Oxymoron as binary opposite to Pleonasm

backspace

unread,

Jul 16, 2012, 6:30:52 PM7/16/12

to

I am working the concept of an oxymoron as the opposite to a pleonasm.
My theory at
http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wiki is that 'natural
selection' as semantic construct is an oxymoron and would appreciate
any ideas on this issue. Especially Burkhard, Ray and UC comments
would be most welcome

Attila

unread,

Jul 17, 2012, 12:55:13 AM7/17/12

to

Your problem is that you make a fundamental error: "Natural Selection" as in
"the theory of Natural Selection" is not an analytic expression. You cannot
derive the meaning of Natural Selction (a component of a specific theory
used in evolutionary biology) by combining of the meanings of "natural" and
"selction". I'm sorry to say that Natural Selection is a synthetic
expression and real-world knowledge is required to understand what it means.
In conclusion: your premise is hopelessly flawed. Your boring little
exercise crashes in flames before it gets off the ground. Bye bye.

backspace

unread,

Jul 19, 2012, 6:13:07 AM7/19/12

to

> I'm sorry to say that Natural Selection is a synthetic > expression and real-world knowledge is required to understand what it means.

How would one falsify this sentence? If knowledge is required, how
could I possibly falsify the assertion since knowledge is always
required- it is a claim of logic. Thus you are guaranteeing the truth
of your proposition. If in contrast you were to have given the formula
that explains how Neural control theory as a universal abstraction in
all creatures is mapped from polypeptide space into animal space via a
transition matrix then we could test the formula: there is no theory
of evolution, it doesn't exist.

The fact that we don't know what gravity, magnetism and energy is and
that we might never know raises the question as to how we will ever
define Life itself, if we can't unlike with magnetism describe its
properties mathematically. Sentences which are claims of logic and
containing the oxymoron Natural Selection are thus a Logical fallacy,
explaining everything and nothing at the same time, a Meaningless
sentence. This is done to to immerse society in a fog of self-
refutational semantics away from Platonic binary constrasts, away from
Jesus Christ who is Alpha and Omega.

Arkalen

unread,

Jul 19, 2012, 9:32:09 AM7/19/12

to

Waves sorting pebbles and seaweed by size/density on beaches. Why is
that not selection ?

Attila

unread,

Jul 19, 2012, 9:57:20 AM7/19/12

to

backspace wrote:

>> I'm sorry to say that Natural Selection is a synthetic > expression and
>> real-world knowledge is required to understand what it means.
>
> How would one falsify this sentence? If knowledge is required, how
> could I possibly falsify the assertion since knowledge is always
> required- it is a claim of logic. Thus you are guaranteeing the truth
> of your proposition.

Not in the slightest. Wow, that took you a while to come up with something
so lame, oh tiny one. The synthetic nature of the expression "natural
selection" in the sense of a the biological theory is quite easily
falsified. It's really quite simple you see. Just find me an independently
occuring meaning of "natural" (that is a meaning of natural that exists
outside of the expression "natural selection". Now tell me what that meaning
is and give me an example. Next do the same for "selection", i.e. give me a
meaning for "selection" that exists independently of the expression "natural
selection". Again, tell me that meaning and give an example. Now,
concatenate the two meanings and derive the actual meaning of "natural
selection" in the biological sense and you've falsified my claim. I
anxiously await your definitions.

You see it's much like grapefruit. This is another synthetic expression.
It's a fruit, all right, but it has nothing to do with grapes. The same goes
for allspice, flapjack, pineapple, toadstool, and so on. All of these are
synthetic and that claim can be easily falsifiable (it it were false) by the
method described above. As a homework assignment show how to falsify the
claim that expressions like "small brain", "big lie" and "utter drivel" are
all synthetic.

> If in contrast you were to have given the formula
> that explains how Neural control theory as a universal abstraction in
> all creatures is mapped from polypeptide space into animal space via a
> transition matrix then we could test the formula: there is no theory
> of evolution, it doesn't exist.

Are you plagiarising stuff from Nando? Aren't there strict laws against that
where you come from?

>
> The fact that we don't know what gravity, magnetism and energy is and
> that we might never know raises the question as to how we will ever
> define Life itself, if we can't unlike with magnetism describe its
> properties mathematically. Sentences which are claims of logic and
> containing the oxymoron Natural Selection are thus a Logical fallacy,
> explaining everything and nothing at the same time, a Meaningless
> sentence. This is done to to immerse society in a fog of self-
> refutational semantics away from Platonic binary constrasts, away from
> Jesus Christ who is Alpha and Omega.

Not the Jesus Christ who was a homicidal maniac (cf. Luke 19:27). Why did
you bring that nut case up?

Glenn

unread,

Jul 19, 2012, 10:23:34 AM7/19/12

to

"Arkalen" <ark...@inbox.com> wrote in message
news:sNl*Bm...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...

Any event can be regarded as selection, regardless of the pattern or result.
Waves do not sort pebbles or seaweed by any set criteria, as a walk on the beach
would reveal. Seaweed and pebbles are not observed being arranged in orderly
fashion or best suited positions on the beach. There are some bigger pebbles
further inland, some smaller pebbles that are held near the water, and vica
versa. In evolutionary theory, selection is not attributed to any criteria other
than the outcome, and is only "survival of the fittest" in the sense that those
who "survive the most" are the "fittest", though many vehemently insist that
selection occurs as a result of some criteria, such as advantageous mutations
(survival of the fittest). But what is "fit" or "fittest" are subjective
conclusions, reducing selection to a tautology. Fitness in evolutionary terms is
simply differential reproduction. Those that reproduce more are the fittest. And
even that is a tautology, which is why some insist that there be certain
criteria for fitness, such as being stronger or faster.

backspace

unread,

Jul 19, 2012, 4:35:47 PM7/19/12

to

On Jul 19, 3:23�pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Arkalen" <arka...@inbox.com> wrote in message

>
> news:sNl*Bm...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...> On 16/07/12 23:30, backspace wrote:
> > > I am working the concept of an oxymoron as the opposite to a pleonasm.
> > > My theory at

> > >http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wikiis that 'natural

> > > selection' as semantic construct is an oxymoron and would appreciate
> > > any ideas on this issue. Especially Burkhard, Ray and UC comments
> > > would be most welcome
>
> > Waves sorting pebbles and seaweed by size/density on beaches. Why is
> > that not selection ?
>
> Any event can be regarded as selection, regardless of the pattern or result.
> Waves do not sort pebbles or seaweed by any set criteria, as a walk on the beach
> would reveal. Seaweed and pebbles are not observed being arranged in orderly
> fashion or best suited positions on the beach. There are some bigger pebbles
> further inland, some smaller pebbles that are held near the water, and vica
> versa. In evolutionary theory, selection is not attributed to any criteria other
> than the outcome, and is only "survival of the fittest" in the sense that those
> who "survive the most" are the "fittest", though many vehemently insist that
> selection occurs as a result of some criteria, such as advantageous mutations
> (survival of the fittest). But what is "fit" or "fittest" are subjective
> conclusions, reducing selection to a tautology. Fitness in evolutionary terms is
> simply differential reproduction. Those that reproduce more are the fittest. And
> even that is a tautology, which is why some insist that there be certain
> criteria for fitness, such as being stronger or faster.

Your explanation is the same as the Thomistic theses which
incorporated Aristotle's logical incoherence:
Meaningless sentences. Google meaningless + sentence, my notes on
this are ranked at nr.1 out of 9mil.

backspace

unread,

Jul 19, 2012, 4:32:13 PM7/19/12

to

On Jul 19, 2:32�pm, Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
> On 16/07/12 23:30, backspace wrote:
>
> > I am working the concept of an oxymoron as the opposite to a pleonasm.
> > My theory at

> >http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wikiis that 'natural

> > selection' as semantic construct is an oxymoron and would appreciate
> > any ideas on this issue. Especially Burkhard, Ray and UC comments
> > would be most welcome
>
> Waves sorting pebbles and seaweed by size/density on beaches. Why is
> that not selection ?

We had this discussion for two months with Dr.Howard. Reference
https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/3c6713a1bb23d97e#

http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Perry_Marshall

backspace

unread,

Jul 19, 2012, 4:49:09 PM7/19/12

to

On Jul 19, 2:57�pm, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Are you plagiarising stuff from Nando?

Phd in biophysics noshellswill actually see:
http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Bio-evolution_lacks_both_a_dynamic_and_an_object

Ray Martinez

unread,

Jul 19, 2012, 5:59:48 PM7/19/12

to

On Jul 16, 3:30�pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am working the concept of an oxymoron as the opposite to a pleonasm.

> My theory athttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wikiis that 'natural

> selection' as semantic construct is an oxymoron and would appreciate
> any ideas on this issue. Especially Burkhard, Ray and UC comments
> would be most welcome

"In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, Natural Selection is a
false term" (Charles Darwin).

Stephan: could you please supply the full reference for this quote?

Next issue: I don't understand your article. I don't understand
anything written. It seems you have created a rough draft packed with
unexplained ideas and concepts. For example: Why do you call natural
selection an "oxymoron"? What is it about the phrase "natural
selection" that makes it an oxymoron? The reader has no way of knowing
since the term "natural selection" doesn't appear to be a traditional
oxymoron, and you haven't introduced or even mentioned "survival of
the fittest."

Then there is the issue of all the small writing in between words
(very confusing, equivalent to making the reader jump through hoops).
Every sentence, literally, is left unexplained. I have neither the
time nor the desire to click on the colored words to obtain definition
or explanation.

What I see in your article is that you have tons of things to say, but
are "unwilling" to slow down and explain each thought and/or claim and/
or point of fact. Granted, a certain amount of knowledge is needed and
presupposed in order to understand any work of this nature, but **as
writtten** only you understand, the reader cannot understand.

Over the years I have said the very many "re-phrasing" topics, started
by you, showing natural selection and those who write about the claim
to convey senselessness and illogic, to be outstanding, well
explained, criticism. (This is why I periodically ask why you accept
the scientific validity of a claim that literally makes no sense?) I
remind you of these things so my foregoing criticism is not dismissed
as the work of an opponent.

Ray (anti-selectionist)

Glenn

unread,

Jul 19, 2012, 6:07:33 PM7/19/12

to

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> Ray (anti-selectionist)
>
How do you manage at the grocery store?

Ray Martinez

unread,

Jul 19, 2012, 6:20:12 PM7/19/12

to

On Jul 19, 3:07�pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote

>
> > Ray (anti-selectionist)
>
> How do you manage at the grocery store?

No one denies artificial selection, only natural selection (two
different things).

Ray

Glenn

unread,

Jul 19, 2012, 6:35:09 PM7/19/12

to

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29b9ac18-24a1-49e7...@x6g2000pbh.googlegroups.com...

So you only buy artificial food?

Attila

unread,

Jul 20, 2012, 12:10:35 AM7/20/12

to

Do you speak English? I gave you an easy methodology on how to test an
expression wrt the synthetic/analytic divide and you send me a link to
website for the mentally disturbed? Please get real. I'm wait for my answer
... deathly silence ...

Arkalen

unread,

Jul 20, 2012, 5:43:41 AM7/20/12

to

I absolutely remember having this discussion before, I just don't ever
remember getting a straight answer out of you about it. Seems it still
isn't my day.

backspace

unread,

Jul 20, 2012, 6:51:12 AM7/20/12

to

On Jul 19, 10:59�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 16, 3:30�pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am working the concept of an oxymoron as the opposite to a pleonasm.

> > My theory athttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wikiisthat 'natural

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2011-10/msg02062.html
Ray Martinez states that under the rubric of ns we have a list of
truisms asserted to be a mechanism. I make the same point in the main
Tautology article namely that claims of logic are invoked as a
mechanism because the universal mechanism - Life1 that spawns us into
existence can't be defined under materialism.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!msg/talk.origins/vKnp2x_U1NU/afrzXdUnfgkJ

Rolf: No, you don't have a clear image of natural selection because
you don't *want* it to exist.

Ray replies: I understand natural selection to be nonsense and
illogic, so yes, it is true, I don't want nonsense and illogic to be
true.

Taking your two posts together you are you saying either:
1) That a truism is nonsense
2) That it is a logical fallacy to invoke [[claims of logic]] as a
mechanism where the expectation for a falsifiable physics equation is.

The most reasonable inference would be 2). Furthermore you mean to say
that the concept of invoking truisms as mechanism which are
*symbolically* represented with the contracted shorthand natural
selection is a fallacy.

Now my point is this: There is nothing in the *dictionary* definition
of the terms 'natural' and 'selection' that even remotely indicates
your and my mutually agreed *interpretation* of *''sentences''*
containing the term ns. Hence the meaning we derive from a sentence is
context dependent.

Natural selection as oxymoronic stand-alone term, can be no more a
fallacy than the stand alone [[Pleonasm]] terms 'black darkness' or
'free gift' are , because only *sentences can be fallacies,
tautologies or illogical''. By analogy a pleonasm is not a tautology.

Is the contention that "free gift2" is a tautology true? . To assert
that such a phrase always says the same thing twice is to miss-frame
the particular premise of a user. For example: A man's gift of a
dinner and a movie to his date may be a "gift2" but it sometimes comes
bundled with expectations. But, if the recipient of the free dinner
asks first "if I go with you, are you expecting anything?" and gets
the answer "no", then it's accurate to say the invitee got a "free
gift" of dinner. It is incorrect that no gift can ever have non-free
implications attached to it, therefore the term free-gift is a
[[Pleonasm]] and not a tautology: only sentences can be tautologies.

Reference: See http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Premise

backspace

unread,

Jul 20, 2012, 6:52:21 AM7/20/12

to

On Jul 19, 10:59�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jul 16, 3:30�pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am working the concept of an oxymoron as the opposite to a pleonasm.

> > My theory athttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wikiisthat 'natural

> > selection' as semantic construct is an oxymoron and would appreciate
> > any ideas on this issue. Especially Burkhard, Ray and UC comments
> > would be most welcome
>
> "In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, Natural Selection is a
> false term" (Charles Darwin).
>
> Stephan: could you please supply the full reference for this quote?

OoS. Text file available at archive.org. Download and press Ctrl+F
for search enter section of the sentence to find the full one.

backspace

unread,

Jul 20, 2012, 7:23:57 AM7/20/12

to

On Jul 20, 11:51锟絘m, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 19, 10:59锟絧m, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > the scientific validity of a claim that literally makes no sense?) 锟絀

> > remind you of these things so my foregoing criticism is not dismissed
> > as the work of an opponent.
>
> > Ray (anti-selectionist)
>

> http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2011-10/msg...

> Ray Martinez states that under the rubric of ns we have a list of
> truisms asserted to be a mechanism. I make the same point in the main
> Tautology article namely that claims of logic are invoked as a
> mechanism because the universal mechanism - Life1 that spawns us into
> existence can't be defined under materialism.
>

> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!msg/talk.origins/vKnp2x_...

>
> Rolf: No, you don't have a clear image of natural selection because
> you don't *want* it to exist.
>
> Ray replies: I understand natural selection to be nonsense and
> illogic, so yes, it is true, I don't want nonsense and illogic to be
> true.
>

> Taking 锟統our two posts together you are you saying either:

A tautology explains everything under all conditions,from the man
providing a 'free-gift' it is clear that the same sentence could in
another context imply non-reciprocating behavior from the person
receiving the gift. Thus the sentence doesn't explain everything in
all contexts.

