never
> >> really used to modify nouns like Races, but it is something of a
> >> start.
> >>
> >> In any case, I never said Favoured means non-random (neither did
> >> Mark, by the way).
> >
> > Mark said it.
>
> He said nothing of the kind. It seems your inability to correctly
> interpret plain English extends to your own remarks. You said, "Can you
> isolate some sentences, phrases, and words that indicate non-random?" To
> which Mark answered, "Note the word "Favoured.""
>

Yep....he said it. In response to my request he offered "Favoured."

> You asked for a word that would "indicate" (i.e., point to, be a sign
> of, be evidence of, bespeak of, testify to) "non-random." Mark gave you
> one. There was never any suggestion of synonymity.
>

As if indicate or synonymous are not synonymous in this context. You don't understand plain English, that much is clear. If you did you wouldn't be here arguing "favoured" or "necessity" to mean surfboard (= non-random). You haven't been able to produce one quote from Monod or Darwin that explains what either term actually means. And we KNOW Darwin had great difficulty explaining natural selection to his scientific peers. This would explain your difficulty in telling us how you KNOW Darwin meant non-random.

Mark said it and now so have you. You will continue to pretend otherwise and probably disappear (as you usually do).

The point is evolutionary theory and its main concepts are conveyed by a number of terms that have a host of made up meanings. Subjectivity, subjectivity, subjectivity. You've been unable to produce one shred of evidence justifying any term to mean non-random. You've asserted repeatedly while suggesting failure to understand equates to a mental deficiency. In other words it's the "if you don't agree with me you're stupid" card, which only means you can't tell me where you obtained the idea that selection, favoured, and necessity mean non-random.

As I said early on, I know the answer to the question. The Evolutionists here don't even know where non-random was obtained! LOL! LOL! LOL! Hint: It wasn't from Darwin or Wallace.

Here's another hint: Why don't you read the Wilkins paper a little more closely?

Ray

[Robert Camp]

I said nothing about "partially non-random." My use of the word was in
reply to your question about whether your paraphrase worked. It does, in
that it partially communicates the point Darwin was making when he said
"favoured."

>> And please, try not to be so silly as to think you could actually
>> do damage.
>>
>>>> - if by "works" you mean communicates the exact same meaning.
>>>> It's awkward, it's something Darwin would never have said, in
>>>> fact it's something no one would say because random as an
>>>> adjective is never really used to modify nouns like Races, but
>>>> it is something of a start.
>>>>
>>>> In any case, I never said Favoured means non-random (neither
>>>> did Mark, by the way).
>>>
>>> Mark said it.
>>
>> He said nothing of the kind. It seems your inability to correctly
>> interpret plain English extends to your own remarks. You said, "Can
>> you isolate some sentences, phrases, and words that indicate
>> non-random?" To which Mark answered, "Note the word "Favoured.""
>
> Yep....he said it. In response to my request he offered "Favoured."
>
>> You asked for a word that would "indicate" (i.e., point to, be a
>> sign of, be evidence of, bespeak of, testify to) "non-random." Mark
>> gave you one. There was never any suggestion of synonymity.
>
> As if indicate or synonymous are not synonymous in this context.

"Indicate" and "synonymous" are not synonyms in *any* context. The
euphemisms I gave you are straight out of the dictionary, and none of
them imply synonymity with synonym.

> You
> don't understand plain English, that much is clear. If you did you
> wouldn't be here arguing "favoured" or "necessity" to mean surfboard
> (= non-random).

I'm not arguing for it. It is undeniably the case. As I don't argue that
the sky is indeed blue, neither do I need to argue that those terms
suggest non-randomness - everyone who can read understands that.

And what does "surfboard" have to do with anything?

> You haven't been able to produce one quote from Monod
> or Darwin that explains what either term actually means. And we KNOW
> Darwin had great difficulty explaining natural selection to his
> scientific peers. This would explain your difficulty in telling us
> how you KNOW Darwin meant non-random.

Here's how I know: he used the word "favoured," and I know what that
word means.

> Mark said it and now so have you. You will continue to pretend
> otherwise and probably disappear (as you usually do).

Oh my. Now in addition to your childish inability to admit your mistake
you're also going to play the "you ran away" card? What is this, pre-school?

> The point is evolutionary theory and its main concepts are conveyed
> by a number of terms that have a host of made up meanings.
> Subjectivity, subjectivity, subjectivity. You've been unable to
> produce one shred of evidence justifying any term to mean non-random.

Look up "favored" and "necessity" in the dictionary, Ray. And while
you're at it, look up "indicate."

It's small wonder that you cannot come up with an intelligible (much
less effective) argument against evolution when you have so much
difficulty understanding common words.

> You've asserted repeatedly while suggesting failure to understand
> equates to a mental deficiency.

I don't recall asserting anything about mental deficiencies. I do think
you have mental problems, but that's a separate issue.

> In other words it's the "if you don't
> agree with me you're stupid" card, which only means you can't tell me
> where you obtained the idea that selection, favoured, and necessity
> mean non-random.

What would you have people do when someone makes claims about terms that
are manifestly counter to their intended, documented, obvious dictionary
definitions?

If you don't want people to think you're stupid, don't say stupid
things. Don't ask where someone "obtained the idea that selection,

favoured, and necessity mean non-random."

First, no one said those words "mean" non-random (again with this
problem with synonymity - it's another word you should probably look
up). Those words don't mean non-random, but they *do* indicate
non-randomness, they are examples of non-random processes.

And second, the place one "obtains" ("gets" is a perfectly useful word,
you know) that idea is most likely grade school. You know, the place
where you learn about words and grammar and how to use a dictionary?
That's where you learn that to favor something is to have a preference
for it. That's where you learn that if something is a necessity it is
required, and there has to be a reason for that requirement.

That's where you learn that random means no possible outcome has a
higher probability than any other - and *that* means there can be no
preference or requirement for any particular outcome involved.

All of this means that you are once again arguing with the dictionary,
insisting that black is white and up is down.

This is what people who lack a firm grasp on reality do, Ray.

> As I said early on, I know the answer to the question. The
> Evolutionists here don't even know where non-random was obtained!
> LOL! LOL! LOL! Hint: It wasn't from Darwin or Wallace.

Of course not. Both Darwin and Wallace got it from the same place the
rest of us did - the English language.

> Here's another hint: Why don't you read the Wilkins paper a little
> more closely?

I read it, Ray. And since you've been reduced to this silly implication
that you have some secret knowledge (rather than stating it openly), I'm
forced to assume you haven't.

[Ray Martinez]

On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 4:34:01 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:

[snip material addressed previously....]

>
> >> You asked for phrases "that indicate non-random." You didn't ask
> >> for synonyms.
> >
> > Why did Mark offer "favoured"?
>
> Because it "indicates non-random." It "points to," "bespeaks of,
> "testifies to" non-randomness.
>
> How is this not painfully obvious?
>

Because in real life no one, including dictionaries, understands "favoured" or "necessity" to mean non-random. You don't know where Monod or Darwin defined their terms. You've accepted what other people have said without checking yourself. You're a blind follower, Robert. You're parroting long held orthodoxy without knowing where non-random was obtained.

> > I asked for phrases because no single word or term in the text at
> > issue means non-random. Mark attempted to identify a synonym, he
> > failed.
>
> No, you've failed at the most basic level of comprehension. "Favoured"
> is not a synonym of non-random but it most definitely (in the context of
> Darwin's use) and ridiculously obviously _indicates_ a process of choice
> (selection). That *is* non-randomness.
>

So it means "whatever exists." And Darwin is held to be brilliant? You don't see how incredibly stupid and oxymoronic all of this is? Again, your answer written above equates to a repeated assertion. Yet again, I ask, how does "favoured" indicate "non-random"? I can't even find a Thesaurus to help out here. So your source for the claim that "favoured" indicates "non-random" is previous knowledge that biologists accept a non-random selection process. Where did biologists obtain the idea that selection is non-random?

Answer the question, Robert....please.

> >> Favoured indicates non-random because in this context it means
> >> selected for reproductive success - a non-random process. You would
> >> know this if you'd read the book, or were capable of actually, you
> >> know, learning things.
> >
> > Again, the issue is where did theory founder relate a non-random
> > process?
>
> Do you mean "the" theory founder? If so, the answer is in the word
> "Favoured."
>

No, I said "theory founder," didn't use a definite article because there is more than one theory founder.

> How is this still not getting through?

I'm wondering the same thing. WHERE did you obtain the idea that "favoured" indicates non-random? When explaining natural selection in his text Darwin used the word "good." This particular term is painfully ambiguous. Gould said Darwin's theory of natural selection, while remaining Darwinian and accepted, has undergone light modification. So isn't it true that Darwin never said non-random, that his successors have modified the theory right here?

>
> > All you and others have done is assert various passages to
> > mean non-random. But NS is understood as natural or undirected. So if
> > the process is non-random what is meant by undirected?
>
> It means that no agency is doing any directing. It does *not* mean there
> is no direction. In fact there is such a thing as directional selection.
>

Oh so non-random has at least two valid meanings in regard to selection?

Non-random means directional but not directed; you don't see how ripe such a claim is for misunderstanding? Can you reference ANY scholar or scientist who has taken the time to explain directional but not directed?

> This is one of those cases in which you're going to have to try hard to
> look beyond your cartoon version of reality - where everything confirms
> what you want to believe - and appreciate the nuances in the use of
> certain terms (e.g., directed and direction).
>

You don't see a contradiction? "The phenomenon behaves in a predictable way but it isn't directed." How do you guys KNOW it isn't directed? Cannot one say predictability supports directedness? Of course one can. But I'm not saying that. I'm just pointing out a wad of contradictions that you're denying.

> > Alan Kleinman
> > MD PhD refused to answer. In my mind this indicates much.
>
> Consider that not getting an answer from someone is quite likely not the
> same as a refusal to answer.
>

> >> But back to the question you are apparently afraid to answer - What

> >> is it you imagine Darwin meant when he said "favoured"?
> >

> > Whatever exists.
>
> So to your mind, when Darwin said "...or the Preservation of Favoured
> Races..." he meant "or the continued existence of existing races," is
> that right? Are you sure you want to stick with an interpretation of the
> word "favoured" that strips it, and the phrase in which it's used, of
> all meaning?

The favoured was not selected so it can only mean "whatever exists."

This is why I'm an anti-selectionist. Natural selection is pointless, doesn't make any sense.

"I tried once or twice to explain to able men what I meant by natural selection, but signally failed" (Darwin, Autobio:124).

Ray

[Robert Camp]

On 11/24/15 1:41 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 4:34:01 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp
> wrote:
>
> [snip material addressed previously....]
>
>>
>>>> You asked for phrases "that indicate non-random." You didn't
>>>> ask for synonyms.
>>>
>>> Why did Mark offer "favoured"?
>>
>> Because it "indicates non-random." It "points to," "bespeaks of,
>> "testifies to" non-randomness.
>>
>> How is this not painfully obvious?
>>
>
> Because in real life no one, including dictionaries, understands
> "favoured" or "necessity" to mean non-random. You don't know where
> Monod or Darwin defined their terms. You've accepted what other
> people have said without checking yourself. You're a blind follower,
> Robert. You're parroting long held orthodoxy without knowing where
> non-random was obtained.

In the sense that I've learned and use English the same way most other
people have and do, yes, I'll cop to being a follower.

You should try it. You might appear...well, sane.

>>> I asked for phrases because no single word or term in the text
>>> at issue means non-random. Mark attempted to identify a synonym,
>>> he failed.
>>
>> No, you've failed at the most basic level of comprehension.
>> "Favoured" is not a synonym of non-random but it most definitely
>> (in the context of Darwin's use) and ridiculously obviously
>> _indicates_ a process of choice (selection). That *is*
>> non-randomness.
>>
>
> So it means "whatever exists."

Only in your fevered imagination does it mean that.

> And Darwin is held to be brilliant?
> You don't see how incredibly stupid and oxymoronic all of this is?
> Again, your answer written above equates to a repeated assertion. Yet
> again, I ask, how does "favoured" indicate "non-random"? I can't even
> find a Thesaurus to help out here. So your source for the claim that
> "favoured" indicates "non-random" is previous knowledge that
> biologists accept a non-random selection process.

That is certainly not my source. As I've said several times now, my
source is a common-sense understanding of what the word "favoured" means.

> Where did
> biologists obtain the idea that selection is non-random?

From observing that some mutations increase reproductive success while
others decrease it. This means there's a bias in the system, and that
means it is not a random process.

> Answer the question, Robert....please.

I've answered it ad nauseam at this point.

>>>> Favoured indicates non-random because in this context it means
>>>> selected for reproductive success - a non-random process. You
>>>> would know this if you'd read the book, or were capable of
>>>> actually, you know, learning things.
>>>
>>> Again, the issue is where did theory founder relate a non-random
>>> process?
>>
>> Do you mean "the" theory founder? If so, the answer is in the word
>> "Favoured."
>>
>
> No, I said "theory founder," didn't use a definite article because
> there is more than one theory founder.

In which case one uses the plural of founder.

>> How is this still not getting through?
>
> I'm wondering the same thing. WHERE did you obtain the idea that
> "favoured" indicates non-random? When explaining natural selection in
> his text Darwin used the word "good." This particular term is
> painfully ambiguous. Gould said Darwin's theory of natural selection,
> while remaining Darwinian and accepted, has undergone light
> modification. So isn't it true that Darwin never said non-random,
> that his successors have modified the theory right here?

For all of your scholarly posturing you have a remarkably deficient
understanding of this subject. I don't mean there are facts and figures
you're missing. I mean you don't really _understand_ anything.

Non-random simply means "not random." This means that there is some sort
of preference or bias in the process. This is a fundamental concept that
is inherent in many of the words used (even the word "process" implies
non-randomness). No one, including Darwin, ever had to overtly assert
non-randomness. When they used words like "good" and "bad," or
"favoured" and "necessity," they communicated it implicitly.

>>> All you and others have done is assert various passages to mean
>>> non-random. But NS is understood as natural or undirected. So if
>>> the process is non-random what is meant by undirected?
>>
>> It means that no agency is doing any directing. It does *not* mean
>> there is no direction. In fact there is such a thing as directional
>> selection.
>
> Oh so non-random has at least two valid meanings in regard to
> selection?

What in god's name are you reading? Where could you have possibly gotten
that impression?

> Non-random means directional but not directed; you don't see how ripe
> such a claim is for misunderstanding?

Only in the case of functional illiterates.

> Can you reference ANY scholar
> or scientist who has taken the time to explain directional but not
> directed?

I'm sorry, Ray. At this point I'm not even sure we're speaking the same
language. I seriously have no idea what such a request could mean.

>> This is one of those cases in which you're going to have to try
>> hard to look beyond your cartoon version of reality - where
>> everything confirms what you want to believe - and appreciate the
>> nuances in the use of certain terms (e.g., directed and
>> direction).
>>
>
> You don't see a contradiction? "The phenomenon behaves in a
> predictable way but it isn't directed." How do you guys KNOW it isn't
> directed?

The same way I know that angels aren't pushing the planets, demons
aren't causing epilepsy, and aliens aren't probing the derrières of
lunatics.

> Cannot one say predictability supports directedness? Of
> course one can.

Sure, if one is a functional illiterate.

> But I'm not saying that. I'm just pointing out a wad
> of contradictions that you're denying.

No, you're not. You're throwing a whole bunch of pasta at a wall and
hoping something will stick in order to cover up your massively foolish
misunderstanding of this issue.

>>> Alan Kleinman MD PhD refused to answer. In my mind this indicates
>>> much.
>>
>> Consider that not getting an answer from someone is quite likely
>> not the same as a refusal to answer.
>>
>>>> But back to the question you are apparently afraid to answer -
>>>> What is it you imagine Darwin meant when he said "favoured"?
>>>
>>> Whatever exists.
>>
>> So to your mind, when Darwin said "...or the Preservation of
>> Favoured Races..." he meant "or the continued existence of existing
>> races," is that right? Are you sure you want to stick with an
>> interpretation of the word "favoured" that strips it, and the
>> phrase in which it's used, of all meaning?
>
> The favoured was not selected so it can only mean "whatever exists."
>
> This is why I'm an anti-selectionist. Natural selection is pointless,
> doesn't make any sense.

When someone tries as hard as you do to misunderstand something that is
patently obvious to everyone else, that person is either utterly
disingenuous or has lost quite a few of his marbles.

I don't know whether it is any consolation to you, but I don't think
you're disingenuous.

[Rolf]

"Robert Camp" <rober...@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
news:n32l5o$q17$1...@dont-email.me...

Interesting to read your opinion about his way of using words. AFAIK, he's
created his own personal dictionary to be included in his hypothetical
paper, now downgraded to book. That is also connected with his great
interest in the text of all Darwins writings. His grand project was to "tear
down Darwin", on the assumption that with Darwin as the foundation of the
ToE, that would be the end of the theory. As if the all science since Darwin
would be irrelevant.

Now it looks like he's left that road and doesn't quite know where to hang
his hat.

[Ray Martinez]

> >> - if by "works" you mean communicates the exact same meaning.
> >> It's awkward, it's something Darwin would never have said, in fact it's
> >> something no one would say because random as an adjective is never
> >> really used to modify nouns like Races, but it is something of a start.
> >>
> >> In any case, I never said Favoured means non-random (neither did Mark,
> >> by the way).
> >
> > Mark said it.
>

> Ray, it is atypical for you to bear false witness so blatantly.
>

You said it again below.

> >> You asked for phrases "that indicate non-random." You
> >> didn't ask for synonyms.
> >
> > Why did Mark offer "favoured"?
>

> Because you asked me to. You asked for "sentences, phrases, and words
> that indicate non-random." I offered one, "favoured", which fit your
> request perfectly.
>

See, you said it again. If "favoured" indicates non-random then both terms are loosely synonymous, Mark. You can't have one without the other.

> > I asked for phrases because no single word or term in the text at
> > issue means non-random. Mark attempted to identify a synonym, he failed.
>

> You did not ask for a synonym. I provided, at your request, a word
> which does not mean, but which *indicates*, non-randomness.
>

Contradiction; "does not mean, but which indicates."

The problem here is your thinking. You're unable to think logically, which is a universal problem among all Evolutionists.

> For analogy, "eastward" is obviously not a synonym of "non-random". But
> if things are moving consistently eastward, then they are not moving
> randomly, and so "eastward" indicates non-random.
>
> >> [...]
> >> But back to the question you are apparently afraid to answer - What is

> >> it you imagine Darwin meant when he said "favoured"?
> >

> > Whatever exists.
>
> You must have worked extremely hard to warp your mind so unnaturally as
> to believe a word means something that far from its meaning. Doesn't it
> hurt to do that?
>

The favoured were not selected but preserved so the term corresponds to whatever survives or whatever exists.

Ray

[Ernest Major]

From Wikipedia (quoting George Orwell)

"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct,
at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not
grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of
misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc,
and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable
of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means
protective stupidity"

--
alias Ernest Major

[Dana Tweedy]

He didn't say that favored means non random. He says that favored
indicates non random.

>
>>>> You asked for phrases "that indicate non-random." You
>>>> didn't ask for synonyms.
>>>
>>> Why did Mark offer "favoured"?
>>
>> Because you asked me to. You asked for "sentences, phrases, and words
>> that indicate non-random." I offered one, "favoured", which fit your
>> request perfectly.
>>
>
> See, you said it again.

Yes, he said it indicated non random, as you asked for. he did not say
it was the same thing.

> If "favoured" indicates non-random then both terms are loosely synonymous, Mark. You can't have one without the other.

Ray, please try to understand what words mean before you go around
making such accusations.

>
>>> I asked for phrases because no single word or term in the text at
>>> issue means non-random. Mark attempted to identify a synonym, he failed.
>>
>> You did not ask for a synonym. I provided, at your request, a word
>> which does not mean, but which *indicates*, non-randomness.
>>
>
> Contradiction; "does not mean, but which indicates."

That's not a contradiction, Ray. Your ignorance of basic English is
getting you into trouble again.

>
> The problem here is your thinking. You're unable to think logically, which is a universal problem among all Evolutionists.
>

Ray, you know nothing about logic, or thinking. That your own bizarre
twisted thought processes aren't shared with the rest of the world does
not mean the rest of the world is out of step.

>> For analogy, "eastward" is obviously not a synonym of "non-random". But
>> if things are moving consistently eastward, then they are not moving
>> randomly, and so "eastward" indicates non-random.
>>
>>>> [...]
>>>> But back to the question you are apparently afraid to answer - What is
>>>> it you imagine Darwin meant when he said "favoured"?
>>>
>>> Whatever exists.
>>
>> You must have worked extremely hard to warp your mind so unnaturally as
>> to believe a word means something that far from its meaning. Doesn't it
>> hurt to do that?
>>
>
> The favoured were not selected but preserved so the term corresponds to whatever survives or whatever exists.

Being preserved is what makes them selected, Ray. Whatever survives
does so because it's best suited for the environment, not simply because
it exists.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 11/24/15 2:41 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 4:34:01 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
>
> [snip material addressed previously....]
>
>>
>>>> You asked for phrases "that indicate non-random." You didn't ask
>>>> for synonyms.
>>>
>>> Why did Mark offer "favoured"?
>>
>> Because it "indicates non-random." It "points to," "bespeaks of,
>> "testifies to" non-randomness.
>>
>> How is this not painfully obvious?
>>
>
> Because in real life no one, including dictionaries, understands "favoured" or "necessity" to mean non-random.

What an odd statement. I don't know of anyone who would agree with your
here, Ray. Where exactly do you get this idea?

> You don't know where Monod or Darwin defined their terms.

Presumably, Darwin used terms that were already defined in dictionaries,
and understood by speakers of the English Language. Monod wrote in
French, so his terms were translated into English, by people who
understood both French, and English.

Ray doesn't understand any form of human language, apparently.

> You've accepted what other people have said without checking yourself. You're a blind follower, Robert. You're parroting long held orthodoxy without knowing where non-random was obtained.

Wow. Irony meters all around the world exploded with that one.

>
>>> I asked for phrases because no single word or term in the text at
>>> issue means non-random. Mark attempted to identify a synonym, he
>>> failed.
>>
>> No, you've failed at the most basic level of comprehension. "Favoured"
>> is not a synonym of non-random but it most definitely (in the context of
>> Darwin's use) and ridiculously obviously _indicates_ a process of choice
>> (selection). That *is* non-randomness.
>>
>
> So it means "whatever exists."

No, that's not what it means. Favored does not mean "whatever exists"
but which ones were more fortunate, and survived.

> And Darwin is held to be brilliant?

Yes. Your own dullness is why you can't see it.

> You don't see how incredibly stupid and oxymoronic all of this is?