By analogy take the sentence 'you have a green light' from Pragmatics:
depending on the premise it could mean anything, it doesn't explain
everything in all contexts. In fact devoid of a human premise or
intent it explains @nothing@. Contradictions like oxymorons explain
nothing. Oxymorons have the sense of explaining nothing because they
have the sense of being contradictory. Pleonasm has the sense of
explaining everything because in the majority of sentences they are
used in, the sentence explains everything under all
conditions(tautological).

Only the premise by the human formulator of a sentence can be
definitely asserted(no "sense") to be either all explaining or
contradictory. But because only sentences - meaning the premise behind
the sentence - can be either contradictions(explains nothing) or
tautologies(explain everything) , it has lead people to erroneously
view pleonasms as tautologies.

Therefore an oxymoron isn't a contradiction because only the premise
symbolically represented with a sentence can be a contradiction:
it(oxymoron) has the sense of being a contradiction.

Finally: Pleonasms have the sense of being tautologies but are not
because only a human premise can be all explanatory. Oxymorons have
the sense of being contradictions but are not because only a human
premise can be a contradiction.

backspace

unread,

Jul 20, 2012, 11:39:08 AM7/20/12

to

On Jul 20, 10:43�am, Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
> On 19/07/12 21:32, backspace wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 19, 2:32 pm, Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
> >> On 16/07/12 23:30, backspace wrote:
>
> >>> I am working the concept of an oxymoron as the opposite to a pleonasm.
> >>> My theory at

> >>>http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wikiisthat 'natural

> >>> selection' as semantic construct is an oxymoron and would appreciate
> >>> any ideas on this issue. Especially Burkhard, Ray and UC comments
> >>> would be most welcome
>
> >> Waves sorting pebbles and seaweed by size/density on beaches. Why is
> >> that not selection ?
>
> > We had this discussion for two months with Dr.Howard. Reference

> >https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/3c6713...

>
> >http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Perry_Marshall
>
> I absolutely remember having this discussion before, I just don't ever
> remember getting a straight answer out of you about it. Seems it still
> isn't my day.

Let me then try again. Would please indicate what video either vid1 or
vid2 you would upload to youtube and if there is a third alternative ,
then upload this third alternative

http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Pattern_or_design#Majority_and_minority_metaphor
The following video clips are shown:

Vid1(no purpose): Cat walks on the table and knocks over container
filled with alphabetic letters made out of wood.

Vid2(purpose): Man walks into room picks up container and throws out
the letters on the floor.

A copper ball is placed on the table beside all videos of type Vid1
and a lead ball besides all videos of type Vid2, meaning we
symbolically represent a pattern with a purpose with copper and those
without purpose with a lead ball. This raises the question: What other
possible means could there be as to how these wood letters fell on the
ground? Any other way would only be of two *types* Vid1 or Vid2.

If we were to sit there with a video camera from now to eternity
capturing each event of the container spilling the letters on the
ground of what possible type could they be other than Vid1 or Vid2?
The reasonable answer would be none, based on experience: there are
only two Platonic primary binary contrasts either the letters on the
ground is a pattern with a purpose or a pattern without a purpose.

Earthquake, tornado -> type Vid1
Clock timing device pulling in relay to knock over container -> type
Vid2.

Copper itself, representing only itself is not the contrast to the
lead ball: the only contrast is the contrast in *concepts*. The only
literal meaning that the copper ball and lead ball have are copper and
lead, they only represent themselves. The copper ball does not mean
events of type Vid1, it is only an arbitrary object used to
metaphorically represent events of type Vid1. Meaning is only
something observers of type Vid1 and Vid2 can agree on.

YEC are using volitional type language that was used to represent all
concepts as either type Vid1 or Vid2. Atheists disagrees that type
Vid1 and Vid2 are our only options and are using the same semantic
objects YEC use to represent a world view where Platonic primary
contrasts are not *assumed*. Note that I wrote assume and Dawkins also
wrote that he does not *assume* Platonic opposites, because this is
not a matter of falsifiable scientific testable constructs but about
what unfalsifiable untestable validities we *assume* as logical.

By the precepts of empiricism the claims of logic are not falsifiable
and since our falsifiable theories must assume logical validities , we
have to make clear what we assume, that which we know to be true,
neither refutable nor verifiable for eternity.

There is therefore no such thing as a literal meaning with alphabetic
objects found in a dictionary, all semantic objects are used in either
the majority metaphor or minority metaphor. Dictionaries document the
majority metaphor.

Many dictionaries post Darwin around 1901 started to list a *''third
option''* for the object 'selection'. Before around 1901 its majority
metaphor is to make a decision (type Vid2) and its minority
metaphorical usage is type Vid1 , after this the dictionaries began to
list its ''Biological'' usage.

But from the YEC Platonic primary contrasts there can't be such a
thing as a ''Biological'' meaning, only a type Vid1 and Vid2 meaning,
since this is our only experiential reference frame.

By analogy , if people across the world were to agree on a copper ball
representing patterns without a purpose then it would be documented as
the *majority metaphor* in dictionaries.

Undirected does not mean the concept displayed with Vid1(no purpose):
it is an arbitrary object or symbol we agree on to *symbolically*
represent Vid1 and Vid1 we understand as the contrast to Vid2.
Undirected can merely be some *defined* majority metaphor and we find
these definitions in dictionaries.

The semantic objects you choose to use is whatever you want. In many
cases an object such as 'random' is used in the minority metaphor such
as representing purpose(Vid2) , when a person does Probability
Sampling(selecting).

What type of Vid1(no purpose) or Vid2(purpose) is represented with
''undirected'' in the ID article on Wikipedia? If neither type then
explain what would be the third option and how we would avoid infinite
regress.

A device through which random sized balls are thrown have rings with
round holes ranking from large to small spaced
down a tube with an equal set distance between the rings. '''It will
sort(algorithmic design) the balls from large to small and is an
''object with a [[Purpose1]]'' generating a ''pattern with a
[[Purpose1]]'''''. The specific balls that will filter through first
is random<sub>2</sub>, but the end result is predictable.

In other words instead of informing me as to the "meaning" of
random,undirected,non-random etc. designate the type of video(vid1)
or Vid2 you would upload to Youtube to represent what is meant with
'undirected' in the ID wikipedia page. One would especially be
interested in Video type 3 , the video demonstrating the third
alternative to a pattern with a purpose and pattern with a purpose,
this is the type of video John Wilkins, Dawkins, Burkhard actually
mean with the objects random,non-random. If only they would upload it.

backspace

unread,

Jul 20, 2012, 11:40:09 AM7/20/12

to

Artificial selection was lifted by Darwin from Erasmus Darwin's
Artificial Cultivation in his Zoonomia.

Rolf

unread,

Jul 20, 2012, 10:36:22 PM7/20/12

to

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29b9ac18-24a1-49e7...@x6g2000pbh.googlegroups.com...

Yes, cars may be powered in a number of ways, but the net effect is the
same: they move!

Now be a good boy and let us in on the secret: What's the difference? Please
present details; it is not obviuous what you think it is.
What prevents natural causes from have an effect?
Do you understand what causes, challenges, threats et cetera all living
beings are being exposed to in their lifetime?
Do you think living beings are living in a vacuum, with no interrelationship
with the rest of the world, the environment, members of their particular
group, predators, climate, food supply, geographical separation - the list
is endless. Do you maintain that nothing is relevant., without noticeable
effects whereas even ignorant sheep herders were capable of utilizing
principles they didn't even have a clue about?

Do you realize the amount of explaining you have to do to reach your fata
morgana?

Denial is not the answer, never.

> Ray
>

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Jul 21, 2012, 5:53:15 PM7/21/12

to

No sane person denies natural selection happens. The only difference
between artificial selection, and natural selection is that artificial
selection involves humans deciding what traits are favored in a
population.

DJT

backspace

unread,

Jul 22, 2012, 6:26:00 AM7/22/12

to

Harshman insists that he is an ape on like the chimp in the zoo is an
ape(vernacular, use Simian if you wish). He states ..... @ I am an
ape @

But if this is true then his sentence, premises and language is just
as ape like as the shrieks from apes in the zoo. Therefore his
sentence itself @ I amn an ape @ , should be accorded the intellectual
weight of monkey chatter.

gdgu...@gmail.com

unread,

Jul 22, 2012, 9:32:46 AM7/22/12

to

I insist I am a mammal. Therefore I can fly, and stay underwater for
an hour, and speak Frisian, and give birth, and chew the cud, and run
at 60 m.p.h., and pull an oxcart, and hear infrasonic and ultrasonic
frequencies, and track explosives, drugs and missing children by
scent, like my fellow mammals.

Bob Casanova

unread,

Jul 22, 2012, 1:55:51 PM7/22/12

to

On Sun, 22 Jul 2012 03:26:00 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:

Still trying to demonstrate that you are a stranger to logic
and logical thought processes?

No need; those facts were established long ago.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

Ray Martinez

unread,

Jul 22, 2012, 5:41:54 PM7/22/12

to

Stephan: By "asking" I gave you the benefit of any doubt. The fact of
the matter is that Darwin never said it.

Ray

Ray Martinez

unread,

Jul 22, 2012, 5:48:16 PM7/22/12

to

On Jul 20, 7:36�pm, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>
> news:29b9ac18-24a1-49e7...@x6g2000pbh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 19, 3:07 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> >> > Ray (anti-selectionist)
>
> >> How do you manage at the grocery store?
>
> > No one denies artificial selection, only natural selection (two
> > different things).
>
> Yes, cars may be powered in a number of ways, but the net effect is the
> same: they move!
>
> Now be a good boy and let us in on the secret: What's the difference? Please
> present details; it is not obviuous what you think it is.
> What prevents natural causes from have an effect?

Darwinian natural causation does not exist----that's what prevents:
non-existence.

Atheists claim God does not exist ("The God Delusion").

We neo-Paleyans claim that Darwinian natural causes do not exist ((The
'evolusion delusion').

The dispute is now stated succinctly: its all or nothing.

Ray (Paleyan IDist)

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Jul 22, 2012, 7:05:03 PM7/22/12

to

On 7/22/12 3:48 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jul 20, 7:36 pm, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:29b9ac18-24a1-49e7...@x6g2000pbh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> On Jul 19, 3:07 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>>>>> Ray (anti-selectionist)
>>
>>>> How do you manage at the grocery store?
>>
>>> No one denies artificial selection, only natural selection (two
>>> different things).
>>
>> Yes, cars may be powered in a number of ways, but the net effect is the
>> same: they move!
>>
>> Now be a good boy and let us in on the secret: What's the difference? Please
>> present details; it is not obviuous what you think it is.
>> What prevents natural causes from have an effect?
>
> Darwinian natural causation does not exist----that's what prevents:
> non-existence.

It's only your claim that it does not exist.

Natural causation itself is not "Darwinian", as Darwin wasn't the
first, last, or the only, scientist to propose that natural laws operate
without evidence of supernatural influence. Natural causation was well
accepted by science long before Charles Darwin was even born.

>
> Atheists claim God does not exist ("The God Delusion").

And that claim is irrelevant to the existence of natural laws and
processes. Whether or not God exists, the universe still operates on
observable natural laws.

>
> We neo-Paleyans claim that Darwinian natural causes do not exist ((The
> 'evolusion delusion').

There are no other "neo-Paleyans", Ray. It's just you, and you alone.
Natural causes were known to exist, long before Darwin, and even in
Paley's time. Paley himself accepted the existence of natural laws,
which he thought were ordained by God.

From "Natural Theology", page 34.

"God, therefore, has been
pleased to prescribe limits to his own power, and to work his
ends within those limits. The general laws of matter have
perhaps prescribed the nature of these limits ; its inertia ; its
reaction ; the laws which govern the communication of motion,
the refraction and reflection of light, and the constitution
of fluids non-elastic and elastic, the transmission of
sound through the latter ; the laws of magnetism, of electricity,
and probably others yet undiscovered."

>
> The dispute is now stated succinctly: its all or nothing.

To you, and you alone. It's perfectly clear that your position is
unsupported, and your all or nothing assertions are you own paranoid
delusion. Even Paley himself would have agreed you are wrong.

>
> Ray (Paleyan IDist)
>
>> Do you understand what causes, challenges, threats et cetera all living
>> beings are being exposed to in their lifetime?
>> Do you think living beings are living in a vacuum, with no interrelationship
>> with the rest of the world, the environment, members of their particular
>> group, predators, climate, food supply, geographical separation - the list
>> is endless. Do you maintain that nothing is relevant., without noticeable
>> effects whereas even ignorant sheep herders were capable of utilizing
>> principles they didn't even have a clue about?
>>
>> Do you realize the amount of explaining you have to do to reach your fata
>> morgana?
>>
>> Denial is not the answer, never.

No reply here, Ray? Why not?

DJT

>>
>>
>>
>>> Ray
>
>

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Jul 22, 2012, 7:14:46 PM7/22/12

to

On 7/22/12 4:26 AM, backspace wrote:
> Harshman insists that he is an ape on like the chimp in the zoo is an
> ape(vernacular, use Simian if you wish). He states ..... @ I am an
> ape @

Yes, you, I and Dr. Harshman are all apes. That is a simple fact of
our genetic heritage.

>
> But if this is true then his sentence, premises and language is just
> as ape like as the shrieks from apes in the zoo.

That's true as well. The "shrieks" from apes in the zoo aren't much
different from the shrieks of humans who are kept in captivity. Chimps
and Gorillas have shown capacity to learn and use languages, and even
communicate with humans.

> Therefore his
> sentence itself @ I amn an ape @ , should be accorded the intellectual
> weight of monkey chatter.

Of course, monkeys and apes are different animals, even if vernacular
speech doesn't acknowledge much difference. The "chatter" of monkeys
and apes between themselves most likely does have meaning to the monkeys
and apes involved. That we, as humans don't understand the meaning
does not mean there is no such meaning.

Humans are a particularly vocal species of ape, and our vocalizations
(or representations of those vocalizations) may be more intelligible to
our own species than to others. That doesn't mean they don't have value.

DJT

>

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Jul 22, 2012, 7:25:28 PM7/22/12

to

Ray, as usual, your incompetent "scholarship" betrays you. Darwin did
write the above. A few seconds of searching revealed it's from
Darwin's "Origin of Species" Chapter IV. The whole paragraph reads:

"Several writers have misapprehended or objected to the term Natural
Selection. Some have even imagined that natural selection induces
variability, whereas it implies only the preservation of such variations
as arise and are beneficial to the being under its conditions of life.
No one objects to agriculturists speaking of the potent effects of manï¿½s
selection; and in this case the individual differences given by nature,
which man for some object selects, must of necessity first occur. Others
have objected that the term selection implies conscious choice in the
animals which become modified; and it has even been urged that, as
plants have no volition, natural selection is not applicable to them!
*In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a
false term;* but who ever objected to chemists speaking of the elective
affinities of the various elements?ï¿½and yet an acid cannot strictly be
said to elect the base with which it in preference combines. It has been
said that I speak of natural selection as an active power or Deity; but
who objects to an author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling
the movements of the planets? Every one knows what is meant and is
implied by such metaphorical expressions; and they are almost necessary
for brevity. So again it is difficult to avoid personifying the word
Nature; but I mean by Nature, only the aggregate action and product of
many natural laws, and by laws the sequence of events as ascertained by
us. With a little familiarity such superficial objections will be
forgotten."
[emphasis added]

What Darwin was saying is that the term "selection" was being used
metaphorically, and he was quite aware that nature, as an unconscious
process could not be said to "select" in the most accurate meaning of
the word.