No, because Robert isn't an idiot.

> Again, your answer written above equates to a repeated assertion. Yet again, I ask, how does "favoured" indicate "non-random"?

Because in a random situation, there's no favoring. Survival is a matter
of luck, not phenotype being most compatible with the environment.

> I can't even find a Thesaurus to help out here.

Why would you want to use a Thesaurus here anyway? We are talking about
biology. You are trying to argue word meanings.

> So your source for the claim that "favoured" indicates "non-random" is previous knowledge that biologists accept a non-random selection process.

Biologists know that favored indicates other than random because they
understand how language is used. Natural selection is not a random
process, but one that gives direction.

> Where did biologists obtain the idea that selection is non-random?
>
> Answer the question, Robert....please.

By observing nature, Ray. By seeing that the ones that tend to survive
are most suited to their environment. That's not random survival, but
directed survival.

>
>>>> Favoured indicates non-random because in this context it means
>>>> selected for reproductive success - a non-random process. You would
>>>> know this if you'd read the book, or were capable of actually, you
>>>> know, learning things.
>>>
>>> Again, the issue is where did theory founder relate a non-random
>>> process?
>>
>> Do you mean "the" theory founder? If so, the answer is in the word
>> "Favoured."
>>
>
> No, I said "theory founder," didn't use a definite article because there is more than one theory founder.

Either way, selection by natural environment is not random.

>
>> How is this still not getting through?
>
> I'm wondering the same thing. WHERE did you obtain the idea that "favoured" indicates non-random?

Through understanding what the word "favored" means.

> When explaining natural selection in his text Darwin used the word "good." This particular term is painfully ambiguous. Gould said Darwin's theory of natural selection, while remaining Darwinian and accepted, has undergone light modification. So isn't it true that Darwin never said non-random, that his successors have modified the theory right here?
>

You are both confused, and misrepresenting what Darwin and Gould said.
When Darwin used the word "good" he was talking about the "good" of the
individual, as in what works. Darwin never said that selection was
random, and you really don't understand what Gould was talking about
either.

This is why your doctrine of certainty is the wrong approach. You can
never tell when you get something wrong.

>>
>>> All you and others have done is assert various passages to
>>> mean non-random. But NS is understood as natural or undirected. So if
>>> the process is non-random what is meant by undirected?
>>
>> It means that no agency is doing any directing. It does *not* mean there
>> is no direction. In fact there is such a thing as directional selection.
>>
>
> Oh so non-random has at least two valid meanings in regard to selection?

Where did you get that idea, Ray?

>
> Non-random means directional but not directed;

That's not what he said.

> you don't see how ripe such a claim is for misunderstanding?

Only by someone bound to misunderstand.

> Can you reference ANY scholar or scientist who has taken the time to explain directional but not directed?

Why would any "scholar" need to do so? It's something that most people
learn in elementary school. The wind blows in a direction, but it's
not "directed" to blow that way. Rivers flow in a particular direction,
but there isn't any individual making them flow that way. The process
can have a direction, but nothing directing it.

>
>> This is one of those cases in which you're going to have to try hard to
>> look beyond your cartoon version of reality - where everything confirms
>> what you want to believe - and appreciate the nuances in the use of
>> certain terms (e.g., directed and direction).
>>
>
> You don't see a contradiction?

You see contradictions were they don't exist, Ray.

> "The phenomenon behaves in a predictable way but it isn't directed."

No contradiction there at all. There are any number of examples one can
draw from nature of predictable phenomena that aren't directed.

> How do you guys KNOW it isn't directed?

No evidence of direction. If you want to believe there is, you are
welcome to believe that, but there's no evidence that supports you.

> Cannot one say predictability supports directedness?

One can say that, but you'd be wrong. Again.

> Of course one can. But I'm not saying that. I'm just pointing out a wad of contradictions that you're denying.

There are no contradictions here, Ray. It's just your own twisted
thought processes and unfounded assumptions.

>
>>> Alan Kleinman
>>> MD PhD refused to answer. In my mind this indicates much.
>>
>> Consider that not getting an answer from someone is quite likely not the
>> same as a refusal to answer.
>>
>>>> But back to the question you are apparently afraid to answer - What
>>>> is it you imagine Darwin meant when he said "favoured"?
>>>
>>> Whatever exists.
>>
>> So to your mind, when Darwin said "...or the Preservation of Favoured
>> Races..." he meant "or the continued existence of existing races," is
>> that right? Are you sure you want to stick with an interpretation of the
>> word "favoured" that strips it, and the phrase in which it's used, of
>> all meaning?
>
> The favoured was not selected so it can only mean "whatever exists."

Wrong again. It was selected, by the environment acting as sieve.

>
> This is why I'm an anti-selectionist. Natural selection is pointless, doesn't make any sense.

This is entirely due to your own mental limitations, not because of
anything wrong with natural selection.

>
> "I tried once or twice to explain to able men what I meant by natural selection, but signally failed" (Darwin, Autobio:124).

You keep using this quotation as if it supported your own position, when
it does not. It only shows that two individuals did not get it, not
that no one can understand the idea.


DJT

[Rolf]

"Dana Tweedy" <reddf...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:Wd-dnZhvd_hrY8nL...@giganews.com...

Talking about favoured, which of a number of candidates for to select, say a
sniper to ambush a prominent celebrity to statesman, (like Albert Spaggiari
at one time only had to pull the trigger to change world history, with
Charles de Gaulle in his sight.)

Yeah, I wouldn't hestitate to be in favor of selecting someone like M.
Spaggiari for a job like that.

Wouldn't the best fit be selected, and why? #1: Because he was the best fit.
#2 implicit in #1: Becasuse the less fit were not selected. = negatively
selected.

Selection may also be understood as the non-survival of the less fit. Those
less succesful in the race for survival would leave fewer and/or less
succesful offspring.

Natural Selection is not random. The options available for selection may
well be the result of random (= events non-predictable, or events caused by
random events, like for instance a hit or hits on DNA by solar or cosmic
radiation.

A person unable to understand such simple things are either stupid beyond
salvation, or consciously refusing to use what little thinking capability
might be left in his brain. Because the only thought he is capable of
thinking is the thought that he already knows better than all other people.
Especially better than scientists. Because if you are a scientist, the odds
are 100 to 1 you are an atheist, and atheists are no better that religious
fundamentalists; they are presumed also to think they already know the
truth.

[Burkhard]

Not at all. Smoke indicates fire. But fire and and smoke are not
synonymous.

>You can't have one without the other.

Of course you can. Synonymy is a mere semantic relation between words,
"indicates" is a factual relation between things in the real world, the
two are independent of each other

>
>>> I asked for phrases because no single word or term in the text at
>>> issue means non-random. Mark attempted to identify a synonym, he failed.
>>
>> You did not ask for a synonym. I provided, at your request, a word
>> which does not mean, but which *indicates*, non-randomness.
>>
>
> Contradiction; "does not mean, but which indicates."

Smoke indicates fire. An object moving around on its own power
indicates life. A drop in unemployment indicates that quantitative
easing has worked. a fingerprint on the knife indicates that MacKie is
the murderer....

Lots of things indicate another thing, without being synonymous

>
> The problem here is your thinking. You're unable to think logically, which is a universal problem among all Evolutionists.

that is supremely funny - if everybody seem to drive on the wrong road
but you,

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 4:34:01 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
>
> [snip material addressed previously....]
>
>>
>>>> You asked for phrases "that indicate non-random." You didn't ask
>>>> for synonyms.
>>>
>>> Why did Mark offer "favoured"?
>>
>> Because it "indicates non-random." It "points to," "bespeaks of,
>> "testifies to" non-randomness.
>>
>> How is this not painfully obvious?
>>
>
> Because in real life no one, including dictionaries, understands "favoured" or "necessity" to mean non-random.

and nobody claims this is a issue of word use that you establish via a
dictionary, it is a question of fact that you observe while studying
nature - all the observations that are reported in the quote I gave you
are inconsistent with NS being random,

>You don't know where Monod or Darwin defined their terms. You've accepted what other people have said without checking yourself. You're a blind follower, Robert. You're parroting long held orthodoxy without knowing where non-random was obtained.
>
>>> I asked for phrases because no single word or term in the text at
>>> issue means non-random. Mark attempted to identify a synonym, he
>>> failed.
>>
>> No, you've failed at the most basic level of comprehension. "Favoured"
>> is not a synonym of non-random but it most definitely (in the context of
>> Darwin's use) and ridiculously obviously _indicates_ a process of choice
>> (selection). That *is* non-randomness.
>>
>
> So it means "whatever exists." And Darwin is held to be brilliant? You don't see how incredibly stupid and oxymoronic all of this is? Again, your answer written above equates to a repeated assertion. Yet again, I ask, how does "favoured" indicate "non-random"? I can't even find a Thesaurus to help out here.

Look up "random". The ask yourself what traits a process must have, thus
defined, to be random, wand what features it must not have. The presence
of each and any of such as feature, if you observe it, then indicates
the process is not random

>So your source for the claim that "favoured" indicates "non-random" is previous knowledge that biologists accept a non-random selection process. Where did biologists obtain the idea that selection is non-random?
>
> Answer the question, Robert....please.
>
>>>> Favoured indicates non-random because in this context it means
>>>> selected for reproductive success - a non-random process. You would
>>>> know this if you'd read the book, or were capable of actually, you
>>>> know, learning things.
>>>
>>> Again, the issue is where did theory founder relate a non-random
>>> process?
>>
>> Do you mean "the" theory founder? If so, the answer is in the word
>> "Favoured."
>>
>
> No, I said "theory founder," didn't use a definite article because there is more than one theory founder.

In standard English that would require the plural "s".

>
>> How is this still not getting through?
>
> I'm wondering the same thing. WHERE did you obtain the idea that "favoured" indicates non-random?

From knowing what random means, and from that, understanding what
traits a process must have to be called random. If a process selects,
changes, modifies, eliminates, enhances....something "because" it has a
feature such as being favoured, being green, being round, being
popular...short, "because it has property X", it can't be random

>When explaining natural selection in his text Darwin used the word "good." This particular term is painfully ambiguous. Gould said Darwin's theory of natural selection, while remaining Darwinian and accepted, has undergone light modification. So isn't it true that Darwin never said non-random, that his successors have modified the theory right here?
>
>>
>>> All you and others have done is assert various passages to
>>> mean non-random. But NS is understood as natural or undirected. So if
>>> the process is non-random what is meant by undirected?
>>
>> It means that no agency is doing any directing. It does *not* mean there
>> is no direction. In fact there is such a thing as directional selection.
>>
>
> Oh so non-random has at least two valid meanings in regard to selection?

No, how do you infer this form the above? There are different reasons
why a process can be non-random, and hence different ways in which you
can test if a process is non-random, but that does not change the
meaning of the term,

>
> Non-random means directional but not directed; you don't see how ripe such a claim is for misunderstanding? Can you reference ANY scholar or scientist who has taken the time to explain directional but not directed?
>
>> This is one of those cases in which you're going to have to try hard to
>> look beyond your cartoon version of reality - where everything confirms
>> what you want to believe - and appreciate the nuances in the use of
>> certain terms (e.g., directed and direction).
>>
>
> You don't see a contradiction? "The phenomenon behaves in a predictable way but it isn't directed." How do you guys KNOW it isn't directed?

We don't. And we don't have to. if I see an apple falling from a tree,
the theory of gravity allows us to predict where it will fall. For that
prediction, no assumption that someone directs the apple to a specific,
desired goal is necessary.

That allows us to say that relative to the theory of gravity, the fall
of apples is non-random but not goal driven or directed (the old
Aristotelian theory where apples "want" to be closer to the ground)

That leaves open the possibility that the fall of the apple is in
reality directed, that someone or something wanted that apple to be at
that specific pace, and set up a very complex system that we experience
as gravity acting on that apple. To have merit, this explanation would
then need to show that it can make more, or more accurate, or more
simple etc predictions about falling objects than the current theory

>Cannot one say predictability supports directedness?

Nope. As a matter of fact, many directed processes are also predictable.
But not all of them. You might for instance have a plan, a direction for
your actions but because of the limits of your knowledge or ability, the
outcome is a random distribution. Happens all the time when people think
they have a "system" for winning roulette.

[Mark Isaak]

Let us know when you learn to read and write in English. Until then,
there is no point in continuing any discussion with you.

[Ray Martinez]

On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 9:29:00 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:

> > On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 1:34:09 AM UTC-8, solar penguin wrote:
> >> On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 19:38:40 -0800, Ray Martinez wrote:

> >>
> >>> On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 3:59:09 PM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
> >>>> Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>>

> >>> A spin-off topic from the on-going Alan Kleinman topic.
> >>>
> >>>>> On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 2:29:14 PM UTC-8, Alan Kleinman MD
> >>>>> PhD wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [snip....]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For any Evolutionist:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> 2. How can selection be non-random and undirected at the same time?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Selection is random when you have many different causes of death in
> >>>>>> a population. Selection is non-random or directional when you have a
> >>>>>> single cause of death affecting a population like and antibiotic
> >>>>>> acting on a population of bacteria which targets a single gene.
> >>>>>> These types of selection pressures kill the weakest members of the
> >>>>>> population first. If any members have any degree of resistance to
> >>>>>> the drug, they are candidates for the rmns phenomenon. Some lucky
> >>>>>> member of the remaining population can get a lucky mutation on
> >>>>>> replication and become more resistant to the drug. There are
> >>>>>> instances of single selection pressures which are not directional. A
> >>>>>> common one is bleach. Bleach denatures many biological molecules, to
> >>>>>> many genetic targets and therefore rmns does not work in this
> >>>>>> instance even though it is a single selection pressure.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Alan, like almost all Evolutionists, contends the selection process
> >>>>> behaves non-randomly. I'm challenging the claim that natural
> >>>>> selection behaves or acts non-randomly.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> WHERE was THIS idea obtained?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Since the phrase "natural selection" is original to Darwin, where did
> >>>>> Darwin define and explain his theory as behaving non-randomly?
> >>>>
> >>>> Here, for instance:
> >>>>
> >>>> It may metaphorically be said that natural selection is daily and
> >>>> hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the
> >>>> slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all
> >>>> that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever
> >>>> opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in
> >>>> relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life. We see
> >>>> nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has
> >>>> marked the long lapse of ages, and then so imperfect is our view into
> >>>> long past geological ages, that we only see that the forms of life are
> >>>> now different from what they formerly were.
> >>>>
> >>>> Although natural selection can act only through and for the good of
> >>>> each being, yet characters and structures, which we are apt to consider
> >>>> as of very trifling importance, may thus be acted on. When we see
> >>>> leaf-eating insects green, and bark-feeders mottled-grey; the alpine
> >>>> ptarmigan white in winter, the red-grouse the colour of heather, and
> >>>> the black-grouse that of peaty earth, we must believe that these tints
> >>>> are of service to these birds and insects in preserving them from
> >>>> danger. Grouse, if not destroyed at some period of their lives, would
> >>>> increase in countless numbers; they are known to suffer largely from
> >>>> birds of prey; and hawks are guided by eyesight to their prey--so much
> >>>> so, that on parts of the Continent persons are warned not to keep white
> >>>> pigeons, as being the most liable to destruction. Hence I can see no
> >>>> reason to doubt that natural selection might be most effective in
> >>>> giving the proper colour to each kind of grouse, and in keeping that
> >>>> colour, when once acquired, true and constant. Nor ought we to think
> >>>> that the occasional destruction of an animal of any particular colour
> >>>> would produce little effect: we should remember how essential it is in
> >>>> a flock of white sheep to destroy every lamb with the faintest trace of
> >>>> black. In plants the down on the fruit and the colour of the flesh are
> >>>> considered by botanists as characters of the most trifling importance:
> >>>> yet we hear from an excellent horticulturist, Downing, that in the
> >>>> United States smooth-skinned fruits suffer far more from a beetle, a
> >>>> curculio, than those with down; that purple plums suffer far more from
> >>>> a certain disease than yellow plums; whereas another disease attacks
> >>>> yellow-fleshed peaches far more than those with other coloured flesh"

> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> I still don't see it. Can you isolate some sentences, phrases, and words
> >>> that indicate non-random?
> >>>
> >>

> >> Allow me.
> >>
> >> "natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinising ... rejecting that
> >> which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good"
> >>
> >> -- In other words, not randomly deciding what to reject and what to
> >> preserve.

> >>
> >
> > In other words, you're STIPULATING "good" to mean "non-random" and "bad" to mean "random."
>

> No he doesn't He points out that "good" and "bad" in the quote are
> criteria for the selection.

Claim repeated.

> If a selection is caused by criteria, any
> criteria, it is not random. That is the word meaning of "random"

Bizarre.

> >
> > We are told unless indicated otherwise a scientific text is to be understood literally.
>
> And Darwin says explicitly here that the sentence is metaphorical - not
> that it matters in this case

Where does he say that "explicitly" (your term)?

>
> >Note the fact that "good" does not mean "non-random," never has. Both terms are not synonyms.
>
> Nobody claims they are.

You're saying it; you're arguing good means non-random; if not which word in the quote at issue corresponds to non-random? You had to obtain the idea from somewhere, I'm struggling to find out where?

> What they are though are examples of criteria.
> And a selection that abides by criteria is not random as a mater of the
> meaning of "random"

I couldn't ask for a better example of something made up then asserted.

>
> >You can say it means "non-random" but Darwin didn't say it, he said
> "good." If you persist in saying that "good" means "non-random" then
> you're making up a definition for a special reason and need.
> >
>
> Not at all, he applies generally valid rules of the syntax of English.
> A sentence of the syntactic form "A is selected because of X" always
> describes a non-random process because of the syntactic rules of
> "because of"
>

Again, this says "good" means "non-random." It doesn't. The concept of "good" has never meant "non-random."

Burk is really attempting to redefine "causation" as presupposing or meaning non-random. The definition is made up. If he had a source he would have already posted it. The reason Burk and other Evolutionists attempt these redefinitions is because neither "good" nor "causation" mean non-random. Anyone can check a dictionary or thesaurus to confirm, obviously.

> > In reality all Darwin said is that the good = existence or that which was not selected, and the bad = not existing or that which was selected.
> >
> > In other words he said what God said in Genesis (without even knowing it). God or invisible Director looked at His creation (= what exists) and said it is good.
> >
> >> "silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity
> >> offers, at the improvement of each organic being"
> >>
> >> -- In other words, it doesn't randomly sometimes try to improve and
> >> sometimes harm each organic being.
> >>
> >
> > Your explanation, and the Darwin quote, have zero correspondence. No word or phrase in the Darwin quote at hand means "not randomly."
> >
> > In reality all Darwin said is that NS operates quietly, without being perceived, when opportunity arises, to better living things.
> >
> > Below you repeat your made up definitions.
> >
> > Ray
> >
> >> "natural selection can act only through and for the good of each being"
> >>
> >> -- In other words, it doesn't randomly choose between the good and the
> >> bad of each being.
> >>
> >> "smooth-skinned fruits suffer far more from a beetle, a curculio, than
> >> those with down"
> >>
> >> -- In other words, it isn't random which fruits suffer most.
> >>
> >> "purple plums suffer far more from a certain disease than yellow plums"
> >>
> >> -- In other words, it isn't random which plum suffers most.
> >>
> >> "another disease attacks yellow-fleshed peaches far more than those with
> >> other coloured flesh"
> >>
> >> -- In other words, it isn't random which peaches will be attacked the
> >> most.
> >>
> >> OTOH whether you think Darwin was right or wrong about non-randomness is
> >> another thing...
> >

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Your "argument" only exists because no one understands "favoured" as indicating non-random and because Darwin never used non-random or any synonym. Your argument exists to stipulate a desired definition.

> >
> > The problem here is your thinking. You're unable to think logically, which is a universal problem among all Evolutionists.
>
> that is supremely funny - if everybody seem to drive on the wrong road
> but you,

[Ray Martinez]

On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 2:43:47 PM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 4:34:01 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
> >
> > [snip material addressed previously....]
> >
> >>
> >>>> You asked for phrases "that indicate non-random." You didn't ask
> >>>> for synonyms.
> >>>
> >>> Why did Mark offer "favoured"?
> >>
> >> Because it "indicates non-random." It "points to," "bespeaks of,
> >> "testifies to" non-randomness.
> >>
> >> How is this not painfully obvious?
> >>
> >
> > Because in real life no one, including dictionaries, understands "favoured" or "necessity" to mean non-random.
>
> and nobody claims this is a issue of word use that you establish via a
> dictionary, it is a question of fact that you observe while studying
> nature - all the observations that are reported in the quote I gave you
> are inconsistent with NS being random,

This is an admission that dictionaries don't support your claims. And to say you obtained non-random from studying nature means you didn't obtain from Darwin's text, and it means you've assumed your conclusion. We don't see any selection phenomenon going on in nature----NONE. So whatever you're talking about isn't observed, but inferred.

These claims are made from the perspective of effects, not cause. In relevant literature natural selection (alleged cause) is described as mindless and other synonyms.

>
> >When explaining natural selection in his text Darwin used the word "good." This particular term is painfully ambiguous. Gould said Darwin's theory of natural selection, while remaining Darwinian and accepted, has undergone light modification. So isn't it true that Darwin never said non-random, that his successors have modified the theory right here?
> >
> >>
> >>> All you and others have done is assert various passages to
> >>> mean non-random. But NS is understood as natural or undirected. So if
> >>> the process is non-random what is meant by undirected?
> >>
> >> It means that no agency is doing any directing. It does *not* mean there
> >> is no direction. In fact there is such a thing as directional selection.
> >>
> >
> > Oh so non-random has at least two valid meanings in regard to selection?
>
> No, how do you infer this form the above? There are different reasons
> why a process can be non-random, and hence different ways in which you
> can test if a process is non-random, but that does not change the
> meaning of the term,
> >
> > Non-random means directional but not directed; you don't see how ripe such a claim is for misunderstanding? Can you reference ANY scholar or scientist who has taken the time to explain directional but not directed?
> >
> >> This is one of those cases in which you're going to have to try hard to
> >> look beyond your cartoon version of reality - where everything confirms
> >> what you want to believe - and appreciate the nuances in the use of
> >> certain terms (e.g., directed and direction).
> >>
> >
> > You don't see a contradiction? "The phenomenon behaves in a predictable way but it isn't directed." How do you guys KNOW it isn't directed?
>
> We don't.

False; the ToE does claim to know NS undirected, unguided, unintelligent.

Ray

[Burkhard]

No, not really. It addresses your confusion that "being a criterion for"
and "being synonymous with" are the same thing

>
>> If a selection is caused by criteria, any
>> criteria, it is not random. That is the word meaning of "random"
>
> Bizarre.