Backspace took the quote out of context, and altered it, by removing
everything in the sentence after the semicolon, and capitalizing
"natural selection".

DJT

backspace

unread,

Jul 23, 2012, 12:56:48 PM7/23/12

to

On Jul 23, 12:25ï¿½am, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/22/12 3:41 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 20, 3:52 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 19, 10:59 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 16, 3:30 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> I am working the concept of an oxymoron as the opposite to a pleonasm.
> >>>> My theory athttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wikiisthat'natural
> >>>> selection' as semantic construct is an oxymoron and would appreciate
> >>>> any ideas on this issue. Especially Burkhard, Ray and UC comments
> >>>> would be most welcome
>
> >>> "In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, Natural Selection is a
> >>> false term" (Charles Darwin).
>
> >>> Stephan: could you please supply the full reference for this quote?
>

> >> OoS. ï¿½Text file available at archive.org. Download and press Ctrl+F

> >> for search enter section of the sentence to find the full one.
>
> > Stephan: By "asking" I gave you the benefit of any doubt. The fact of
> > the matter is that Darwin never said it.
>
> > Ray
>

> Ray, as usual, your incompetent ï¿½"scholarship" betrays you. ï¿½Darwin did
> write the above. ï¿½A few seconds of searching revealed ï¿½it's from
> Darwin's "Origin of Species" Chapter IV. ï¿½The whole paragraph reads:

> "Several writers have misapprehended or objected to the term Natural
> Selection. Some have even imagined that natural selection induces
> variability, whereas it implies only the preservation of such variations
> as arise and are beneficial to the being under its conditions of life.

Reduce:
beneficial variations are preserved. Beneficial <=> preserved in the
context used, it is a claim of logic.
This is also why I have written at http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wiki
that Darwin meant *preservation* with *selection*, he preferred
preservation as his actual term as he indicated in a letter written to
somebody. My point is that he used multiple *dissimilar*
http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Dissimilar term to formulate a water
tight proposition as a claim of logic and thus untestable. No test can
be devised to either refute or confirm the following generalized
assertion:
1) Beneficial ones are preserved.
2) Selected ones are preserved.
3) The perpetuators proliferate ( Stanford tautologies thread)
4) etc.. you get the point
There are thousands of *dissimilar* terms one could interchange with
*selection* to formulate a claim of logic.

> No one objects to agriculturists speaking of the potent effects of manï¿½s
> selection; and in this case the individual differences given by nature,
> which man for some object selects, must of necessity first occur. Others
> have objected that the term selection implies conscious choice in the
> animals which become modified; and it has even been urged that, as
> plants have no volition, natural selection is not applicable to them!

eerrr... plants don't have volition as far as I know?

> *In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a
> false term;* but who ever objected to chemists speaking of the elective
> affinities of the various elements?ï¿½and yet an acid cannot strictly be
> said to elect the base with which it in preference combines.

This confuses a pattern which represents itself with a pattern that
represents something other than itself.
Computers rely in the "affinities" between copper atoms to calculate
algorithms, but the algorithms themselves represents something other
than themselves while the "affinities" or chemical effects between
atoms represents only itself.

> It has been
> said that I speak of natural selection as an active power or Deity; but
> who objects to an author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling
> the movements of the planets?

Because gravity only represents itself, ruling was used
metaphorically. With 'natural selection' as contracted shorthand for
the full sentence 'natural means of competitive selection' from
Matthew, Darwin is trying to salvage his concept from metaphorical
bafoonism and not acknowledge the real author who coined the term.

> Every one knows what is meant and is
> implied by such metaphorical expressions; and they are almost necessary
> for brevity.

Exactly, just like Darwin's term 'natural selection' was the *brevity*
shorthand for SoF which in turn is an apt shorthand for: The
acquisition of attributes via the natural means of competitive
preservation(selection etc) as entities compete to dominate an
ecological niche. This is a claim of logic, not test can verify or
refute it.

> So again it is difficult to avoid personifying the word
> Nature; but I mean by Nature, only the aggregate action and product of
> many natural laws, and by laws the sequence of events as ascertained by
> us.

This is a tautology. Why does Opium induce sleep? Because of its
'optimific' properties as pointed out by John Brey in his book
Tautological Oxymorons.

> With a little familiarity such superficial objections will be
> forgotten."

Sadly yes, the biological community routinely use the oxymoron non-
metaphorically , formulating meaningless sentences. Only the
*metaphorical* usage of ns makes sense and then only if it is made
clear to what this metaphor refers -> Patrick Matthew. Logical
validities by logical necessity must make sense, since they are
universal truths, imagine if What happens, happens weren't true in all
contexts. What we are after are falsifiable theories explaining how
Neural control algorithms as a universal math construct is transmitted
from amino acids to another collection of amino acids.

backspace

unread,

Jul 23, 2012, 12:30:54 PM7/23/12

to

http://www.bartleby.com/11/4001.html

In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a

false term; but who ever objected to chemists speaking of the elective

affinities of the various elements?ï¿½and yet an acid cannot strictly be

said to elect the base with which it in preference combines. It has

been said that I speak of natural selection as an active power or
Deity; but who objects to an author speaking of the attraction of
gravity as ruling the movements of the planets?

Type ctrl+F in Firefox or Chrome with the term ..... natural selection
is a false term .... You will find it.

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Jul 23, 2012, 2:46:07 PM7/23/12

to

On 7/23/12 10:56 AM, backspace wrote:

> On Jul 23, 12:25 am, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/22/12 3:41 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 20, 3:52 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jul 19, 10:59 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jul 16, 3:30 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> I am working the concept of an oxymoron as the opposite to a pleonasm.
>>>>>> My theory athttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wikiisthat'natural
>>>>>> selection' as semantic construct is an oxymoron and would appreciate
>>>>>> any ideas on this issue. Especially Burkhard, Ray and UC comments
>>>>>> would be most welcome
>>
>>>>> "In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, Natural Selection is a
>>>>> false term" (Charles Darwin).
>>
>>>>> Stephan: could you please supply the full reference for this quote?
>>

>>>> OoS. Text file available at archive.org. Download and press Ctrl+F

>>>> for search enter section of the sentence to find the full one.
>>
>>> Stephan: By "asking" I gave you the benefit of any doubt. The fact of
>>> the matter is that Darwin never said it.
>>
>>> Ray
>>

>> Ray, as usual, your incompetent "scholarship" betrays you. Darwin did
>> write the above. A few seconds of searching revealed it's from
>> Darwin's "Origin of Species" Chapter IV. The whole paragraph reads:

>
>> "Several writers have misapprehended or objected to the term Natural
>> Selection. Some have even imagined that natural selection induces
>> variability, whereas it implies only the preservation of such variations
>> as arise and are beneficial to the being under its conditions of life.
>
> Reduce:
> beneficial variations are preserved. Beneficial <=> preserved in the
> context used, it is a claim of logic.

Well, no, it's an observation of what happens in nature.

> This is also why I have written at http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wiki
> that Darwin meant *preservation* with *selection*, he preferred
> preservation as his actual term as he indicated in a letter written to
> somebody. My point is that he used multiple *dissimilar*
> http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Dissimilar term to formulate a water
> tight proposition as a claim of logic and thus untestable. No test can
> be devised to either refute or confirm the following generalized
> assertion:
> 1) Beneficial ones are preserved.

If you could show that non beneficial mutations are preserved more often
than beneficial ones, that would falsify the statement.

> 2) Selected ones are preserved.

If that's what Darwin wrote, then it would have been a tautology.

> 3) The perpetuators proliferate ( Stanford tautologies thread)

Except that Darwin proposed a reason why certain variants proliferate,
not just stated that those who were perpetuated proliferate.

> 4) etc.. you get the point

I see that your 'point' comes from equivocating "beneficial" with
"selected". Darwin's theory explains why those traits selected are
more likely to be beneficial.

> There are thousands of *dissimilar* terms one could interchange with
> *selection* to formulate a claim of logic.

Why would this be relevant? Darwin wasn't proposing thousands of
dissimilar terms.

>
>
>> No one objects to agriculturists speaking of the potent effects of manï¿½s
>> selection; and in this case the individual differences given by nature,
>> which man for some object selects, must of necessity first occur. Others
>> have objected that the term selection implies conscious choice in the
>> animals which become modified; and it has even been urged that, as
>> plants have no volition, natural selection is not applicable to them!
>
> eerrr... plants don't have volition as far as I know?

Remember, the above is Darwin talking, not me. But the point Darwin
was making is that his term "selection" is metaphorical. He knows that
nature is not intelligent, and doesn't actually make a conscious choice.
He was using the term as shorthand for the influence the environment
has on a population.

>
>> *In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a
>> false term;* but who ever objected to chemists speaking of the elective
>> affinities of the various elements?ï¿½and yet an acid cannot strictly be
>> said to elect the base with which it in preference combines.
>
> This confuses a pattern which represents itself with a pattern that
> represents something other than itself.

Again, Darwin's point was that he knows that strictly the word
"selection" implies a conscious choice, but that English language is
flexible enough to make exceptions.

> Computers rely in the "affinities" between copper atoms to calculate
> algorithms, but the algorithms themselves represents something other
> than themselves while the "affinities" or chemical effects between
> atoms represents only itself.

This may mean something to you, but it's gibberish to me. What do you
mean?

>
>
>> It has been
>> said that I speak of natural selection as an active power or Deity; but
>> who objects to an author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling
>> the movements of the planets?
>
> Because gravity only represents itself, ruling was used
> metaphorically. With 'natural selection' as contracted shorthand for
> the full sentence 'natural means of competitive selection' from
> Matthew, Darwin is trying to salvage his concept from metaphorical
> bafoonism and not acknowledge the real author who coined the term.

Actually, what he's doing is pointing out that English usage is
flexible, and that most educated persons know what he means by "natural
selection". He's not using the word "selection" in the most strict
fashion, but he points out that similar words are often used fairly
loosely.

>
>> Every one knows what is meant and is
>> implied by such metaphorical expressions; and they are almost necessary
>> for brevity.
>
> Exactly, just like Darwin's term 'natural selection' was the *brevity*
> shorthand for SoF which in turn is an apt shorthand for: The
> acquisition of attributes via the natural means of competitive
> preservation(selection etc) as entities compete to dominate an
> ecological niche. This is a claim of logic, not test can verify or
> refute it.

Again, it isn't a "claim of logic" but an observation of what happens in
populations. Those with beneficial traits tend to out breed those who
have either neutral, or detrimental traits. That's how beneficial
traits spread throughout the population.

If you tested a population, and found that harmful traits, or neutral
traits, gave an individual more likelihood of breeding, and passing on
it's genes to the next generation, then it would falsify the idea that
beneficial traits are favored.

>
>> So again it is difficult to avoid personifying the word
>> Nature; but I mean by Nature, only the aggregate action and product of
>> many natural laws, and by laws the sequence of events as ascertained by
>> us.
> This is a tautology.

If so, why is it a problem. Darwin here is admitting the word
"selection" tends to personify nature. He also states that what he
means by "nature" is the aggregate function of natural laws. So, if
that definition is a tautology, so what?

> Why does Opium induce sleep? Because of its
> 'optimific' properties as pointed out by John Brey in his book
> Tautological Oxymorons.

Which still acknowledges that opium produces sleep. That much is true,
why would it be a problem?

>
>
>> With a little familiarity such superficial objections will be
>> forgotten."
>
> Sadly yes, the biological community routinely use the oxymoron non-
> metaphorically , formulating meaningless sentences.

Natural selection is not an oxymoron, but merely a metaphor. If you
think the sentences are meaningless, then that's your own problem of
understanding. Those using the term know it's a metaphor.

> Only the
> *metaphorical* usage of ns makes sense and then only if it is made
> clear to what this metaphor refers -> Patrick Matthew. Logical
> validities by logical necessity must make sense, since they are
> universal truths, imagine if What happens, happens weren't true in all
> contexts.

Again, Darwin was describing what happens in nature, not making claims
of logic. Natural selection is not just "what happens happens". It's
describing why some variants in a population have differential
reproductive success over other variants. These things do happen, but
natural selection is an explanation, not just a statement.

> What we are after are falsifiable theories explaining how
> Neural control algorithms as a universal math construct is transmitted
> from amino acids to another collection of amino acids.

And the idea of natural selection could be falsified if one could show
non beneficial variants were favored over beneficial ones.

In artificial selection, variants that are not beneficial for the
organism are sometimes favored, as human need are not always the needs
of the individual. In the wild, a chihuahua is most likely less fit
than a timber wolf, but human breeding causes preferential breeding of
chihuahuas.

DJT

Ray Martinez

unread,

Jul 23, 2012, 3:18:20 PM7/23/12

to

On Jul 22, 4:25ï¿½pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/22/12 3:41 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 20, 3:52 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 19, 10:59 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 16, 3:30 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> I am working the concept of an oxymoron as the opposite to a pleonasm.
> >>>> My theory athttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wikiisthat'natural
> >>>> selection' as semantic construct is an oxymoron and would appreciate
> >>>> any ideas on this issue. Especially Burkhard, Ray and UC comments
> >>>> would be most welcome
>
> >>> "In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, Natural Selection is a
> >>> false term" (Charles Darwin).
>
> >>> Stephan: could you please supply the full reference for this quote?
>

> >> OoS. ï¿½Text file available at archive.org. Download and press Ctrl+F

> >> for search enter section of the sentence to find the full one.
>
> > Stephan: By "asking" I gave you the benefit of any doubt. The fact of
> > the matter is that Darwin never said it.
>
> > Ray
>

> Ray, as usual, your incompetent ï¿½"scholarship" betrays you. ï¿½Darwin did
> write the above. ï¿½A few seconds of searching revealed ï¿½it's from
> Darwin's "Origin of Species" Chapter IV. ï¿½The whole paragraph reads:

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?keywords=a%20misnomer&pageseq=112&itemID=F381&viewtype=text

"In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a
misnomer" (C. Darwin, "On The Origin" 1861:85, 3rd edition; Murray:
London).

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?keywords=false%20term&pageseq=122&itemID=F387&viewtype=text

"In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a

false term" (C. Darwin, "On The Origin" 1869:93, 5th edition; London:
Murray).

I failed to check other editions of "The Origin" (like yourself).