Nope, that is what random means. If I select "because of X", and X then
the choice is not random, by definition of "random".

>
>>>
>>> We are told unless indicated otherwise a scientific text is to be understood literally.
>>
>> And Darwin says explicitly here that the sentence is metaphorical - not
>> that it matters in this case
>
> Where does he say that "explicitly" (your term)?

Right in the first sentence of my quote: (my emphasis, as you
apparently can;t read carefully enough):

"It may METAPHORCALLY be said that natural selection is daily and

hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation"

>
>>

>>> Note the fact that "good" does not mean "non-random," never has. Both terms are not synonyms.
>>
>> Nobody claims they are.
>
> You're saying it; you're arguing good means non-random;

No, I don't. I'm saying that "good" is the criterion for the selection,
and a selection that follows criteria can;t be random. Synonymity
doesn't enter the equation.

>
>if not which word in the quote at issue corresponds to non-random? You had to obtain the idea from somewhere, I'm struggling to find out where?

Sigh... "Random" means "unpredictably, without known cause" Here we have
a cause. A traits was selected beCAUSE it is good. Whenever you have
such a "because" in an explanation, it isn't random.

>
>> What they are though are examples of criteria.
>> And a selection that abides by criteria is not random as a mater of the
>> meaning of "random"
>
> I couldn't ask for a better example of something made up then asserted.

So you don't know the definition of random, that is tour problem?

Here is one:

adjective
1.
proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern:
the random selection of numbers.
2.
Statistics. of or characterizing a process of selection in which each
item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.

If traits are selected because they are good then as I said, there is a
"reason" that they are selected, and the selection gives a clear pattern
- hence not random, as per 1) in the definition. And if good traits have
a better chance of being selected than bad ones, they don;t have an
equal probability of being chosen, hence not random accodring to
definition 2

>
>>
>> >You can say it means "non-random" but Darwin didn't say it, he said
>> "good." If you persist in saying that "good" means "non-random" then
>> you're making up a definition for a special reason and need.
>>>
>>
>> Not at all, he applies generally valid rules of the syntax of English.
>> A sentence of the syntactic form "A is selected because of X" always
>> describes a non-random process because of the syntactic rules of
>> "because of"
>>
>
> Again, this says "good" means "non-random." It doesn't. The concept of "good" has never meant "non-random."
>
> Burk is really attempting to redefine "causation" as presupposing or meaning non-random. The definition is made up. If he had a source he would have already posted it.

I simply assumed your English was good enough to know this, therefore I
thought it might be patronizing to post this - I should have known
better, the definition is now above. And yes, causal

[Burkhard]

My argument shows that your English skills are even poorer than I
thought, and my examples falsify your claim that "means" is synonymous
with "indicates"

>>>
>>> The problem here is your thinking. You're unable to think logically, which is a universal problem among all Evolutionists.
>>
>> that is supremely funny - if everybody seem to drive on the wrong road
>> but you,
>
> "I tried once or twice to explain to able men what I meant by natural selection, but signally failed" (Darwin, Autobio:124).

They had the excuse that the idea was novel, what is yours?
>
> Ray
>

[Ernest Major]

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/staff/cain/projects/huxley

>
> They had the excuse that the idea was novel, what is yours?

Back in Darwin's day the scientific community didn't have a working
theory of heredity, or a working theory of variation. Darwin didn't need
either - only the existence of hereditable variation combined with the
introduction of novelties - but one can imagine how their lack might
give rise to difficulties in comprehension among concrete (as opposed to
abstract) thinkers.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 2:43:47 PM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 4:34:01 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip material addressed previously....]
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> You asked for phrases "that indicate non-random." You didn't ask
>>>>>> for synonyms.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why did Mark offer "favoured"?
>>>>
>>>> Because it "indicates non-random." It "points to," "bespeaks of,
>>>> "testifies to" non-randomness.
>>>>
>>>> How is this not painfully obvious?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because in real life no one, including dictionaries, understands "favoured" or "necessity" to mean non-random.
>>
>> and nobody claims this is a issue of word use that you establish via a
>> dictionary, it is a question of fact that you observe while studying
>> nature - all the observations that are reported in the quote I gave you
>> are inconsistent with NS being random,
>
> This is an admission that dictionaries don't support your claims.

No, the text does. It clearly describes selection as non-random, the way
randomness is understood in science and defined in dictionaries.

>And to say you obtained non-random from studying nature means you didn't obtain from Darwin's text,

Yes, Darwin's text describes NS as non-random, by giving specific causal
explanations, and then generalizing that explanation to a universal
pattern: good traits are selected, the others selected against.

>and it means you've assumed your conclusion.

No, it means that I understand what Darwin said, just like everyone else
who can read English, but apparently unlike you - which is a bit
shocking after all these years yo spend in his NG

> We don't see any selection phenomenon going on in nature----NONE. So whatever you're talking about isn't observed, but inferred.

Sinc you snipped the text that is under disucssion, let me

So what?

>
>>
>>> When explaining natural selection in his text Darwin used the word "good." This particular term is painfully ambiguous. Gould said Darwin's theory of natural selection, while remaining Darwinian and accepted, has undergone light modification. So isn't it true that Darwin never said non-random, that his successors have modified the theory right here?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> All you and others have done is assert various passages to
>>>>> mean non-random. But NS is understood as natural or undirected. So if
>>>>> the process is non-random what is meant by undirected?
>>>>
>>>> It means that no agency is doing any directing. It does *not* mean there
>>>> is no direction. In fact there is such a thing as directional selection.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh so non-random has at least two valid meanings in regard to selection?
>>
>> No, how do you infer this form the above? There are different reasons
>> why a process can be non-random, and hence different ways in which you
>> can test if a process is non-random, but that does not change the
>> meaning of the term,
>>>
>>> Non-random means directional but not directed; you don't see how ripe such a claim is for misunderstanding? Can you reference ANY scholar or scientist who has taken the time to explain directional but not directed?
>>>
>>>> This is one of those cases in which you're going to have to try hard to
>>>> look beyond your cartoon version of reality - where everything confirms
>>>> what you want to believe - and appreciate the nuances in the use of
>>>> certain terms (e.g., directed and direction).
>>>>
>>>
>>> You don't see a contradiction? "The phenomenon behaves in a predictable way but it isn't directed." How do you guys KNOW it isn't directed?
>>
>> We don't.
>
> False; the ToE does claim to know NS undirected, unguided, unintelligent.

The ToE gives an explanation that does not evoke or need any reference
to directions, or intelligent guidance. But to say that something is not
known to be needed is not the same as claiming that something is known
not to exist. "I don't need X" and "There is no X" are not at all the
same thing.

"Humans" e.g. don't pop up in the theory of gravity. That of course does
not mean humans don't exist, or that physicists don't know that human's
exist - unlike in theories of history however, they do not play a known
explanatory role in the ToG. That could, in theory, change once a
physicist finds an explanatory role for them (e.g. if contractually,
gravity were to act differently on organic than inorganic entities)

so, as I said above, the ToE will describe and explain the diversity of
species without recourse to directions or intentional, planned action -
up to such a time when someone can show that a theory that has such a
concept delivers better predictive results. In this case, the planner
apparently thought that using a mix of NS and RM was a good way to
achieve his.her /their goal.

[Burkhard]

Burkhard wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:

>> On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 3:59:09 PM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
>>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>

>> I still don't see it. Can you isolate some sentences, phrases, and
>> words that indicate non-random?
>

> I'm at a conference in Mexico at the moment and a bit pressed for time
> and lacking internet access, but I saw that Solar Penguin gave a very
> good answer in the meantime.
>
> Pretty much every sentence of the quote (which is why I chose it) - they
> all state the criteria that causally influenced the selection in this
> case - so there is always a known causal factor.
>
> Starting right at the beginning:

>
> "It may metaphorically be said that natural selection is daily and
> hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the
> slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all
> that is good"
>

> So there are certain conditions ('being good" vs "being bad" that
> causally determine the outcome of the selection - hence they can't be
> random.
>
> Here a simple illustration, if you struggle with either Darwin's prose
> or the meaning of "random':
>
> Take three rabbit breeders, John, Paul and Ringo. They all have a
> population of rabbits which come in brown, grey and white. Every evening
> they select one for dinner:
>
> John loves all his rabbits equally, so he puts on blindfolds when he
> selects one: random selection. We can't predict which rabbit he'll
> select, and if it is going to be grey , white or brown. Once he selected
> a rabbit, we can't give a reason why THIS rabbit was chosen apart form
> saying: bad luck. And we can't predict how the population will change
> over time: brown might become more prevalent, grey might become more
> prevalent, white might become more prevalent, or the relative
> proportions might stay the same.
>
> Paul by contrast was as a child bitten by a brown rabbit, and has a
> subconscious hatred of brown rabbits. He is not aware of this fact, but
> as long as there are brown rabbits available, he'll pick one and eat it.
> Non-random: we can predict what color the next rabbit he'll select will
> have, once a brown rabbit was selected we can explain this choice (See,
> it's like this, he was bitten as a child by a brown rabbit, he does, so
> he always picks on them), and we can predict how the population will
> change (brown rabbits will become rare). But it is also
> "non-directional" or non-goal driven: Paul is not planning to have a
> world without brown rabbits, this is just a side effect of his
> subconscious phobia.
>
> Ringo is a proper breeder who also sells rabbits. He knows that brown
> rabbits get the least amount of money, so he wants to get rid of them.
> He knows enough about animal husbandry to realize that if he prevents
> brown rabbits from breeding (by eating them while they are still very
> young, and other methods) he will eventually only have white and grey
> rabbits. So he selects brown rabbits for dinner. Non-random: just as
> with Paul, we can predict his choice, explain his choice once it was
> made, and predict the impact it will have on the make up of the
> population. But this time the action is also goal driven and directed.
> Ringo selects brown rabbits "in order to" change the population.

>
> John is randomly selecting. Paul and Ringo are both examples of NS -
> Paul undirected, Ringo directed which makes Ringo also an example of
> artificial selection.
>
>>
>>>

>>> IF NS were random, we would not be able to answer the question: "why was
>>> this trait selected over the other trait", we would not see clear
>>> patterns that some traits are selected against and some selected for,
>>> and we would never be able to predict what will happen to a species if
>>> the environment changes in a specific way.