Ray

Ray Martinez

unread,

Jul 23, 2012, 3:29:06 PM7/23/12

to

On Jul 22, 4:05�pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/22/12 3:48 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 20, 7:36 pm, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:29b9ac18-24a1-49e7...@x6g2000pbh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> On Jul 19, 3:07 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >>>> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> >>>>> Ray (anti-selectionist)
>
> >>>> How do you manage at the grocery store?
>
> >>> No one denies artificial selection, only natural selection (two
> >>> different things).
>
> >> Yes, cars may be powered in a number of ways, but the net effect is the
> >> same: they move!
>
> >> Now be a good boy and let us in on the secret: What's the difference? Please
> >> present details; it is not obviuous what you think it is.
> >> What prevents natural causes from have an effect?
>
> > Darwinian natural causation does not exist----that's what prevents:
> > non-existence.
>
> It's only your claim that it does not exist.
>

I stand with science as it existed before 1859.

> � �Natural causation itself is not "Darwinian", as Darwin wasn't the

> first, last, or the only, scientist to propose that natural laws operate
> without evidence of supernatural influence. � Natural causation was well
> accepted by science long before Charles Darwin was even born.
>

Your assertions are completely false.

>
>
> > Atheists claim God does not exist ("The God Delusion").
>
> And that claim is irrelevant to the existence of natural laws and
> processes. � Whether or not God exists, the universe still operates on
> observable natural laws.
>
>
>

> > We neo-Paleyans claim that Darwinian natural causes do not exist (The

> > 'evolusion delusion').
>
> There are no other "neo-Paleyans", Ray. �It's just you, and you alone.

Dana states his preference.

> � Natural causes were known to exist, long before Darwin, and even in

> Paley's time. Paley himself accepted the existence of natural laws,
> which he thought were ordained by God.
>
> �From "Natural Theology", page 34.
>
> "God, therefore, has been
> pleased to prescribe limits to his own power, and to work his
> ends within those limits. The general laws of matter have
> perhaps prescribed the nature of these limits ; its inertia ; its
> reaction ; the laws which govern the communication of motion,
> the refraction and reflection of light, and the constitution
> of fluids non-elastic and elastic, the transmission of
> sound through the latter ; the laws of magnetism, of electricity,
> and probably others yet undiscovered."
>
>
>
> > The dispute is now stated succinctly: its all or nothing.
>
> To you, and you alone. � It's perfectly clear that your position is
> unsupported, and your all or nothing assertions are you own paranoid
> delusion. � Even Paley himself would have agreed you are wrong.
>

Your desire to enlist Paley is understandable since he was, of course,
an eminent biologist. But in his time "natural" meant "created by God"
or "designed by God." Hence "Natural Theology."

>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ray (Paleyan IDist)
>
> >> Do you understand what causes, challenges, threats et cetera all living
> >> beings are being exposed to in their lifetime?
> >> Do you think living beings are living in a vacuum, with no interrelationship
> >> with the rest of the world, the environment, members of their particular
> >> group, predators, climate, food supply, geographical separation - the list
> >> is endless. Do you maintain that nothing is relevant., without noticeable
> >> effects whereas even ignorant sheep herders were capable of utilizing
> >> principles they didn't even have a clue about?
>
> >> Do you realize the amount of explaining you have to do to reach your fata
> >> morgana?
>
> >> Denial is not the answer, never.
>
> No reply here, Ray? �Why not?
>

Said comments are convoluted. Perhaps you could re-phrase, making them
legible?

Ray

backspace

unread,

Jul 23, 2012, 4:51:58 PM7/23/12

to

On Jul 23, 7:46ï¿½pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/23/12 10:56 AM, backspace wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 23, 12:25 am, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 7/22/12 3:41 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 20, 3:52 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Jul 19, 10:59 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Jul 16, 3:30 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> I am working the concept of an oxymoron as the opposite to a pleonasm.
> >>>>>> My theory athttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wikiisthat'natural
> >>>>>> selection' as semantic construct is an oxymoron and would appreciate
> >>>>>> any ideas on this issue. Especially Burkhard, Ray and UC comments
> >>>>>> would be most welcome
>
> >>>>> "In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, Natural Selection is a
> >>>>> false term" (Charles Darwin).
>
> >>>>> Stephan: could you please supply the full reference for this quote?
>

> >>>> OoS. ï¿½Text file available at archive.org. Download and press Ctrl+F

> >>>> for search enter section of the sentence to find the full one.
>
> >>> Stephan: By "asking" I gave you the benefit of any doubt. The fact of
> >>> the matter is that Darwin never said it.
>
> >>> Ray
>

> >> Ray, as usual, your incompetent ï¿½"scholarship" betrays you. ï¿½Darwin did
> >> write the above. ï¿½A few seconds of searching revealed ï¿½it's from
> >> Darwin's "Origin of Species" Chapter IV. ï¿½The whole paragraph reads:

>
> >> "Several writers have misapprehended or objected to the term Natural
> >> Selection. Some have even imagined that natural selection induces
> >> variability, whereas it implies only the preservation of such variations
> >> as arise and are beneficial to the being under its conditions of life.
>
> > Reduce:
> > beneficial variations are preserved. Beneficial <=> preserved in the
> > context used, it is a claim of logic.
>
> Well, no, it's an observation of what happens in nature.
>

> > This is also why I have written athttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wiki

> > that Darwin meant *preservation* with *selection*, he preferred
> > preservation as his actual term as he indicated in a letter written to
> > somebody. My point is that he used multiple *dissimilar*

> >http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Dissimilarterm to formulate a water

> > tight proposition as a claim of logic and thus untestable. No test can
> > be devised to either refute or confirm the following generalized
> > assertion:
> > 1) Beneficial ones are preserved.
>
> If you could show that non beneficial mutations are preserved more often
> than beneficial ones, that would falsify the statement.
>
> > 2) Selected ones are preserved.
>
> If that's what Darwin wrote, then it would have been a tautology.
>
> > 3) The perpetuators proliferate ( Stanford tautologies thread)
>
> Except that Darwin proposed a reason why certain variants proliferate,
> not just stated that those who were perpetuated proliferate.
>
> > 4) etc.. you get the point
>
> I see that your 'point' comes from equivocating "beneficial" with

> "selected". ï¿½ Darwin's theory explains why those traits selected are

> more likely to be beneficial.
>
> > There are thousands of *dissimilar* terms one could interchange with
> > *selection* to formulate a claim of logic.
>

> Why would this be relevant? ï¿½ Darwin wasn't proposing thousands of

> dissimilar terms.
>
>
>
> >> No one objects to agriculturists speaking of the potent effects of manï¿½s
> >> selection; and in this case the individual differences given by nature,
> >> which man for some object selects, must of necessity first occur. Others
> >> have objected that the term selection implies conscious choice in the
> >> animals which become modified; and it has even been urged that, as
> >> plants have no volition, natural selection is not applicable to them!
>
> > eerrr... plants don't have volition as far as I know?
>

> Remember, the above is Darwin talking, not me. ï¿½ But the point Darwin
> was making is that his term "selection" is metaphorical. ï¿½He knows that

> nature is not intelligent, and doesn't actually make a conscious choice.

> ï¿½ He was using the term as shorthand for the influence the environment

> has on a population.
>
>
>
> >> *In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a
> >> false term;* but who ever objected to chemists speaking of the elective
> >> affinities of the various elements?ï¿½and yet an acid cannot strictly be
> >> said to elect the base with which it in preference combines.
>
> > This confuses a pattern which represents itself with a pattern that
> > represents something other than itself.
>
> Again, Darwin's point was that he knows that strictly the word
> "selection" implies a conscious choice, but that English language is
> flexible enough to make exceptions.
>
> > Computers rely in the "affinities" between copper atoms to calculate
> > algorithms, but the algorithms themselves represents something other
> > than themselves while the "affinities" or chemical effects between
> > atoms represents only itself.
>

> This may mean something to you, but it's gibberish to me. ï¿½ What do you

> mean?
>
>
>
> >> It has been
> >> said that I speak of natural selection as an active power or Deity; but
> >> who objects to an author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling
> >> the movements of the planets?
>
> > Because gravity only represents itself, ruling was used
> > metaphorically. With 'natural selection' as contracted shorthand for
> > the full sentence 'natural means of competitive selection' from
> > Matthew, Darwin is trying to salvage his concept from metaphorical
> > bafoonism and not acknowledge the real author who coined the term.
>
> Actually, what he's doing is pointing out that English usage is
> flexible, and that most educated persons know what he means by "natural

> selection". ï¿½ ï¿½He's not using the word "selection" in the most strict

> fashion, but he points out that similar words are often used fairly
> loosely.
>
>
>
> >> Every one knows what is meant and is
> >> implied by such metaphorical expressions; and they are almost necessary
> >> for brevity.
>
> > Exactly, just like Darwin's term 'natural selection' was the *brevity*
> > shorthand for SoF which in turn is an apt shorthand for: The
> > acquisition of attributes via the natural means of competitive
> > preservation(selection etc) as entities compete to dominate an
> > ecological niche. This is a claim of logic, not test can verify or
> > refute it.

> Again, it isn't a "claim of logic" but an observation of what happens in
> populations.

We are after theories of the observation, not a post-factum
rationalization of the observation.

ï¿½Those with beneficial traits tend to out breed those who
> have either neutral, or detrimental traits. ï¿½ That's how beneficial

> traits spread throughout the population.

What an amazing insight. Obviously if you assert that the reason
their traits spread was because they were
beneficial for spreading they how could anybody devise a test to
disprove this. By this logic rocks are beneficial for being in
existence. But you failed to notice that this piece of tautological
wisdom was stated *post-factum* - after the fact. The implication is
that those who were non-beneficial didn't spread, hence everything is
explained and thus nothing. The actual reason for their spreading or
non-spreading has got nothing to do with the environment but are a
function of their attributes. Desert based plants will die in the
Amazon with too much water. Amazon plants will die in the desert: they
are not adapted to anything - they are expressing their attributes.

> If you tested a population, and found that harmful traits, or neutral
> traits, gave an individual more likelihood of breeding, and passing on
> it's genes to the next generation, then it would falsify the idea that
> beneficial traits are favored.

As a generalized statement .... the beneficial attributes are
preserved.... can't be falsified. If so then present a falsification
test. Neither can the flip-side be tested ... those with harmful
attributes weren't preserved. The description is post-factum - after
the fact, it doesn't explain *independently* for each event of
preservation, the actual reason for being either preserved or
rejected. For example the Journalist
explained the demise of the solar company due to 'natural selection' -
not being able to compete. I pounted
at http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Culture that we don't
know the real reason they went bust.
*After* I made this wiki entry we learned that the FBI is
investigating them for making Donkey's out of the
Obhama administration - steeling $400mil instead of producing solar
panels with it. My original entry was at http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Culture.
Click on the history tab for my timeline of entries.

> >> So again it is difficult to avoid personifying the word
> >> Nature; but I mean by Nature, only the aggregate action and product of
> >> many natural laws, and by laws the sequence of events as ascertained by
> >> us.
> > This is a tautology.

> If so, why is it a problem. ï¿½ Darwin here is admitting the word
> "selection" tends to personify nature. ï¿½He also states that what he
> means by "nature" is the aggregate function of natural laws. ï¿½ So, if

> that definition is a tautology, so what?

> > Why does Opium induce sleep? Because of its
> > 'optimific' properties as pointed out by John Brey in his book
> > Tautological Oxymorons.
>

> Which still acknowledges that opium produces sleep. ï¿½That much is true,
> ï¿½ why would it be a problem?

Because it invokes the effect as the cause. We need the real cause as
to why opium induces sleep. It is a truism to to state that opium has
properties that induces sleep, if the expectation was for an
explanation not a stating of the obvious.

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Jul 23, 2012, 6:25:31 PM7/23/12

to

On 7/23/12 1:29 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jul 22, 4:05 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/22/12 3:48 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 20, 7:36 pm, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>> news:29b9ac18-24a1-49e7...@x6g2000pbh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>>> On Jul 19, 3:07 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>>>>>>> Ray (anti-selectionist)
>>
>>>>>> How do you manage at the grocery store?
>>
>>>>> No one denies artificial selection, only natural selection (two
>>>>> different things).
>>
>>>> Yes, cars may be powered in a number of ways, but the net effect is the
>>>> same: they move!
>>
>>>> Now be a good boy and let us in on the secret: What's the difference? Please
>>>> present details; it is not obviuous what you think it is.
>>>> What prevents natural causes from have an effect?
>>
>>> Darwinian natural causation does not exist----that's what prevents:
>>> non-existence.
>>
>> It's only your claim that it does not exist.
>>
>
> I stand with science as it existed before 1859.

Science before 1859 accepted natural causation, as you already know.

>
>> Natural causation itself is not "Darwinian", as Darwin wasn't the
>> first, last, or the only, scientist to propose that natural laws operate
>> without evidence of supernatural influence. Natural causation was well
>> accepted by science long before Charles Darwin was even born.
>>
>
> Your assertions are completely false.

Where is the evidence to support that assertion?

>
>>
>>
>>> Atheists claim God does not exist ("The God Delusion").
>>
>> And that claim is irrelevant to the existence of natural laws and
>> processes. Whether or not God exists, the universe still operates on
>> observable natural laws.
>>
>>
>>
>>> We neo-Paleyans claim that Darwinian natural causes do not exist (The
>>> 'evolusion delusion').
>>
>> There are no other "neo-Paleyans", Ray. It's just you, and you alone.
>
> Dana states his preference.

My "preference" is irrelevant. The fact remains there are no other "neo
Paleyans". It's just you.

>
>> Natural causes were known to exist, long before Darwin, and even in
>> Paley's time. Paley himself accepted the existence of natural laws,
>> which he thought were ordained by God.
>>
>> From "Natural Theology", page 34.
>>
>> "God, therefore, has been
>> pleased to prescribe limits to his own power, and to work his
>> ends within those limits. The general laws of matter have
>> perhaps prescribed the nature of these limits ; its inertia ; its
>> reaction ; the laws which govern the communication of motion,
>> the refraction and reflection of light, and the constitution
>> of fluids non-elastic and elastic, the transmission of
>> sound through the latter ; the laws of magnetism, of electricity,
>> and probably others yet undiscovered."

Even William Paley was not a "Paleyian", according to Ray.

>>
>>
>>
>>> The dispute is now stated succinctly: its all or nothing.
>>
>> To you, and you alone. It's perfectly clear that your position is
>> unsupported, and your all or nothing assertions are you own paranoid
>> delusion. Even Paley himself would have agreed you are wrong.
>>
>
> Your desire to enlist Paley is understandable since he was, of course,
> an eminent biologist.

As shown above, this "eminent biologist" accepted natural laws existed,
and operated without God's direct influence.

> But in his time "natural" meant "created by God"
> or "designed by God." Hence "Natural Theology."

Which means, according to Paley, God created, and made use of
unintelligent, unguided processes. You just supported my case.

>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Ray (Paleyan IDist)
>>
>>>> Do you understand what causes, challenges, threats et cetera all living
>>>> beings are being exposed to in their lifetime?
>>>> Do you think living beings are living in a vacuum, with no interrelationship
>>>> with the rest of the world, the environment, members of their particular
>>>> group, predators, climate, food supply, geographical separation - the list
>>>> is endless. Do you maintain that nothing is relevant., without noticeable
>>>> effects whereas even ignorant sheep herders were capable of utilizing
>>>> principles they didn't even have a clue about?
>>
>>>> Do you realize the amount of explaining you have to do to reach your fata
>>>> morgana?
>>
>>>> Denial is not the answer, never.
>>
>> No reply here, Ray? Why not?
>>
>
> Said comments are convoluted. Perhaps you could re-phrase, making them
> legible?