>>>
>>
>> Alan says NS acts randomly AND non-randomly, are you saying both too
>> or just the latter?
>
> NS as commonly understood is non-random. That does not preclude that
> lots of members of a population will die form random events - Alan seems
> to call this random NS, which is non-standard at the very least.
>>
>>> That is all that "non-random" means - a causal mechanism that allows
>>> explanations and permits predictions.
>>>
>>
>> Alan says it means "directional." I don't need to provide the
>> quotation, do I?
>
> I must admit I rarely read his posts these days with any attention - he
> is a broken record who repeats the same claim without responding to the
> counter arguments, so nothing new to learn. So yes, I'd need a quote to
> get an idea of what he means.
>

> Generally though, some people might argue that directional action is
> never random. In my examples, this would be the case of Ringo, whose
> selection has a direction or goal. The inverse is not true, there can
> be non-random action that is not directional (the example of Paul)
>
> Personally, I would not even accept that, though you get here a bit into
> issues of semantics and definitions. Take again John in my examples
> above. His selection is as random as it gets. But you could still say he
> has a "goal" or "direction": his goal is "fairness", and sometimes
> fairness is best achieved by designing a random choice. Which is why
> sometimes, we draw lots to reach a decision. I think this just happened
> in a US election, where a tie between the candidates was decided by
> pulling straws. A random mechanism, designed to achieve a goal (an
> appointment being made) in a fair way.
>
> In the same way, artists can and do design random mechanisms to achieve
> a goal (e.g. variation): e.g. by putting bags filled with paint in front
> of a canvas and then shooting a shotgun at it. Or we use random number
> generators in cryptography to achieve the goal of more difficult to hack
> codes etc etc.
>
> So I would say "randomness" and "directness" are not semantically
> connected - some random processes are directed, many non-random
> processes are undirected, the best we might claim is that many directed
> processes are not random, as a matter of contingent fact.
>
> But as I said, this is a bit an issue of semantics - is "fairness" the
> direction of goal of John's selection?
>
>
>>
>>
>> Ray
>>
>
Ray, did you not say you were going to answer my post on this? Yo have
since replied to several other posts that came much later - just saying

[RMcBane]

On 11/28/2015 5:26 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

<snip>

> This is an admission that dictionaries don't support your claims. And to say you obtained non-random from studying nature means you didn't obtain from Darwin's text, and it means you've assumed your conclusion. We don't see any selection phenomenon going on in nature----NONE. So whatever you're talking about isn't observed, but inferred.

Ray,
You claim that we don't see any selection in
nature. While I know you mainly talk about
biology, let me give you a non-biological case
where nature does select.

First, if I gave you a bunch of rocks of various
sizes and asked you to sort them by size and put
them into different bucket, I hoping you would
agree that through that process you would be
selecting which rocks to put into which buckets.

Even if you decided to use a series of sieves of
different sizes, you would still be selecting
which rocks to put into which buckets.

Nature also selects and sorts materials of
different sizes using running water or wind.
Streams pick up materials and move them and the
size of the materials depends largely on the
velocity and amount of water flowing in the
stream. The faster the water, the larger the
particle it can pick up. In mountainous areas,
water can move materials from clay, silt, sand and
gravel to large boulders. As the velocity of the
water slows, the boulders drop out first, on down
to finer particles until only clay remains to be
carried to deltas.

We also see sorting in meandering streams as sand
is deposited in bars on one side of a turn and not
the other.

If you agree that a person sorting rocks by size
is a selection process and certainly a non-random
process, then surely you must be able to see that
sorting rocks by size in a stream is also a
non-random selection process.

Yes, I know that you are only talking about
biology, but your statement said "We don't see any

selection phenomenon going on in nature----NONE."

But sorting of particles by water is a selection
process that we observe in nature.



<snip>
--
Richard McBane

[Rolf]

"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:n3d9v0$s5k$2...@dont-email.me...

He doesn't want to know, that's why, He's said so himself. I presume because
he alredy knows the truth per his own definition.

"The concept of natural selection doesn't exist in nature" or something like
that.

>>
>> Ray
>>
>

[Burkhard]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 2:43:47 PM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 4:34:01 PM UTC-8, Robert Camp wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip material addressed previously....]
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> You asked for phrases "that indicate non-random." You didn't ask
>>>>>> for synonyms.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why did Mark offer "favoured"?
>>>>
>>>> Because it "indicates non-random." It "points to," "bespeaks of,
>>>> "testifies to" non-randomness.
>>>>
>>>> How is this not painfully obvious?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because in real life no one, including dictionaries, understands "favoured" or "necessity" to mean non-random.
>>
>> and nobody claims this is a issue of word use that you establish via a
>> dictionary, it is a question of fact that you observe while studying
>> nature - all the observations that are reported in the quote I gave you
>> are inconsistent with NS being random,
>
> This is an admission that dictionaries don't support your claims. And to say you obtained non-random from studying nature means you didn't obtain from Darwin's text, and it means you've assumed your conclusion. We don't see any selection phenomenon going on in nature----NONE.

> So whatever you're talking about isn't observed, but inferred.

Of course we can observe NS - to the extend that we can observe anything
without a degree of inference and interpretation that is. You never
observe e.g. a house - you observe the front, and then you infer from
experience that there are probably room and walls behind the front too.
All observation, to a degree, is theory dependent and requires
interpretation and inference.

In the case of NS, what you can e.g. observe is that birds eat moth.
What you can also observe is that they eat white moth. And then you can
also count your observations, and observe that while you saw lots of
cases where birds were eating white moth, you saw much fewer instances
of birds eating brown moth. And then you can observe, through a
controlled test, that even when the numbers of brown and white moth were
initially equal, after a while birds will have eaten much more of the
white moth than the brown moth. Now a degree of inference or
interpretation is necessary - you conclude from the sample that you
directly observed that this is also what happened to the population as a
whole - a simple statistical inference from a sample, the same we do
all the time, e.g. when you get a small sample of wine to taste from
your waiter, and you infer from the fact that the sample tastes good
that the entire bottle will taste good.

But that is the only inference or interpretation that is necessary here,
all the rest are as direct an observation as you can possibly get. Now,
if you want to you can do one additional test, and check that white and
black moth differ in a relevant gene (ruling out epigenetic factors) .
But that again is as close to a direct observation as you can get.

So yes, if we can observe anything, we can also observe NS

[Ray Martinez]

Funny how Richard Dawkins, while explicating natural selection, accounted for the sorting of pebbles on an beach as NOT supporting the Darwinian mechanism.

https://books.google.com/books?id=sPpaZnZMDG0C&pg=PA44&dq=%22sieving+of+this+order%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1y5eMh7nJAhWCRYgKHVItDLgQ6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&q=%22sieving%20of%20this%20order%22&f=false

"Sieving of this order of simplicity is not, on its own, enough to account for the massive amounts of nonrandom order we see in living things. Nowhere near enough" (Dawkins 1986:44).

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

And let me know where you obtained the idea that "favoured" indicates non-random? Until then, there is no point in continuing any discussion with you.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

This, and other synonymous explanations that you've offered, simply says any adjectival description, as long as it's not random, or any synonym, means non-random.

> >
> >>>
> >>> We are told unless indicated otherwise a scientific text is to be understood literally.
> >>
> >> And Darwin says explicitly here that the sentence is metaphorical - not
> >> that it matters in this case
> >
> > Where does he say that "explicitly" (your term)?
>
> Right in the first sentence of my quote: (my emphasis, as you
> apparently can;t read carefully enough):
>
> "It may METAPHORCALLY be said that natural selection is daily and
> hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation"
>

The word in caps does not appear in Darwin's text.

> >
> >>
> >>> Note the fact that "good" does not mean "non-random," never has. Both terms are not synonyms.
> >>
> >> Nobody claims they are.
> >
> > You're saying it; you're arguing good means non-random;
>
> No, I don't. I'm saying that "good" is the criterion for the selection,
> and a selection that follows criteria can;t be random. Synonymity
> doesn't enter the equation.
>

You can't have it both ways because in the end, according to your argument, or explanation, "good" means or indicates "non-random." You're saying "No," which rather quickly receives negation in the statement "a selection that follows criteria can't be random."

> >
> >if not which word in the quote at issue corresponds to non-random? You had to obtain the idea from somewhere, I'm struggling to find out where?
>
> Sigh... "Random" means "unpredictably, without known cause" Here we have
> a cause. A traits was selected beCAUSE it is good. Whenever you have
> such a "because" in an explanation, it isn't random.
>

This says the term "because" or "causation" presupposes non-random. In short you've argued these terms along with "selection," "favoured," and "good," to mean or indicate non-random, yet none of these terms mean or indicate non-random.

So we have a directional process that isn't directed. The logic of evolutionary theory is profoundly stupid, no wonder we see no selection process in nature. Like I've always said, logic tells us what can and cannot exist.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Sorry! Thanks for the reminder.

Ray

[RMcBane]

But the point is that nature can produce nonrandom
order which you claimed that nature could not do.

On the next page Dawkins goes on to describe the
difference in "single step" selection which is
sorting of pebbles and "cumulative selection"
which populations do over many generations.

Nice try at quote mining Dawkins.


--
Richard McBane

[Ray Martinez]

You're obligated to support your accusation of quote-mining. You're obligated to produce the quotes that negate:

"Sieving of this order of simplicity is not, on its own, enough to account for the massive amounts of nonrandom order we see in living things. Nowhere near enough."

Ray

[Burkhard]

you might want to read this again. Yes, indeed, any description that is
not random means the process is non-random - "non" and "not" sort of
meaning the same thing

>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We are told unless indicated otherwise a scientific text is to be understood literally.
>>>>
>>>> And Darwin says explicitly here that the sentence is metaphorical - not
>>>> that it matters in this case
>>>
>>> Where does he say that "explicitly" (your term)?
>>
>> Right in the first sentence of my quote: (my emphasis, as you
>> apparently can;t read carefully enough):
>>
>> "It may METAPHORCALLY be said that natural selection is daily and
>> hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation"
>>
>
> The word in caps does not appear in Darwin's text.

yes it does, it is a direct quote from the Darwin online version, from
which I cut and pasted it

>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Note the fact that "good" does not mean "non-random," never has. Both terms are not synonyms.
>>>>
>>>> Nobody claims they are.
>>>
>>> You're saying it; you're arguing good means non-random;
>>
>> No, I don't. I'm saying that "good" is the criterion for the selection,
>> and a selection that follows criteria can;t be random. Synonymity
>> doesn't enter the equation.
>>
>
> You can't have it both ways because in the end, according to your argument, or explanation, "good" means or indicates "non-random." You're saying "No," which rather quickly receives negation in the statement "a selection that follows criteria can't be random."

Of course I can have it both ways here. You start with the fallacious
idea that to determine that Darwin described NS as not random, we need
to find a synonym for non-random in his text. Where in reality, the only
thing we need is a description that indicates "non-random" - as my
examples show, "being synonyms with" and "indicating: are not the same
thing at all.

>
>> >
>>> if not which word in the quote at issue corresponds to non-random? You had to obtain the idea from somewhere, I'm struggling to find out where?
>>
>> Sigh... "Random" means "unpredictably, without known cause" Here we have
>> a cause. A traits was selected beCAUSE it is good. Whenever you have
>> such a "because" in an explanation, it isn't random.
>>
>
> This says the term "because" or "causation" presupposes non-random.

Yup. Only that it does not "presuppose" this, it simply follows form the
definition of random

>In short you've argued these terms along with "selection," "favoured," and "good," to mean or indicate non-random, yet none of these terms mean or indicate non-random.

Of course "favoured" indicates non random. If i chose something because
I favour it, I don't chose it randomly, I chose it because of a reason.
I only chose something randomly if I don't care about its
characteristics, am blindfolded etc

>
> So we have a directional process that isn't directed.

That is your weird way of putting it, nothing I said.

[Ray Martinez]

> I'm at a conference in Mexico at the moment and a bit pressed for time
> and lacking internet access, but I saw that Solar Penguin gave a very
> good answer in the meantime.
>

Penguin has yet to offer any rebuttal.

> Pretty much every sentence of the quote (which is why I chose it) - they
> all state the criteria that causally influenced the selection in this
> case - so there is always a known causal factor.
>
> Starting right at the beginning:
>

> "It may metaphorically be said that natural selection is daily and
> hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the
> slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all
> that is good"

The term "metaphorically" does not appear in the first edition, but it does in all editions thereafter.

>
> So there are certain conditions ('being good" vs "being bad" that
> causally determine the outcome of the selection - hence they can't be
> random.
>

The leap from good to non-random is not justified, but asserted. IF you say "indicates" then you're admitting Darwin didn't say non-random.

But NS has no mind or foresight; this, of course, is where Darwin had the most trouble in explaining NS. In Darwin's explication Ringo only serves to envision the concept minus intelligent input or choice. And since Paul has it in for brown rabbits he cannot possibly represent an accurate example of NS.

> >
> >>
> >> IF NS were random, we would not be able to answer the question: "why was
> >> this trait selected over the other trait", we would not see clear
> >> patterns that some traits are selected against and some selected for,
> >> and we would never be able to predict what will happen to a species if
> >> the environment changes in a specific way.
> >>
> >
> > Alan says NS acts randomly AND non-randomly, are you saying both too or just the latter?
>
> NS as commonly understood is non-random. That does not preclude that
> lots of members of a population will die form random events - Alan seems
> to call this random NS, which is non-standard at the very least.

Death by random events or choice is the rule not the exception. Killer whales, for example, can eat a lot of seals but not the entire population in any given sector of ocean. Yet both populations remain stable. You're not going to find any help for a non-random selection process in the struggle for survival between species. So the fact dictates that a non-random selection process was obtained elsewhere? Richard Dawkins, an able worker, says it's obtained from the organization of species----effects and/or results. He does NOT credit Darwin as a source. Non-random survival is deduced from species, not from the causation side of the equation. You have a mindless process (comprised of unintelligent material entities) that behaves directionally (deduced from effects) but is not directed (by an invisible Director). The second or middle element presents logical problems: the sandwich is illogical. You can't invoke mutation because the same precedes selection, feeds selection; and the Wilkins paper says mutation is a well understood law.

> >
> >> That is all that "non-random" means - a causal mechanism that allows
> >> explanations and permits predictions.
> >>
> >
> > Alan says it means "directional." I don't need to provide the quotation, do I?
>
> I must admit I rarely read his posts these days with any attention - he
> is a broken record who repeats the same claim without responding to the
> counter arguments, so nothing new to learn. So yes, I'd need a quote to
> get an idea of what he means.
>

But you're arguing selection is non-random or directional, so I don't really need to produce his quote, do I?

> Generally though, some people might argue that directional action is
> never random. In my examples, this would be the case of Ringo, whose
> selection has a direction or goal. The inverse is not true, there can
> be non-random action that is not directional (the example of Paul)
>
> Personally, I would not even accept that, though you get here a bit into
> issues of semantics and definitions. Take again John in my examples
> above. His selection is as random as it gets. But you could still say he
> has a "goal" or "direction": his goal is "fairness", and sometimes
> fairness is best achieved by designing a random choice. Which is why
> sometimes, we draw lots to reach a decision. I think this just happened
> in a US election, where a tie between the candidates was decided by
> pulling straws. A random mechanism, designed to achieve a goal (an
> appointment being made) in a fair way.
>
> In the same way, artists can and do design random mechanisms to achieve
> a goal (e.g. variation): e.g. by putting bags filled with paint in front
> of a canvas and then shooting a shotgun at it. Or we use random number
> generators in cryptography to achieve the goal of more difficult to hack
> codes etc etc.
>
> So I would say "randomness" and "directness" are not semantically
> connected - some random processes are directed, many non-random
> processes are undirected, the best we might claim is that many directed
> processes are not random, as a matter of contingent fact.
>
> But as I said, this is a bit an issue of semantics - is "fairness" the
> direction of goal of John's selection?
>

NS is baffling, these last few paragraphs don't help.

:)

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

On 11/30/15 3:38 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, November 30, 2015 at 2:13:32 PM UTC-8, RMcBane wrote:

snip

>>> Funny how Richard Dawkins, while explicating natural selection, accounted for the sorting of pebbles on an beach as NOT supporting the Darwinian mechanism.
>>>
>>> https://books.google.com/books?id=sPpaZnZMDG0C&pg=PA44&dq=%22sieving+of+this+order%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1y5eMh7nJAhWCRYgKHVItDLgQ6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&q=%22sieving%20of%20this%20order%22&f=false
>>>
>>> "Sieving of this order of simplicity is not, on its own, enough to account for the massive amounts of nonrandom order we see in living things. Nowhere near enough" (Dawkins 1986:44).
>>
>> But the point is that nature can produce nonrandom
>> order which you claimed that nature could not do.
>>
>> On the next page Dawkins goes on to describe the
>> difference in "single step" selection which is
>> sorting of pebbles and "cumulative selection"
>> which populations do over many generations.
>>
>> Nice try at quote mining Dawkins.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Richard McBane
>
> You're obligated to support your accusation of quote-mining.

He already did. He pointed out that Dawkins goes on to describe the
difference in single step versus cumulative selection, which shows your
out of context quote mischaracterizes what Dawkins wrote.

> You're obligated to produce the quotes that negate:
>
> "Sieving of this order of simplicity is not, on its own, enough to account for the massive amounts of nonrandom order we see in living things. Nowhere near enough."
>

No, he's only obligated to show why your trunicated quote distorts and
misrepresents what Darwkins was saying.

Dawkins was correctly saying that the kind of sorting seen in pebbles
isn't enough to account for the order in nature. Of course, no one said
it was. R.McBane was pointing out that your general claim, that nature
doesn't do any kind of selection, was wrong.

Dawkins' statement does not refute R.McBane's point. You quote mined
Dawkins, as was correctly pointed out.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 11/30/15 2:25 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 6:08:48 PM UTC-8, Mark Isaak wrote:

snip

>>>
>>> The favoured were not selected but preserved so the term corresponds to whatever survives or whatever exists.
>>
>> Let us know when you learn to read and write in English. Until then,
>> there is no point in continuing any discussion with you.
>
> And let me know where you obtained the idea that "favoured" indicates non-random?

Mark undoubtedly obtained that idea from something you lack, Ray. An
understanding of of the English language. Favored means preferred. A
preference is not random. If you favor something, your choice is
influenced, it's not random.

> Until then, there is no point in continuing any discussion with you.

Ray, You are running away again. Do you really imagine that no one else
sees it?


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 11/30/15 4:54 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 9:24:01 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:

snip

>>>
>>> I still don't see it. Can you isolate some sentences, phrases, and words that indicate non-random?
>>
>> I'm at a conference in Mexico at the moment and a bit pressed for time
>> and lacking internet access, but I saw that Solar Penguin gave a very
>> good answer in the meantime.
>>
>
> Penguin has yet to offer any rebuttal.

He has, but you've ignored it.

>
>> Pretty much every sentence of the quote (which is why I chose it) - they
>> all state the criteria that causally influenced the selection in this
>> case - so there is always a known causal factor.
>>
>> Starting right at the beginning:
>>
>> "It may metaphorically be said that natural selection is daily and
>> hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the
>> slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all
>> that is good"
>
> The term "metaphorically" does not appear in the first edition, but it does in all editions thereafter.

So, it does appear. You owe Burkhard an apology.

Do you understand the point, or are you just trying to avoid
acknowledging where you were wrong?

>
>>
>> So there are certain conditions ('being good" vs "being bad" that
>> causally determine the outcome of the selection - hence they can't be
>> random.
>>
>
> The leap from good to non-random is not justified, but asserted.

Why would it be a "leap" Ray? If something is beneficial, retaining it
is not random.

Exactly what do you think "random" means, Ray?

> IF you say "indicates" then you're admitting Darwin didn't say non-random.

Why would that matter? Darwin obviously indicated that selection was
not random, whether he used the exact words or not.

And why do you imagine that is a problem?

> this, of course, is where Darwin had the most trouble in explaining NS.

There's no evidence that is where Darwin had any trouble.

> In Darwin's explication Ringo only serves to envision the concept minus intelligent input or choice.

The point is that both Ringo and Paul get the same results, whether
there is "intelligent input" or not.

> And since Paul has it in for brown rabbits he cannot possibly represent an accurate example of NS.

Why not? Paul in this case is like a predator who takes brown rabbits
because he can see them better than a white rabbit in a snowy field.
There is no conscious intent, but the brown rabbits decline, and the
white rabbits increase in the population.

>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> IF NS were random, we would not be able to answer the question: "why was
>>>> this trait selected over the other trait", we would not see clear
>>>> patterns that some traits are selected against and some selected for,
>>>> and we would never be able to predict what will happen to a species if
>>>> the environment changes in a specific way.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Alan says NS acts randomly AND non-randomly, are you saying both too or just the latter?
>>
>> NS as commonly understood is non-random. That does not preclude that
>> lots of members of a population will die form random events - Alan seems
>> to call this random NS, which is non-standard at the very least.
>
> Death by random events or choice is the rule not the exception.

Why do you assume that? have you studied the statistical values?

> Killer whales, for example, can eat a lot of seals but not the entire population in any given sector of ocean.

But the eat the ones they can catch, which is part of the population.
Natural selection does not eliminate an entire population. It only
"selects" part of the population.

> Yet both populations remain stable.

Not necessarily. Killer whale population can increase, or decrease.
Seal populations can explode, or decline.

> You're not going to find any help for a non-random selection process in the struggle for survival between species.

Again, why not? You don't seem to have bothered to observed what
happens in nature at all.

> So the fact dictates that a non-random selection process was obtained elsewhere?

Why? Non random selection is seen in populations all over the Earth.

> Richard Dawkins, an able worker, says it's obtained from the organization of species----effects and/or results. He does NOT credit Darwin as a source. Non-random survival is deduced from species, not from the causation side of the equation.

You seem to have entirely misunderstood what Dawkins wrote.

> You have a mindless process (comprised of unintelligent material entities) that behaves directionally (deduced from effects) but is not directed (by an invisible Director).

Such things are very common in nature. Wind blows in a particular
direction, but there is no intelligent being determining which direction
it blows. Water runs downhill, without any conscious choice as to
which way.

> The second or middle element presents logical problems: the sandwich is illogical.

Not for anyone who understand how logic works. Your badly
misunderstood ideas about logic are just your own mistakes.

> You can't invoke mutation because the same precedes selection, feeds selection;

Mutations are the raw material that selection works upon.

> and the Wilkins paper says mutation is a well understood law.

It's well understood by persons who aren't Ray. Ray doesn't understand
it at all.

>
>>>
>>>> That is all that "non-random" means - a causal mechanism that allows
>>>> explanations and permits predictions.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Alan says it means "directional." I don't need to provide the quotation, do I?
>>
>> I must admit I rarely read his posts these days with any attention - he
>> is a broken record who repeats the same claim without responding to the
>> counter arguments, so nothing new to learn. So yes, I'd need a quote to
>> get an idea of what he means.
>>
>
> But you're arguing selection is non-random or directional, so I don't really need to produce his quote, do I?

Selection is not directed, but it's not random. I know you have trouble
wrapping your brain around that, but it's the truth.

Non directed processes can have direction of their own, as previous
examples of wind, and water demonstrate.

Natural selection is quite simple to understand, as long as one is not
furiously trying to avoid understanding. Your personal ignorance, and
stubborn refusal to think is not anyone elses problem.


DJT

[RMcBane]

I already referred you to the next page thinking
that you could find and read it for yourself.
Apparently I was wrong. At the bottom of the next
paragraph on p 45 he wrote:

"Simple sieving on its own, is obviously nowhere
near capable of generating the amount of order in
a living thing. Sieving is an essential
ingredient in the generation of living order, but
it is far from the whole story. Something else is
needed. To explain the point, I shall need to
make a distinction between 'single-step' selection
and 'cumulative' selection. The simple sieves we
have been considering so far in this chapter are
all examples of single-step selection. Living
organization is the product of cumulative selection."