How is "denial is not the answer" convoluted? What do you not
understand about that?

DJT

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Jul 23, 2012, 6:50:03 PM7/23/12

to

On 7/23/12 2:51 PM, backspace wrote:
> On Jul 23, 7:46 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
snipping for length

>>> Exactly, just like Darwin's term 'natural selection' was the *brevity*
>>> shorthand for SoF which in turn is an apt shorthand for: The
>>> acquisition of attributes via the natural means of competitive
>>> preservation(selection etc) as entities compete to dominate an
>>> ecological niche. This is a claim of logic, not test can verify or
>>> refute it.
>
>> Again, it isn't a "claim of logic" but an observation of what happens in
>> populations.
>
> We are after theories of the observation, not a post-factum
> rationalization of the observation.

Who is the "we" here? Darwin observed that particular variations get
passed on more than others. These variations were ones that made the
individuals better adapted to their environment. How is this a "claim
of logic"?

>
>
> Those with beneficial traits tend to out breed those who

>> have either neutral, or detrimental traits. That's how beneficial

>> traits spread throughout the population.
>
> What an amazing insight. Obviously if you assert that the reason
> their traits spread was because they were
> beneficial for spreading they how could anybody devise a test to
> disprove this.

Anyone could devise a test to see what traits spread in a population.
If those traits made the organism less well adapted, then it would
falsify Darwin's theory.

> By this logic rocks are beneficial for being in
> existence.

How does that follow from anything I've written?

> But you failed to notice that this piece of tautological
> wisdom was stated *post-factum* - after the fact.

Why is that a problem? All observations are "after the fact". One
can't observe something that hasn't happened yet.

> The implication is
> that those who were non-beneficial didn't spread,

Again, that's the observation. How many offspring does a dead
individual produce?

> hence everything is
> explained and thus nothing.

Again, you have a problem with connecting your conclusions with the
premises. Natural selection explains why certain traits spread more
than other traits. Traits that offer an advantage to survival spread.
Those that don't, fail to spread.

> The actual reason for their spreading or
> non-spreading has got nothing to do with the environment but are a
> function of their attributes.

The environment is *why* they are either beneficial, or detrimental.
The exact same trait can be either, depending on the environment.

> Desert based plants will die in the
> Amazon with too much water. Amazon plants will die in the desert: they
> are not adapted to anything - they are expressing their attributes.

Desert plants are adapted to dry conditions. Rainforest plants are
adapted to wet environments. Saying they are not adapted to anything
is just being silly.

>
>
>> If you tested a population, and found that harmful traits, or neutral
>> traits, gave an individual more likelihood of breeding, and passing on
>> it's genes to the next generation, then it would falsify the idea that
>> beneficial traits are favored.
>
> As a generalized statement .... the beneficial attributes are
> preserved.... can't be falsified.

except by showing cases where beneficial attributes are not preserved.
If you could show that, it would falsify the proposition. Also, why
leave off all the context?

> If so then present a falsification
> test.

Already did, just above. Observe a population, and see which traits get
preserved. If the traits that get preserved are detrimental to the
population, then you've falsified the proposition. It really wouldn't
matter what environment the organisms were in.

> Neither can the flip-side be tested ... those with harmful
> attributes weren't preserved.

Again, observe the population over several generations. If harmful
traits (defined by the environment) are preferentially preserved, then
natural selection is falsified. As I mentioned before, preservation
of harmful traits is often found in cases of artificial selection by
humans. Modern maize crops, for example, are not able to self
perpetuate, and would die off if humans didn't spread the seeds.

> The description is post-factum - after
> the fact, it doesn't explain *independently* for each event of
> preservation, the actual reason for being either preserved or
> rejected.

Actually, it explains quite well the reason for each event of
preservation. Traits that are preserved are those that allow the
individual to produce more offspring. In the same way, artificial
selection preserves those traits the being choosing prefers.

> For example the Journalist
> explained the demise of the solar company due to 'natural selection' -
> not being able to compete.

The journalist was using the term metaphorically, and in an even looser
manner than Darwin did. Solar companies have difficulty competing due
to having higher costs per unit of energy than other forms of power
generation. Rather than "natural selection", a more accurate term
would have been "economic selection".

> I pounted
> at http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Culture that we don't
> know the real reason they went bust.

Which, if true, only means the journalist was wrong. It doesn't affect
the biological use of natural selection.

> *After* I made this wiki entry we learned that the FBI is
> investigating them for making Donkey's out of the
> Obhama administration - steeling $400mil instead of producing solar
> panels with it. My original entry was at http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Culture.
> Click on the history tab for my timeline of entries.

How is any of this relevant to the discussion of biological entities?

>
>
>
>
>>>> So again it is difficult to avoid personifying the word
>>>> Nature; but I mean by Nature, only the aggregate action and product of
>>>> many natural laws, and by laws the sequence of events as ascertained by
>>>> us.
>>> This is a tautology.
>

>> If so, why is it a problem. Darwin here is admitting the word
>> "selection" tends to personify nature. He also states that what he
>> means by "nature" is the aggregate function of natural laws. So, if

>> that definition is a tautology, so what?
>
>
>>> Why does Opium induce sleep? Because of its
>>> 'optimific' properties as pointed out by John Brey in his book
>>> Tautological Oxymorons.
>>

>> Which still acknowledges that opium produces sleep. That much is true,

>> why would it be a problem?
>
> Because it invokes the effect as the cause.

If you are describing the fact that opium causes sleep (sedation,
really), why would it matter as to cause or effect?

> We need the real cause as
> to why opium induces sleep.

and I'm sure a biochemist could explain that to you quite easily.

> It is a truism to to state that opium has
> properties that induces sleep, if the expectation was for an
> explanation not a stating of the obvious.

But in your case above, the expectation was not for an explanation, but
a description of the effect of opium.

Once more, you have a problem with connecting your conclusions to your
premises.

DJT

>

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Jul 23, 2012, 6:54:40 PM7/23/12

to

On 7/23/12 1:18 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

> On Jul 22, 4:25 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/22/12 3:41 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 20, 3:52 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jul 19, 10:59 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jul 16, 3:30 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> I am working the concept of an oxymoron as the opposite to a pleonasm.
>>>>>> My theory athttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wikiisthat'natural
>>>>>> selection' as semantic construct is an oxymoron and would appreciate
>>>>>> any ideas on this issue. Especially Burkhard, Ray and UC comments
>>>>>> would be most welcome
>>
>>>>> "In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, Natural Selection is a
>>>>> false term" (Charles Darwin).
>>
>>>>> Stephan: could you please supply the full reference for this quote?
>>

>>>> OoS. Text file available at archive.org. Download and press Ctrl+F

>>>> for search enter section of the sentence to find the full one.
>>
>>> Stephan: By "asking" I gave you the benefit of any doubt. The fact of
>>> the matter is that Darwin never said it.
>>
>>> Ray
>>

>> Ray, as usual, your incompetent "scholarship" betrays you. Darwin did
>> write the above. A few seconds of searching revealed it's from
>> Darwin's "Origin of Species" Chapter IV. The whole paragraph reads:

Your incompetent "scholarship" is still the issue here. As I pointed
out, Darwin did write the above. That you were unable to find the
quotation, even though it only required a simple search engine search,
shows you aren't able to do even simple research.

I did not need to check all the editions of Darwin's work, as he wrote
the above in at least one. I could also point out that "misnomer" and
"false term" are synonyms, since you seem to be so hung up on
grammatical terms.

Why not just admit you were wrong?

DJT

Attila

unread,

Jul 24, 2012, 1:57:37 AM7/24/12

to

>>> No one objects to agriculturists speaking of the potent effects of man’s

>>> selection; and in this case the individual differences given by nature,
>>> which man for some object selects, must of necessity first occur. Others
>>> have objected that the term selection implies conscious choice in the
>>> animals which become modified; and it has even been urged that, as
>>> plants have no volition, natural selection is not applicable to them!
>>> *In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a
>>> false term;* but who ever objected to chemists speaking of the elective

>>> affinities of the various elements?—and yet an acid cannot strictly be

I found it! I found it! Thanks to Project Gutenberg. It's from the 6th
Edition often considered the definitive one. Read it and weep, Raiboi.

"In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a false

term; _but who ever objected to chemists speaking of the elective affinities
of the various elements?—and yet an acid cannot strictly be said to elect
the base with which it in preference combines._ It has been said that I

speak of natural selection as an active power or Deity; but who objects to
an author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of
the planets? Every one knows what is meant and is implied by such
metaphorical expressions; and they are almost necessary for brevity. So
again it is difficult to avoid personifying the word Nature; but I mean by

nature, only the aggregate action and product of many natural laws, and by

laws the sequence of events as ascertained by us. With a little familiarity
such superficial objections will be forgotten."

He's actually quite a smart dude, Ray. You could learn a lot from him (and
from Wallace too).

Rolf

unread,

Jul 24, 2012, 11:49:03 AM7/24/12

to

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:a2201ef8-cb3a-4467...@l6g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...

> On Jul 22, 4:25 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/22/12 3:41 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 20, 3:52 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Jul 19, 10:59 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> On Jul 16, 3:30 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>>> I am working the concept of an oxymoron as the opposite to a
>> >>>> pleonasm.
>> >>>> My theory
>> >>>> athttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wikiisthat'natural
>> >>>> selection' as semantic construct is an oxymoron and would appreciate
>> >>>> any ideas on this issue. Especially Burkhard, Ray and UC comments
>> >>>> would be most welcome
>>
>> >>> "In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, Natural Selection is a
>> >>> false term" (Charles Darwin).
>>
>> >>> Stephan: could you please supply the full reference for this quote?
>>

>> >> OoS. Text file available at archive.org. Download and press Ctrl+F

>> >> for search enter section of the sentence to find the full one.
>>
>> > Stephan: By "asking" I gave you the benefit of any doubt. The fact of
>> > the matter is that Darwin never said it.
>>
>> > Ray
>>

>> Ray, as usual, your incompetent "scholarship" betrays you. Darwin did
>> write the above. A few seconds of searching revealed it's from
>> Darwin's "Origin of Species" Chapter IV. The whole paragraph reads:

>>
>> "Several writers have misapprehended or objected to the term Natural
>> Selection. Some have even imagined that natural selection induces
>> variability, whereas it implies only the preservation of such variations
>> as arise and are beneficial to the being under its conditions of life.

>> No one objects to agriculturists speaking of the potent effects of man�s

>> selection; and in this case the individual differences given by nature,
>> which man for some object selects, must of necessity first occur. Others
>> have objected that the term selection implies conscious choice in the
>> animals which become modified; and it has even been urged that, as
>> plants have no volition, natural selection is not applicable to them!
>> *In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a
>> false term;* but who ever objected to chemists speaking of the elective

>> affinities of the various elements?�and yet an acid cannot strictly be

That's your problem and the reason you are on a wild goose chase. We don't
give a damn about the 'literal sense'.
We understand the meaning of the concept; we know what is going on in the
natural world. The meaning of words written on paper may be debated, but the
facts of real natural events do not depend on literal senses of words.

Do you ever try to learn and understand what is going on in the world of
nature?

Why do you think birds, fish, - all kinds of animals, go to such lengths at
irrational behavior in the process of mating? The peacock's tail, the deer
antlers, the dances, the rituals, what are they there for? Do they mean
anyting? Are they in any senese relevant for anything? I won't try to tell
you, others knows better than me - but I really DO UNDERSTAND why they are
there, what the purpose is, what the effect is.
Do you?

Please tell!

Rolf

unread,

Jul 24, 2012, 11:57:28 AM7/24/12

to

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1ff1f9d8-29cc-4473...@vb9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

> On Jul 22, 4:05 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/22/12 3:48 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 20, 7:36 pm, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:29b9ac18-24a1-49e7...@x6g2000pbh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >>> On Jul 19, 3:07 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> >>>> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>> >>>>> Ray (anti-selectionist)
>>
>> >>>> How do you manage at the grocery store?
>>
>> >>> No one denies artificial selection, only natural selection (two
>> >>> different things).
>>
>> >> Yes, cars may be powered in a number of ways, but the net effect is
>> >> the
>> >> same: they move!
>>
>> >> Now be a good boy and let us in on the secret: What's the difference?
>> >> Please
>> >> present details; it is not obviuous what you think it is.
>> >> What prevents natural causes from have an effect?
>>
>> > Darwinian natural causation does not exist----that's what prevents:
>> > non-existence.
>>
>> It's only your claim that it does not exist.
>>
>
> I stand with science as it existed before 1859.
>

Like in the present, there is/was no "science as it existed before 1859" or
any other date in the history of mankind.

Science "is" not! Science is a big bag where you put whatever relates to
human knowledge, understanding, and much more.
Not all scientists, nor all non-scientist before 1859 were creationists,
religious or whatever.

You 'stand with' your conception of what was "science as it existed before
1859."

I any case, that is of course completely irrelevant.

All that counts is what we know today. Not what you deny. And that is a lot
of things. But denial isn't going to get you anywhere. People refuse to
share your delusions.

backspace

unread,

Jul 24, 2012, 10:04:17 AM7/24/12

to

On Jul 24, 4:49�pm, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a
> > false term" (C. Darwin, "On The Origin" 1869:93, 5th edition; London:
> > Murray).

> That's your problem and the reason you are on a wild goose chase. We don't
> give a damn about the 'literal sense'.
> We understand the meaning of the concept; we know what is going on in the
> natural world. The meaning of words written on paper may be debated, but the
> facts of real natural events do not depend on literal senses of words.

We are not interested in facts but theories.
That the moon orbits the earth is fact, it is a theory that it does so
following newton's inverse square law. We have life -> control
algorithms: where is the theory?

Bob Casanova

unread,

Jul 24, 2012, 1:00:37 PM7/24/12

to

On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 07:04:17 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:

>On Jul 24, 4:49�pm, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > "In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a
>> > false term" (C. Darwin, "On The Origin" 1869:93, 5th edition; London:
>> > Murray).
>
>> That's your problem and the reason you are on a wild goose chase. We don't
>> give a damn about the 'literal sense'.
>> We understand the meaning of the concept; we know what is going on in the
>> natural world. The meaning of words written on paper may be debated, but the
>> facts of real natural events do not depend on literal senses of words.
>
>We are not interested in facts but theories.

That you're disinterested in facts is painfully obvious; the
question is "Why?". I suspect it's because you're constantly
in the position of the lawyer with neither the facts nor the
law on his side and must resort to pounding on the table; in
your case that means being reduced to semantic quibbling and
waffling. "Full of sound and fury, signifying impotence."

>That the moon orbits the earth is fact, it is a theory that it does so
>following newton's inverse square law. We have life -> control
>algorithms: where is the theory?

Just curious; what is that question intended to mean in the
context of the ToE, which *is* the theory?