The next paragraph then expands on that idea.

Again, the point of my example was to demonstrate
that nature can select and produce non-random
order contrary to your claim that it isn't possible.

--
Richard McBane

[Burkhard]

And you didn;t give any valid criticism of his answer, which was spot on

>
>> Pretty much every sentence of the quote (which is why I chose it) - they
>> all state the criteria that causally influenced the selection in this
>> case - so there is always a known causal factor.
>>
>> Starting right at the beginning:
>>
>> "It may metaphorically be said that natural selection is daily and
>> hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the
>> slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all
>> that is good"
>
> The term "metaphorically" does not appear in the first edition, but it does in all editions thereafter.

So?

>
>>
>> So there are certain conditions ('being good" vs "being bad" that
>> causally determine the outcome of the selection - hence they can't be
>> random.
>>
>
> The leap from good to non-random is not justified, but asserted.

No, it is a logical consequence derived from the meaning of "random" A
choice that is based ona criterion can never be random.

>IF you say "indicates" then you're admitting Darwin didn't say non-random.

He describes NS in ways that are incompatible with randomness, that is,
he describes NS as non-random. It is not necessary for this to use to
word random or its synonyms. It's all there, directly in the description
that he gives.

Of course he can. He isn't even aware of this preference, so he is not
making an intentional, planned, directed or otherwise goal driven
decision here.

From the perspective of the rabbit population, that is exactly the same
as being hunted by a fox that "goes after" the brown rabbits because
they are easier for him to spot

>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> IF NS were random, we would not be able to answer the question: "why was
>>>> this trait selected over the other trait", we would not see clear
>>>> patterns that some traits are selected against and some selected for,
>>>> and we would never be able to predict what will happen to a species if
>>>> the environment changes in a specific way.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Alan says NS acts randomly AND non-randomly, are you saying both too or just the latter?
>>
>> NS as commonly understood is non-random. That does not preclude that
>> lots of members of a population will die form random events - Alan seems
>> to call this random NS, which is non-standard at the very least.
>
> Death by random events or choice is the rule not the exception.

Possibly. You'd need to show your observations and math to prove that.
But it doesn't matter, really, as long as the exceptions result in a
statistically significant pattern that biases one trait over the other.

>Killer whales, for example, can eat a lot of seals but not the entire population in any given sector of ocean.

errm, yes, but so what?

>Yet both populations remain stable.

possibly - again that depends on what we observe. If the seal population
falls below a certain threshold, and there is no replacement food, we
should expect the whale population to fall as well in size.But again I
fail to see what that has to do with the question.

> You're not going to find any help for a non-random selection process in the struggle for survival between species.

The selection does not take part (primarily) between species, but
between members of a species with different traits. In your seal example
for instance, those seals that swim faster than their fellows, or can
stay longer on land without having to go to the water for hunting would
have a lower chance to get caught by a whale, and thus this trait would
become fixed in the population. Again, a non-random process, because we
can determine a specific cause, predict how the population will change,
explain the selection in terms of the benefits and disadvantages that
the trait under section confers, and observe a pattern,

> So the fact dictates that a non-random selection process was obtained elsewhere?

no idea what you mean with that

>Richard Dawkins, an able worker, says it's obtained from the organization of species----effects and/or results. He does NOT credit Darwin as a source. Non-random survival is deduced from species, not from the causation side of the equation.

none of that makes any sense

>You have a mindless process (comprised of unintelligent material entities) that behaves directionally (deduced from effects) but is not directed (by an invisible Director).

I don't know what you mean with "directionally" here. I have a mindless
process that causes predictably certain results.

> The second or middle element presents logical problems: the sandwich is illogical. You can't invoke mutation because the same precedes selection, feeds selection; and the Wilkins paper says mutation is a well understood law.

I have no idea why you bring in direction here. And you misunderstand
Wilkins. He argues that because mutations too are ultimately
deterministic (which may or may not be universally true), we can
establish already now some constraints and patterns for them, and we
"may" establish the laws that govern them fully in the future. He simply
warns, rightly, against treating the idea that mutations are for now,
and for us, best described as random events as an excuse not to study
the underlying mechanisms.

>
>>>
>>>> That is all that "non-random" means - a causal mechanism that allows
>>>> explanations and permits predictions.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Alan says it means "directional." I don't need to provide the quotation, do I?
>>
>> I must admit I rarely read his posts these days with any attention - he
>> is a broken record who repeats the same claim without responding to the
>> counter arguments, so nothing new to learn. So yes, I'd need a quote to
>> get an idea of what he means.
>>
>
> But you're arguing selection is non-random or directional, so I don't really need to produce his quote, do I?

Still don't know what you (or he, if this is his term) means with
directional, so I'm not sure if this is an accurate description of the
disagreement, but I also don;t think it matters much,

Not sure what you find confusing about them, so would need further
explanations here. They are not about NS, but about the meaning of
randomness.

We simply can observe, all the time, that people design random processes
to achieve specific goals. That shows that "random" and "directed" are
only contingently connected - they are neither synonyms nor antonyms,
some random processes are directed to wards a goal, others are not.

>
> :)
>
> Ray
>

[Burkhard]

Dana Tweedy wrote:
> On 11/30/15 4:54 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 9:24:01 AM UTC-8, Burkhard wrote:
> snip
>
>
>>>>
>>>> I still don't see it. Can you isolate some sentences, phrases, and
>>>> words that indicate non-random?
>>>
>>> I'm at a conference in Mexico at the moment and a bit pressed for time
>>> and lacking internet access, but I saw that Solar Penguin gave a very
>>> good answer in the meantime.
>>>
>>
>> Penguin has yet to offer any rebuttal.
>
> He has, but you've ignored it.

you sure? I don't think SP has posted again on this thread - not that
there was any need to, as his answers pretty much stand

[Ernest Major]

If natural selection was baffling you wouldn't have to abandon
competence in the English language to misunderstand it. Please stop -
you're making yourself stupid.

>
> Ray
>


--
alias Ernest Major

[Mark Isaak]

It was when I learned what "favored" and "random" mean. At a guess, I
was four or five years old at the time.

In terms that maybe you could understand: Raymond is four years old.
Raymond is given four kinds of candy to choose from. Raymond favors one
of those candies over the others, very much so. Does Raymond choose his
candy randomly?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[paul.i...@gmail.com]

Burkhard said:

> you sure? I don't think SP has posted again on this thread - not that
> there was any need to, as his answers pretty much stand

I have posted again, but using this account as I was posting from a
different machine.

Not that Ray paid any attention to it anyway...

[Ray Martinez]

I replied to Solar Penguin. And I didn't know "paul i" was Solar Penguin. This issue actually mirrors what is going on in this thread. The Evolutionists assert X means Y; paul i is Solar Penguin.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Ridiculous. When you were five years old you were struggling to learn the alphabet, how to spell your name, convey your address, etc. You did not learn what favored and random meant. Ridiculous.

> In terms that maybe you could understand: Raymond is four years old.
> Raymond is given four kinds of candy to choose from. Raymond favors one
> of those candies over the others, very much so. Does Raymond choose his
> candy randomly?
>

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

All this says is that the idea of a non-random selection process was obtained from the English language, not Darwin. Since I've been saying the idea was not obtained from Darwin, I've been vindicated.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

You failed to answer my question, so be it. And you seem to be forgetting that single-step selection is the exact concept Dawkins is arguing against because single-step selection is tantamount to a miracle (complexity arising by one macro-mutation). Look, I'm well acquainted with Dawkins 1986. The issue here is rudimentary. Pebbles on a beach was brought up and accounted for as NOT supporting natural selection. He said it plainly, again:

"Sieving of this order of simplicity is not, on its own, enough to account for the massive amounts of nonrandom order we see in living things. Nowhere near enough" (Dawkins 1986:44).

No statement thereafter negates; therefore it is not a quote mine.

Ray

[Stewart Robert Hinsley]

For your information children start acquiring *spoken* language (your
references to written languages is a typical Martinezesque red herring)
before the age of 2. By the age of 4 or 5 they have considerable
vocabularies. The numbers for 5 year olds seems to be about 2000 words
in the expressive vocabulary and 20000 in the receptive vocabulary.

[Ernest Major]

Please stop making yourself stupid.

--
alias Ernest Major

[RMcBane]

You made a couple of statements but didn't ask a
question that I can see.

One of your statements was "Funny how Richard

Dawkins, while explicating natural selection,

accounted for the sorting of pebbles on an (sic)

beach as NOT supporting the Darwinian mechanism."

Followed by the quote.

But the next paragraph Dawkins states: Sieving is

an essential ingredient in the generation of
living order, but it is far from the whole story."

Clearly he is stating here that sieving is does
support the Darwinian mechanism, negating your
statement in the paragraph above. It isn't that
Dawkins didn't write that sentence, but it is
clear from the rest of the material that follows
that he did not mean it as you used it. That is
why your use of the quote is a quote mine.

But all this is a smoke screen to keep from
addressing the point of my original post, which is

that nature can select and produce non-random
order contrary to your claim that it isn't

possible. Your failure to address this point is
the same as admitting you are wrong.






--
Richard McBane

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/1/15 12:53 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> [snip linguistics misinformation]

I'll repeat the question, Ray:

In terms that maybe you could understand: Raymond is four years old.
Raymond is given four kinds of candy to choose from. Raymond favors one
of those candies over the others, very much so. Does Raymond choose his
candy randomly?

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

The opinions I express are solely my own.

[Dana Tweedy]

I don't think Ray is faking this stupidity...


DJT
>

[Dana Tweedy]

On 12/1/15 1:58 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
snip

>>>>
>>>

>>> NS is baffling, these last few paragraphs don't help.
>>>
>>> :)
>>
>> If natural selection was baffling you wouldn't have to abandon
>> competence in the English language to misunderstand it. Please stop -
>> you're making yourself stupid.
>>
>
> All this says is that the idea of a non-random selection process was obtained from the English language, not Darwin.

No, the idea of non random selection was obtained from Darwin, by
understanding what Darwin meant when he wrote. That understanding was
obtained from understanding the English language.

> Since I've been saying the idea was not obtained from Darwin, I've been vindicated.

You have only been "vindicated" in the sense that you've shown that you
are unable to understand both the English language, and people who use
that language to convey ideas.

If you really consider that a victory, then go organize your parade.

DJT

[Ray Martinez]

I want you to know that I have answered your messages in the past. I don't believe you've ever created replies.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Natural selection has been described as a stupid process. You accept natural selection as existing. You accept stupidity to have produced the adaptive wonders of nature, I do not.

So the facts show that you and all of science are stupid, not me.

Ray (species immutabilist)

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 3:53:28 PM UTC-8, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 12/1/15 12:53 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > [snip linguistics misinformation]
>
> I'll repeat the question, Ray:
>
> In terms that maybe you could understand: Raymond is four years old.
> Raymond is given four kinds of candy to choose from. Raymond favors one
> of those candies over the others, very much so. Does Raymond choose his
> candy randomly?
>

But Raymond possesses the intelligence of a 4 year old. Natural selection, on the other hand, has no mind at all. Therefore NS has way less intelligence than a 4 year old. Even if Raymond was severely mentally retarded he would have infinitely more intelligence than NS. And you expect the thinking world to believe NS was the main agent responsible for producing adaptive complexity in living things, including human beings?

Do you understand anything that I'm saying? Anything?

Ray