Ray Martinez

unread,

Jul 24, 2012, 3:59:09 PM7/24/12

to

On Jul 23, 3:54ï¿½pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/23/12 1:18 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 22, 4:25 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 7/22/12 3:41 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 20, 3:52 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Jul 19, 10:59 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Jul 16, 3:30 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> I am working the concept of an oxymoron as the opposite to a pleonasm.
> >>>>>> My theory athttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wikiisthat'natural
> >>>>>> selection' as semantic construct is an oxymoron and would appreciate
> >>>>>> any ideas on this issue. Especially Burkhard, Ray and UC comments
> >>>>>> would be most welcome
>
> >>>>> "In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, Natural Selection is a
> >>>>> false term" (Charles Darwin).
>
> >>>>> Stephan: could you please supply the full reference for this quote?
>

> >>>> OoS. ï¿½Text file available at archive.org. Download and press Ctrl+F

> >>>> for search enter section of the sentence to find the full one.
>
> >>> Stephan: By "asking" I gave you the benefit of any doubt. The fact of
> >>> the matter is that Darwin never said it.
>
> >>> Ray
>

> >> Ray, as usual, your incompetent ï¿½"scholarship" betrays you. ï¿½Darwin did
> >> write the above. ï¿½A few seconds of searching revealed ï¿½it's from
> >> Darwin's "Origin of Species" Chapter IV. ï¿½The whole paragraph reads:

> >http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?keywords=a%20misnomer&pa...

>
> > "In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a
> > misnomer" (C. Darwin, "On The Origin" 1861:85, 3rd edition; Murray:
> > London).
>

> >http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?keywords=false%20term&pa...

>
> > "In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a
> > false term" (C. Darwin, "On The Origin" 1869:93, 5th edition; London:
> > Murray).
>
> > I failed to check other editions of "The Origin" (like yourself).
>

> Your incompetent "scholarship" is still the issue here. ï¿½ ï¿½As I pointed
> out, Darwin did write the above. ï¿½ That you were unable to find the
> quotation, even ï¿½though it only required a simple search engine search,

> shows you aren't able to do even simple research.
>
> I did not need to check all the editions of Darwin's work, as he wrote

> the above in at least one. ï¿½I could also point out that "misnomer" and

> "false term" are synonyms, since you seem to be so hung up on
> grammatical terms.
>
> Why not just admit you were wrong?
>
> DJT

I did admit when I said "I failed..."

Said quote does not appear in the first two editions. When I
questioned Stephan I had the 3rd edition quote in mind. If I bothered
to check further (which I didn't) I would have discovered the quote
you and Stephan had produced.

LIke Stephan, you failed to produce a proper citation and you failed
to check other editions; and you have failed to admit your failures
(unlike myself).

Ray

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Jul 24, 2012, 5:22:26 PM7/24/12

to

On 7/24/12 8:04 AM, backspace wrote:
> On Jul 24, 4:49 pm, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a
>>> false term" (C. Darwin, "On The Origin" 1869:93, 5th edition; London:
>>> Murray).
>
>> That's your problem and the reason you are on a wild goose chase. We don't
>> give a damn about the 'literal sense'.
>> We understand the meaning of the concept; we know what is going on in the
>> natural world. The meaning of words written on paper may be debated, but the
>> facts of real natural events do not depend on literal senses of words.
>
> We are not interested in facts but theories.

Who is the "we" here?

> That the moon orbits the earth is fact, it is a theory that it does so
> following newton's inverse square law.

Likewise it's a fact that life evolves. It's a theory that natural
selection acting on random mutations is what causes that evolution.

> We have life -> control
> algorithms: where is the theory?

The theory of evolution. Perhaps you've heard of it?

DJT

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Jul 24, 2012, 5:20:08 PM7/24/12

to

On 7/24/12 1:59 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

> On Jul 23, 3:54 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/23/12 1:18 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 22, 4:25 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 7/22/12 3:41 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jul 20, 3:52 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 19, 10:59 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 16, 3:30 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> I am working the concept of an oxymoron as the opposite to a pleonasm.
>>>>>>>> My theory athttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wikiisthat'natural
>>>>>>>> selection' as semantic construct is an oxymoron and would appreciate
>>>>>>>> any ideas on this issue. Especially Burkhard, Ray and UC comments
>>>>>>>> would be most welcome
>>
>>>>>>> "In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, Natural Selection is a
>>>>>>> false term" (Charles Darwin).
>>
>>>>>>> Stephan: could you please supply the full reference for this quote?
>>

>>>>>> OoS. Text file available at archive.org. Download and press Ctrl+F

>>>>>> for search enter section of the sentence to find the full one.
>>
>>>>> Stephan: By "asking" I gave you the benefit of any doubt. The fact of
>>>>> the matter is that Darwin never said it.
>>
>>>>> Ray
>>

>>>> Ray, as usual, your incompetent "scholarship" betrays you. Darwin did
>>>> write the above. A few seconds of searching revealed it's from
>>>> Darwin's "Origin of Species" Chapter IV. The whole paragraph reads:

>> Your incompetent "scholarship" is still the issue here. As I pointed
>> out, Darwin did write the above. That you were unable to find the
>> quotation, even though it only required a simple search engine search,

>> shows you aren't able to do even simple research.
>>
>> I did not need to check all the editions of Darwin's work, as he wrote

>> the above in at least one. I could also point out that "misnomer" and

>> "false term" are synonyms, since you seem to be so hung up on
>> grammatical terms.
>>
>> Why not just admit you were wrong?
>>
>> DJT
>
> I did admit when I said "I failed..."

Yet you did not admit you were mistaken when you said that Darwin never
said it.

Again, why not just admit you were wrong?

>
> Said quote does not appear in the first two editions.

"Said quote" does appear, with a slightly different final term in those
editions. Again, the point is your incompetent scholarship. A very
simple search found it very easily.

> When I
> questioned Stephan I had the 3rd edition quote in mind.

Sure you did, Ray. Tell us another one.....

> If I bothered
> to check further (which I didn't) I would have discovered the quote
> you and Stephan had produced.
>
> LIke Stephan, you failed to produce a proper citation and you failed
> to check other editions; and you have failed to admit your failures
> (unlike myself).

I "provided" the full quote, which backspace did not, and I provided a
citation that anyone could easily follow up on. You are hardly anyone
to complain about providing proper citations, as you have many times
given incomplete, and incorrect citations.

As I've stated many times, I cheerfully, and openly admit to any
mistakes I make. I do not admit to being wrong, when it's you who is
mistaken, and incompetent.

DJT

Ray Martinez

unread,

Jul 24, 2012, 8:09:03 PM7/24/12

to

> >>>> No one objects to agriculturists speaking of the potent effects of man�s

> >>>> selection; and in this case the individual differences given by nature,
> >>>> which man for some object selects, must of necessity first occur. Others
> >>>> have objected that the term selection implies conscious choice in the
> >>>> animals which become modified; and it has even been urged that, as
> >>>> plants have no volition, natural selection is not applicable to them!
> >>>> *In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a
> >>>> false term;* but who ever objected to chemists speaking of the elective

> >>>> affinities of the various elements?�and yet an acid cannot strictly be

Show me....

Waiting.

Ray

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Jul 25, 2012, 12:19:50 AM7/25/12

to

On 7/24/12 6:09 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jul 24, 2:20 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:

snip

>>
>>> I did admit when I said "I failed..."
>>
>> Yet you did not admit you were mistaken when you said that Darwin never
>> said it.
>>
>> Again, why not just admit you were wrong?

Note, Ray still hasn't admitted that he was wrong.....

>>
>>
>>
>>> Said quote does not appear in the first two editions.
>>
>> "Said quote" does appear, with a slightly different final term in those
>> editions.
>
> Show me....
>
> Waiting.

My mistake, the quote wasn't added until the third edition. It only
took me a few minutes of searching to find this. I cheerfully, and
openly admit I was wrong.

So, Ray are you willing to follow my example, and admit you are
wrong about natural selection being "nonsense"? How about all the
other hundreds of mistakes, falsehoods, and bizarre assertions you keep
making?

DJT

Attila

unread,

Jul 25, 2012, 12:48:55 AM7/25/12

to

backspace wrote:

> On Jul 22, 10:41 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 20, 3:52 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 19, 10:59 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jul 16, 3:30 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > I am working the concept of an oxymoron as the opposite to a
>> > > > pleonasm. My theory
>> > > > athttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wikiisthat'natural
>> > > > selection' as semantic construct is an oxymoron and would
>> > > > appreciate any ideas on this issue. Especially Burkhard, Ray and UC
>> > > > comments would be most welcome
>>
>> > > "In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, Natural Selection is a
>> > > false term" (Charles Darwin).
>>
>> > > Stephan: could you please supply the full reference for this quote?
>>
>> > OoS. Text file available at archive.org. Download and press Ctrl+F
>> > for search enter section of the sentence to find the full one.
>>
>> Stephan: By "asking" I gave you the benefit of any doubt. The fact of
>> the matter is that Darwin never said it.
>>
>> Ray
>
> http://www.bartleby.com/11/4001.html
>
> In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a
> false term; but who ever objected to chemists speaking of the elective

> affinities of the various elements?—and yet an acid cannot strictly be

> said to elect the base with which it in preference combines. It has
> been said that I speak of natural selection as an active power or
> Deity; but who objects to an author speaking of the attraction of
> gravity as ruling the movements of the planets?
>
> Type ctrl+F in Firefox or Chrome with the term ..... natural selection
> is a false term .... You will find it.

Yes, I found it and posted it myself. But consider this: "In the literal
sense of the word, no doubt, 'wisdom tooth' is a false term" or how about
this? "In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, 'dry ice' [frozen CO2] is
a false term" or "In the literal sense of the word, no doubt 'witch hazel'
is a false term". Do I need to go on? Do you have an answer to the question,
'So what?'?
..... deathly silence .......

Ray Martinez

unread,

Jul 25, 2012, 7:42:26 PM7/25/12

to

On Jul 24, 9:19 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/24/12 6:09 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:> On Jul 24, 2:20 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>
> >>> I did admit when I said "I failed..."
>
> >> Yet you did not admit you were mistaken when you said that Darwin never
> >> said it.
>
> >> Again, why not just admit you were wrong?
>
> Note, Ray still hasn't admitted that he was wrong.....
>
>
>
> >>> Said quote does not appear in the first two editions.
>
> >> "Said quote" does appear, with a slightly different final term in those
> >> editions.
>
> > Show me....
>
> > Waiting.
>
> My mistake, the quote wasn't added until the third edition. It only
> took me a few minutes of searching to find this. I cheerfully, and
> openly admit I was wrong.
>

A first!

> So, Ray are you willing to follow my example, and admit you are
> wrong about natural selection being "nonsense"? How about all the
> other hundreds of mistakes, falsehoods, and bizarre assertions you keep
> making?
>
> DJT

How does death/selection produce life/new species?

I have never understood.

Could you enlighten me?

Ray

Slow Vehicle

unread,

Jul 26, 2012, 9:37:10 AM7/26/12

to

Hey, Ray:

What would you accept as "evidence for" or a "demonstration of"
natural selection?
Could you enlighten me?

"Waiting"...

backspace

unread,

Jul 26, 2012, 11:09:15 AM7/26/12

to

When a traffic robot is both green and red due to ''intentionally ''
connecting it as such at the street we have a contradiction. A picture
of a green/red robot in a book is an oxymoron at first sight, it only
becomes a contradiction when we know the ''intent'' . A tornado hits a
robot shorting the wires and lighting up the green/red leds, we have
an oxymoron and not a contradiction because tornado's don't have
intent. Only intentionality,will, volition or purpose maps an oxymoron
into a contradiction and a pleonasm into a tautology.

Only premises could be contradictory or tautological. A sentence isn't
a premise, because a sentence as a symbolic representation of a
premise doesn't constitute the essence of [[Purpose1]], will or
volition. Maxwell's equations describe the property of magnetism but
not the essence of magnetism: nobody knows what energy or magnetism;
its essence is. Sentences have a physical location, but purpose or
will has no physical location. This is not a falsifiable view, but
neither is the reverse. God and humans with intentions use *sentence
objects* to express their premise, their premise can only be decoded
by signal receiver if there is mutual agreement on the symbolism with
either an acceptance or rejection of Type Video1 or Type video2
symbolism.

Question: Is falsifiability itself falsifiable?

Video1 and video2 - only two types of videos possible:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/53a61d86f9a5a68d

It is not clear what the Aristotelian editors of the Wikipedia ID
article mean with ''undirected''. They insist
that undirected isn't the synonym of random, nor the antonym of
directed, non-random, will or [[Purpose1]]. Therefore
to get at the premise behind 'undirected' replace the object with
either one of two objects: lead or copper ball picture
in the article. Clicking on the picture takes us to a video Youtube
clip demonstrating what the materialists could possibly mean with the
symbol undirected.

The following video clips are shown:

Vid1(no purpose): Cat walks on the table and knocks over container
filled with alphabetic letters made out of wood.

Vid2(purpose): Man walks into room picks up container and throws out
the letters on the floor.

A copper ball is placed on the table beside all videos of type Vid1
and a lead ball besides all videos of type Vid2, meaning we
symbolically represent a pattern with a purpose with copper and those
without purpose with a lead ball. This raises the question: What other
possible means could there be as to how these wood letters fell on the
ground? Any other way would only be of two *types* Vid1 or Vid2.

If we were to sit there with a video camera from now to eternity
capturing each event of the container spilling the letters on the
ground of what possible type could they be other than Vid1 or Vid2?
The reasonable answer would be none, based on experience: there are
only two Platonic primary binary contrasts either the letters on the
ground is a pattern with a purpose or a pattern without a purpose.

Earthquake, tornado -> type Vid1
Clock timing device pulling in relay to knock over container -> type
Vid2.

Copper itself, representing only itself is not the contrast to the
lead ball: the only contrast is the contrast in *concepts*. The only
literal meaning that the copper ball and lead ball have are copper and
lead, they only represent themselves. The copper ball does not mean
events of type Vid1, it is only an arbitrary object used to
metaphorically represent events of type Vid1. Meaning is only
something observers of type Vid1 and Vid2 can agree on.

YEC are using volitional type language that was used to represent all
concepts as either type Vid1 or Vid2. Atheists disagrees that type
Vid1 and Vid2 are our only options and are using the same semantic
objects YEC use to represent a world view where Platonic primary
contrasts are not *assumed*. Note that I wrote assume and Dawkins also
wrote that he does not *assume* Platonic opposites, because this is
not a matter of falsifiable scientific testable constructs but about
what unfalsifiable untestable validities we *assume* as logical.

By the precepts of empiricism the claims of logic are not falsifiable
and since our falsifiable theories must assume logical validities , we
have to make clear what we assume, that which we know to be true,
neither refutable nor verifiable for eternity.

There is therefore no such thing as a literal meaning with alphabetic
objects found in a dictionary, all semantic objects are used in either
the majority metaphor or minority metaphor. Dictionaries document the
majority metaphor.

Many dictionaries post Darwin around 1901 started to list a *''third
option''* for the object 'selection'. Before around 1901 its majority
metaphor is to make a decision (type Vid2) and its minority
metaphorical usage is type Vid1 , after this the dictionaries began to
list its ''Biological'' usage.

But from the YEC Platonic primary contrasts there can't be such a
thing as a ''Biological'' meaning, only a type Vid1 and Vid2 meaning,
since this is our only experiential reference frame.

By analogy , if people across the world were to agree on a copper ball
representing patterns without a purpose then it would be documented as
the *majority metaphor* in dictionaries.

Undirected does not mean the concept displayed with Vid1(no purpose):
it is an arbitrary object or symbol we agree on to *symbolically*
represent Vid1 and Vid1 we understand as the contrast to Vid2.
Undirected can merely be some *defined* majority metaphor and we find
these definitions in dictionaries.

The semantic objects you choose to use is whatever you want. In many
cases an object such as 'random' is used in the minority metaphor such
as representing purpose(Vid2) , when a person does Probability
Sampling(selecting).

What type of Vid1(no purpose) or Vid2(purpose) is represented with
''undirected'' in the ID article on Wikipedia? If neither type then
explain what would be the third option and how we would avoid infinite
regress.

A device through which random sized balls are thrown have rings with
round holes ranking from large to small spaced
down a tube with an equal set distance between the rings. '''It will
sort(algorithmic design) the balls from large to small and is an
''object with a [[Purpose1]]'' generating a ''pattern with a
[[Purpose1]]'''''. The specific balls that will filter through first
is random<sub>2</sub>, but the end result is predictable.

In other words instead of informing me as to the "meaning" of
random,undirected,non-random etc. designate the type of video(vid1)
or Vid2 you would upload to Youtube to represent what is meant with
'undirected' in the ID wikipedia page. One would especially be
interested in Video type 3 , the video demonstrating the third
alternative to a pattern with a purpose and pattern with a purpose,
this is the type of video John Wilkins, Dawkins, Burkhard actually
mean with the objects random,non-random. If only they would upload it.

Bob Casanova

unread,

Jul 26, 2012, 12:00:39 PM7/26/12

to

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:09:15 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:

>When a traffic robot is both green and red due to ''intentionally ''
>connecting it as such at the street we have a contradiction. A picture
>of a green/red robot in a book is an oxymoron at first sight, it only
>becomes a contradiction when we know the ''intent'' .

Really? Then how do you explain the fact that an oxymoron is
by definition a conflation of contradictory terms or ideas,
and intent has nothing to do with it?

"ox�y�mo�ron (�k�s�-m�r��n�, -m�r�-) n., pl. ox�y�mo�ra
(-m�r��, -m�r��) or ox�y�mo�rons. A rhetorical figure in
which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, as in
a deafening silence and a mournful optimist."

As always, you are free to ignore this refutation of your
spurious assertions, and to continue to post nonsense.

<snip>

backspace

unread,

Jul 26, 2012, 1:41:08 PM7/26/12

to

On Jul 26, 5:00�pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:09:15 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace

> <stephan...@gmail.com>:

>
> >When a traffic robot is both green and red due to ''intentionally ''
> >connecting it as such at the street we have a contradiction. A picture
> >of a green/red robot in a book is an oxymoron at first sight, it only
> >becomes a contradiction when we know the ''intent'' .

> Really? Then how do you explain the fact that an oxymoron is
> by definition a conflation of contradictory terms or ideas,
> and intent has nothing to do with it?

Things are not by definition, but by premise. A definition represents
a majority held premise. If everybody were to become a Scientologist
tomorrow, except you and me the objects in dictionaries would be used
to express their majority premise. The issue is not whether their
premises are correct or not, but only to define such premise. From our
perspective, they would enter a type of Wittgenstein private language
universe, like the followers of Falun Gong in Chine developed their
own dialect so that not even their parents could understand them,
hence the communist party crack-down.

> "ox y mo ron ( k s -m r n , -m r -) n., pl. ox y mo ra
> (-m r , -m r ) or ox y mo rons. A rhetorical figure in
> which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, as in
> a deafening silence and a mournful optimist."

The dictionary definition of 'free' is well known, dictionaries
document the majority metaphorical usage. But in a minority of cases
such as the example given where the man gives a person a 'free gift' -
http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautological_expression
there was the expectation of reciprocating behavior. The object 'free'
doesn't mean free, only what you mean has any meaning. Making a
distinction between an oxymoron and a contradiction is an attempt to
try and determine whether a pattern found beside the road came to be
because of volition or not. The purpose of language is to discriminate
between purpose and non-purpose, arbitrary objects such as
pleonasm,oxymoron, tautological assertion, tautological proposition
are roped in to express this.

This ambiguity with 'free' is exploited masterfully by Richard
Stallman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman
''...Stallman popularized the concept of copyleft, a legal mechanism
to protect the modification and redistribution rights for free
software. It was first implemented in the GNU Emacs General Public
License, and in 1989 the first program-independent GNU General Public
License (GPL) was released. By then, much of the GNU system had been
completed....''

The GPL license *restricts* how derived works can be used , in
contrast to the BSD license which restricts much less. Stallman claims
that GPL assures the freedom of *free software*. But a restriction
isn't a freedom.

Will Smith and Tom Cruise have become mentally ill due to Scientology.
Will Smith for example thinks he can make 2+2 mean whatever he wants
to make it mean and displayed symptoms of delusional cult
indoctrinated thinking in a TV interview. With their language they are
expressing different ideas or beliefs then the mainstream.

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2010/01/when-is-a-tautology-not-a-tautology.html

Our problem is when different concepts and patterns , either
representing themselves(tornado's) or something else(computers) are
described using dictionary definitions. Dictionaries only capture the
majority metaphorical usage and only within a social, linguistic
context - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology . The dictionary of
1850 lists a different metaphor then than the dictionary of 1990 which
lists selection's third option - its biological meaning, which doesn't
exist in terms of Platonic opposites.

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Jul 26, 2012, 5:02:04 PM7/26/12

to

On 7/25/12 5:42 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jul 24, 9:19 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/24/12 6:09 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:> On Jul 24, 2:20 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> I did admit when I said "I failed..."
>>
>>>> Yet you did not admit you were mistaken when you said that Darwin never
>>>> said it.
>>
>>>> Again, why not just admit you were wrong?
>>
>> Note, Ray still hasn't admitted that he was wrong.....
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> Said quote does not appear in the first two editions.
>>
>>>> "Said quote" does appear, with a slightly different final term in those
>>>> editions.
>>
>>> Show me....
>>
>>> Waiting.
>>
>> My mistake, the quote wasn't added until the third edition. It only
>> took me a few minutes of searching to find this. I cheerfully, and
>> openly admit I was wrong.
>>
>
> A first!

It's hardly a first. I've been wrong, and admitted it many times.
Note, however you still haven't admitted you were wrong about the quote.

>
>> So, Ray are you willing to follow my example, and admit you are
>> wrong about natural selection being "nonsense"? How about all the
>> other hundreds of mistakes, falsehoods, and bizarre assertions you keep
>> making?
>>
>> DJT
>
> How does death/selection produce life/new species?

Natural selection is more than just "death". Selection, of course
is only a part of the mechanism by which new species evolve. What
produces "new life" is reproduction, and because reproduction is
imperfect, mutations keep adding new variants into a population.
These variations are the raw material that selection acts on.

Natural selection is about differential reproductive success of those
variants within a population. For some members of that population, it
means early death. For others, it means longer life, or greater chances
to reproduce. When an environment is stable, and the population is
well adapted to the local conditions, natural selection acts as a
stabilizing factor, limiting variations that are too far from the
species mean. This kind of stabilizing selection is what Paley was
familiar with.

What Darwin, and Wallace discovered was that selection, acting on
variations, could also cause changes in populations. When there is
some kind of shift in the environmental conditions, whether it be
climate change, a new food source, a new predator, or a different
ecological niche opening up, natural selection favors a shift in the
species mean,leading to changes in the population over generations.

A portion of the population moving into a new area can cause a
fairly large shift in the mean for that population, and cause selection
of variants favorable to the new conditions. When this happens, change
in a population may happen fairly quickly ( thousands of years, for the
average vertebrate population ) That's the basis of how natural
selection works, and how it can change population. So, it's not
"death" that is producing new species, but differential reproductive
success of variants in a population. Without reproduction, and new
variants entering the population, selection would have nothing to work
with. That's why I say that natural selection is not the "main"
mechanism of evolution. It's an important mechanism, but not the
"main" one. All parts are equally important.

>
> I have never understood.

Obviously. It's just as obvious you've never made any effort to try to
understand.

>
> Could you enlighten me?

That's the rub, isn't it? I can try to enlighten you, but like the
proverb about escorting equines to life sustaining fluids, I can't make
you actually drink from the font of knowledge. That would require you
to open your mind, and admit that you have been mistaken all this time.
I'm not sure you have the capacity to do that.

DJT

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Jul 26, 2012, 5:09:49 PM7/26/12

to

On 7/26/12 9:09 AM, backspace wrote:

snip all.

Ow. That was the literary equivalent of a drive by sewage dump...

DJT

Ray Martinez

unread,

Jul 26, 2012, 5:02:35 PM7/26/12

to

Still waiting, Dana.

Ray

backspace

unread,

Jul 26, 2012, 5:21:26 PM7/26/12

to

On Jul 26, 10:02�pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What Darwin, and Wallace discovered was that selection, acting on
> variations, could also cause changes in populations.

Acts by Darwin was the metaphor for the following(rephrasing your
sentence)

What Darwin plagiarized from Matthew was that via the
natural,unintentional means of competitive
selection ,preservation,accumulation or cultivation there was an
enactment in variations and by this process an acquisition of
attributes took place in the descendants that weren't in the parent
populations.

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Jul 26, 2012, 6:00:14 PM7/26/12

to

There's no evidence that Darwin plagiarized anything. What you wrote
is not a rephrase of what I wrote, or even a fair summation. What
exactly do you mean by "enactment in variations"?

DJT

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Jul 26, 2012, 6:01:46 PM7/26/12

to

My reply posted the same time as your "reminder". You need to learn
some patience, Ray. I was working last night, and didn't have a chance
to reply till now.

DJT

backspace

unread,

Jul 26, 2012, 6:35:54 PM7/26/12

to

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion

''....Design, says the scientist, is not the only alternative to
chance, and natural selection is a better one......''

This is appeal to abstract authority: Mr. Scientist doesn't exist, but
Richard Rorty did exist and he said that we mustn't let the theist
impose their Platonic opposite language on us(atheist) as documented
by John Brey's book tautological oxymorons.

Any argument must avoid the fallacy of http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Infinite_regress.
IF we are not assume the abstraction of Concentrate/uniformity in
thermodynamics , black/light etc. then what must we assume to avoid
infinite regress.?

Slow Vehicle

unread,

Jul 26, 2012, 6:45:35 PM7/26/12

to

Still waiting, Ray.

Slowvehicle.

backspace

unread,

Jul 26, 2012, 7:05:05 PM7/26/12

to

''.....p.114 God delusion:
The name comes from Fred Hoyle's amusing image of the Boeing 747 and
the scrapyard. I am not sure whether Hoyle ever wrote it
down himself, but it was attributed to him by his close colleague
Chandra Wickramasinghe and is presumably authentic.58 Hoyle
said that the probability of life originating on Earth is no greater
than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard,
would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747. Others have borrowed the
metaphor to refer to the later evolution of complex
living bodies, where it has a spurious plausibility. The odds against
assembling a fully functioning horse, beetle or ostrich by randomly
shuffling its parts are up there in 747 territory. This, in a
nutshell, is the creationist's favourite argument - an argument that
could be made only by somebody who doesn't understand the first thing
about natural selection: somebody who thinks natural selection is a
theory of chance whereas - in the relevant sense of chance - it is the
opposite......''

Which begs the question: What is a natural selection? Is Dawkins
referring to Matthew, the person from which Darwin lifted the term.

p.114
''...the Darwinian is challenged to explain the source of all the
information in living matter, in the technical sense of information
content as a measure of improbability or 'surprise value'....''

Challenged by who- Gitt perhaps? If you are referring to Gitt then at
least cite his terminology. The measurement of a concentrate of energy
on a transmission medium with sufficient accuracy to reconstruct the
slope of the original signal that the generated concentrate
represents has nothing to with information, it is communication theory
as Shannon pointed out in his paper.

''.... Or the argument may invoke the economist's hackneyed motto:
there's no such thing as a free lunch - and Darwinism is accused of
trying to get something for nothing. In fact, as I shall show in this
chapter, Darwinian natural selection is the only known solution to the
otherwise unanswerable riddle of where the information comes
from......''

Both Wilkins and I insist that ''Darwinism'' isn't defined. Is Dawkins
referring to natural selection?

''....A deep understanding of Darwinism teaches us to be wary of the
easy assumption that design is the only alternative to chance, and
teaches us to seek out graded ramps of slowly increasing
complexity......''

Is this supposed to be an argument?

Attila

unread,

Jul 27, 2012, 12:07:30 AM7/27/12

to

This is a rather startling conclusion. Do you have
1. evidence for it?
2. sources in which such evidence or arguents to support the claim can be
found?

But what is the need for this verbiage? I showed early on that your claim
about "natural selection" being an oxymoron is simply false. It is a
synthetic expression with the consequence that the whole cannot and does not
equal the sum of its parts. This is a fairly simply concept with empirical
support that most people are capable of comprehending.

Your random thoughts about language are a stream of consciousness style
pastiche of groundless assertions and meaningless platitudes.

Bob Casanova

unread,

Jul 27, 2012, 2:28:23 PM7/27/12

to

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 10:41:08 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace

<steph...@gmail.com>:

>>As always, you are free to ignore this refutation of your
>>spurious assertions, and to continue to post nonsense.

I see you picked this choice; I thought you might.

Bob Casanova

unread,

Jul 27, 2012, 2:38:16 PM7/27/12

to

On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 06:07:30 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Attila <jdka...@gmail.com>:

He has neither. It's an underhanded attempt to establish his
personal assertion as correct by assumption without an
actual declaration or demonstration. He does this sort of
thing repeatedly; the "everyone knows" gambit.

There is none. He uses a combination of excess verbiage,
unwarranted "rephrasing" and obscure references as a tool;
the "baffle them with bullshit" approach.

> I showed early on that your claim
>about "natural selection" being an oxymoron is simply false. It is a
>synthetic expression with the consequence that the whole cannot and does not
>equal the sum of its parts. This is a fairly simply concept with empirical
>support that most people are capable of comprehending.
>
>Your random thoughts about language are a stream of consciousness style
>pastiche of groundless assertions and meaningless platitudes.

By Jove, I think you've *got* it! ;-)

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Jul 27, 2012, 3:16:21 PM7/27/12

to

On 7/26/12 5:05 PM, backspace wrote:
> ''.....p.114 God delusion:
> The name comes from Fred Hoyle's amusing image of the Boeing 747 and
> the scrapyard. I am not sure whether Hoyle ever wrote it
> down himself, but it was attributed to him by his close colleague
> Chandra Wickramasinghe and is presumably authentic.58 Hoyle
> said that the probability of life originating on Earth is no greater
> than the chance that a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard,
> would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747. Others have borrowed the
> metaphor to refer to the later evolution of complex
> living bodies, where it has a spurious plausibility. The odds against
> assembling a fully functioning horse, beetle or ostrich by randomly
> shuffling its parts are up there in 747 territory. This, in a
> nutshell, is the creationist's favourite argument - an argument that
> could be made only by somebody who doesn't understand the first thing
> about natural selection: somebody who thinks natural selection is a
> theory of chance whereas - in the relevant sense of chance - it is the
> opposite......''
>
> Which begs the question: What is a natural selection? Is Dawkins
> referring to Matthew, the person from which Darwin lifted the term.

Natural selection is differential reproductive success of individuals of
a population due to the influence of environmental conditions.

There's no evidence that Darwin, or Wallace was aware of the "Naval
Timber" article before 1858. From what's written above, it's highly
unlikely that Dawkins was referring to Matthew in the above quote.

>
> p.114
> ''...the Darwinian is challenged to explain the source of all the
> information in living matter, in the technical sense of information
> content as a measure of improbability or 'surprise value'....''
>
> Challenged by who- Gitt perhaps?

Most likely he means by any creationist. I doubt he was being specific.

> If you are referring to Gitt then at
> least cite his terminology.

Richard Dawkins wrote the above. I did not. If you want to give him
advice, contact him directly.

> The measurement of a concentrate of energy
> on a transmission medium with sufficient accuracy to reconstruct the
> slope of the original signal that the generated concentrate
> represents has nothing to with information, it is communication theory
> as Shannon pointed out in his paper.

What does this have to do with anything I wrote in the message you are
supposedly replying to? In fact, you snipped away everything I wrote.

>
> ''.... Or the argument may invoke the economist's hackneyed motto:
> there's no such thing as a free lunch - and Darwinism is accused of
> trying to get something for nothing. In fact, as I shall show in this
> chapter, Darwinian natural selection is the only known solution to the
> otherwise unanswerable riddle of where the information comes
> from......''
>
> Both Wilkins and I insist that ''Darwinism'' isn't defined. Is Dawkins
> referring to natural selection?

If you have a question for Dr. Dawkins, I suggest you ask Dr. Dawkins.
By "Darwinism" it appears he's referring to modern evolutionary
theory.

>
> ''....A deep understanding of Darwinism teaches us to be wary of the
> easy assumption that design is the only alternative to chance, and
> teaches us to seek out graded ramps of slowly increasing
> complexity......''
>
> Is this supposed to be an argument?

I don't know. Dr Dawkins seems to be saying here that the dichotomy of
"chance" versus "design" is a false one. Evolution is not a chance
process. If you consider that a argument, or a statement, it's your
choice.

DJT

backspace

unread,

Jul 27, 2012, 3:01:17 PM7/27/12

to

p.120 The God delusion - DAwkins: ....Natural selection is not only a
parsimonious, plausible and elegant solution; it is the only workable
alternative to chance that has ever been suggested.....

The concept that Darwin had with ns was chance as pointed out by Henry
Osborn in NYtime article 1922 and by John Burroughs in his article
1922 in The Atlantic. In other words Darwin had the concept shown by
Video type1 and not type2 as explained in this thread. The semantic
object random,non-random, design etc. isn't the issue but what type of
video type1 or type2 is represented with the semantic object.
See http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Henry_Fairfield_Osborn

Dana Tweedy

unread,

Jul 27, 2012, 3:22:10 PM7/27/12

to

On 7/26/12 4:35 PM, backspace wrote:
> http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion
>
> ''....Design, says the scientist, is not the only alternative to
> chance, and natural selection is a better one......''
>
> This is appeal to abstract authority: Mr. Scientist doesn't exist, but
> Richard Rorty did exist and he said that we mustn't let the theist
> impose their Platonic opposite language on us(atheist) as documented
> by John Brey's book tautological oxymorons.

I would ask you to do me the favor of replying to what I wrote, not
going off on irrelevant tangents.

Whatever Mr. Rorty, or Mr Brey wrote is not relevant to my statements.

>
> Any argument must avoid the fallacy of http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Infinite_regress.
> IF we are not assume the abstraction of Concentrate/uniformity in
> thermodynamics , black/light etc. then what must we assume to avoid
> infinite regress.?
>
>

Again, word salad, and I didn't bring any Thousand Island dressing.

DJT

backspace

unread,

Jul 27, 2012, 3:26:22 PM7/27/12

to

> 1. evidence for it?

Do you only accept evidence and reject that for which you have no
evidence?

backspace

unread,

Jul 27, 2012, 3:56:17 PM7/27/12

to

Dawkins wrote God delusion p.121:
"...He(creationists) doesn't understand the power of
''accumulation''..." (Dawkins emphasis on accumulation)
1) There was an accumulation of rocks by the builder , forming a wall
for the house.
2) There was an accumulation of rocks on the ground after the tornado
hit the mountain.

Which concept 1) or 2) do YEC not understand?

backspace

unread,

Jul 27, 2012, 4:14:30 PM7/27/12

to

Use accumulation in a sentence, demonstrating the 3rd alternative to 1
and 2.

Attila

unread,

Jul 28, 2012, 2:58:56 AM7/28/12

to

Nope, the possibility of obtaining evidence works for me. Your query is a
bit hard to parse so "do you only accept evidence" has multiple readings. I
could answer, "No, cash or a valid credit are are acceptable." Try to work
on expressing yourself in a more adult manner. If that's difficult I'm sure
there are courses available.

backspace

unread,

Jul 28, 2012, 4:30:12 AM7/28/12

to

On Jul 28, 7:58�am, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Your query is a bit hard to parse so "do you only accept evidence" has multiple readings.

Your sentence itself has multiple readings and is thus unfalsifiable.

Attila

unread,

Jul 28, 2012, 5:02:22 AM7/28/12

to

And skip-to-my-loo, my darling. Hardly oringal. Keep trying ^H you may get
it eventually. There's a good lad.

Bob Casanova

unread,

Jul 28, 2012, 2:24:07 PM7/28/12

to

On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 01:30:12 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace

<steph...@gmail.com>:

>On Jul 28, 7:58 am, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Your query is a bit hard to parse so "do you only accept evidence" has multiple readings.

>Your sentence itself has multiple readings and is thus unfalsifiable.

Good thing falsifiability isn't a criterion usually adopted
when writing an English sentence, then, isn't it?

Why do you keep up this transparent idiocy when everyone can
see it for what it is?

If you'd apply your monicker to each post you make,
continuing until reaching the top of the page, you'd make
far more sense, the analogy being "a stopped clock is right
twice a day".

Attila

unread,

Jul 28, 2012, 3:10:20 PM7/28/12

to

Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 01:30:12 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
> <steph...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Jul 28, 7:58 am, Attila <jdkay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Your query is a bit hard to parse so "do you only accept evidence" has
>>> multiple readings.
>
>>Your sentence itself has multiple readings and is thus unfalsifiable.
>
> Good thing falsifiability isn't a criterion usually adopted
> when writing an English sentence, then, isn't it?
>
> Why do you keep up this transparent idiocy when everyone can
> see it for what it is?
>
> If you'd apply your monicker to each post you make,
> continuing until reaching the top of the page, you'd make
> far more sense, the analogy being "a stopped clock is right
> twice a day".

But how often is a stopped creationist right? Once in a blue moon, which is
to say, never.

backspace

unread,

Jul 28, 2012, 3:58:20 PM7/28/12

to

http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1112641006/ufo-lying-on-the-bottom-of-the-baltic-sea/

Noah's flood that destroyed the civilization after God judged the
earth. It is not a ufo, but a designed stone formation.

backspace

unread,

Jul 28, 2012, 5:44:31 PM7/28/12

to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaningless_statement
from meaningless statement:
''.....Adherents to various forms of positivism regard a statement as
meaningless if it cannot be verified or falsified. For instance,
Thomists make statements about undetectable essences of things, which
by definition can never be sensed or perceived; positivists regard
such statements as without meaning.......''

Implication:
The positivist says - I don't accept the essences of things that can
never be perceived or sensed. Because the essence of the sentence
itself can't ever be measured we therefore can't accept the sentence
from the positivist.

Attila

unread,

Jul 29, 2012, 1:31:10 AM7/29/12

to

backspace wrote:

> http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1112641006/ufo-lying-on-the-bottom-of-

the-baltic-sea/
>
> Noah's flood that destroyed the civilization after God judged the
> earth. It is not a ufo, but a designed stone formation.

And Cinderella lost a glass slipper running back to her pumpkin at midnight.
It's not my bedtime so no need for fairytales. Let's get real, shall we.

Bob Casanova

unread,

Jul 29, 2012, 1:53:59 PM7/29/12

to

On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 14:44:31 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:

backspace says - You want fries with that?

Burkhard

unread,

Jul 29, 2012, 3:58:02 PM7/29/12

to

On Jul 26, 12:42�am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 24, 9:19�pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7/24/12 6:09 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:> On Jul 24, 2:20 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> > >>> I did admit when I said "I failed..."
>
> > >> Yet you did not admit you were mistaken when you said that Darwin never
> > >> said it.
>
> > >> Again, why not just admit you were wrong?
>
> > Note, Ray still hasn't admitted that he was wrong.....
>
> > >>> Said quote does not appear in the first two editions.
>
> > >> "Said quote" does appear, with a slightly different final term in those
> > >> editions.
>
> > > Show me....
>
> > > Waiting.
>
> > � �My mistake, the quote wasn't added until the third edition. � It only
> > took me a few minutes of searching to find this. �I cheerfully, and
> > openly admit I was wrong.
>
> A first!
>
> > � � So, Ray are you willing to follow my example, and admit you are
> > wrong about natural selection being "nonsense"? � �How about all the
> > other hundreds of mistakes, falsehoods, and bizarre assertions you keep
> > making?
>
> > DJT
>
> How does death/selection produce life/new species?
>

On its own? Not at all. It simply helps random mutations along to get
fixed in a population

Burkhard

unread,

Jul 29, 2012, 4:20:01 PM7/29/12

to

Why would that follow? a sentence with multiple readings can simply
have multiple ways to falsify it, one for each reading.

Burkhard

unread,

Jul 29, 2012, 4:39:30 PM7/29/12

to

On Jul 19, 10:59�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 16, 3:30 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am working the concept of an oxymoron as the opposite to a pleonasm.
> > My theory athttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wikiisthat 'natural
> > selection' as semantic construct is an oxymoron and would appreciate
> > any ideas on this issue. Especially Burkhard, Ray and UC comments
> > would be most welcome
>
> "In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, Natural Selection is a
> false term" (Charles Darwin).
>
> Stephan: could you please supply the full reference for this quote?
>
> Next issue: I don't understand your article. I don't understand
> anything written. It seems you have created a rough draft packed with
> unexplained ideas and concepts. For example: Why do you call natural
> selection an "oxymoron"? What is it about the phrase "natural
> selection" that makes it an oxymoron? The reader has no way of knowing
> since the term "natural selection" doesn't appear to be a traditional
> oxymoron, and you haven't introduced or even mentioned "survival of
> the fittest."
>
> Then there is the issue of all the small writing in between words
> (very confusing, equivalent to making the reader jump through hoops).
> Every sentence, literally, is left unexplained. I have neither the
> time nor the desire to click on the colored words to obtain definition
> or explanation.
>
> What I see in your article is that you have tons of things to say, but
> are "unwilling" to slow down and explain each thought and/or claim and/
> or point of fact. Granted, a certain amount of knowledge is needed and
> presupposed in order to understand any work of this nature, but **as
> writtten** only you understand, the reader cannot understand.
>
> Over the years I have said the very many "re-phrasing" topics, started
> by you, showing natural selection and those who write about the claim
> to convey senselessness and illogic, to be outstanding, well
> explained, criticism. (This is why I periodically ask why you accept
> the scientific validity of a claim that literally makes no sense?) �I
> remind you of these things so my foregoing criticism is not dismissed
> as the work of an opponent.
>
> Ray (anti-selectionist)

piggy backing on Ray for once, I find your article just as
incomprehensible as he does, and for similar reasons.

Oh, but your Darwin cite is sound, the proper reference, for Ray's
benefit, would be Darwin, C. R. 1869. On the origin of species by
means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in
the struggle for life. London: John Murray. 5th edition p. 93

Burkhard

unread,

Jul 29, 2012, 4:31:33 PM7/29/12

to

On Jul 19, 11:13�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm sorry to say that Natural Selection is a synthetic > expression and real-world knowledge is required to understand what it means.
>
> How would one falsify this sentence?

By giving an adequate definition that does not rely on real world
knowledge, just dictionaries, of course.

> If knowledge is required, how
> could I possibly falsify the assertion since knowledge is always
> required- it is a claim of logic.

You overlook that Attila specified a very specific type of knowledge

>Thus you are guaranteeing the truth
> of your proposition. If in contrast you were to have given the formula
> that explains how Neural control theory as a universal abstraction in
> all creatures is mapped from polypeptide space into animal space via a
> transition matrix then we could test the formula: there is no theory
> of evolution, it doesn't exist.
>
> The fact that we don't know what gravity, magnetism and energy is and
> that we might never know raises the question as to how we will ever
> define Life itself, if we can't unlike with magnetism describe its
> properties mathematically.

There are lots of things whose properties e can't describe
mathematically, and which we can nonetheless define sufficiently
clearly for the purposes of scientific investigation. For physics, the
most obvious one woudl be "object"

> Sentences which are claims of logic and
> containing the oxymoron Natural Selection are thus a Logical fallacy,
> explaining everything and nothing at the same time, a Meaningless
> sentence. This is done to to immerse society in a fog of self-
> refutational semantics away from Platonic binary constrasts, away from
> Jesus Christ who is Alpha and Omega.

Burkhard

unread,

Jul 29, 2012, 4:55:24 PM7/29/12

to

On Jul 20, 12:23�pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2011-10/msg...
> > Ray Martinez states that under the rubric of ns we have a list of
> > truisms asserted to be a mechanism. I make the same point in the main
> > Tautology article namely that claims of logic are invoked as a
> > mechanism because the universal mechanism - Life1 that spawns us into
> > existence can't be defined under materialism.
>
> >https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!msg/talk.origins/vKnp2x_...
>
> > Rolf: No, you don't have a clear image of natural selection because
> > you don't *want* it to exist.
>
> > Ray replies: I understand natural selection to be nonsense and
> > illogic, so yes, it is true, I don't want nonsense and illogic to be
> > true.
>
> > Taking your two posts together you are you saying either:
> > 1) That a truism is nonsense
> > 2) That it is a logical fallacy to invoke [[claims of logic]] as a
> > mechanism where the expectation for a falsifiable physics equation is.
>
> > The most reasonable inference would be 2). Furthermore you mean to say
> > that the concept of invoking truisms as mechanism which are
> > *symbolically* represented with the contracted shorthand natural
> > selection is a fallacy.
>
> > Now my point is this: There is nothing in the *dictionary* definition
> > of the terms 'natural' and 'selection' that even remotely indicates
> > your and my mutually agreed *interpretation* of *''sentences''*
> > containing the term ns. Hence the meaning we derive from a sentence is
> > context dependent.
>
> > Natural selection as oxymoronic stand-alone term, can be no more a
> > fallacy than the stand alone [[Pleonasm]] terms 'black darkness' or
> > 'free gift' are , because only *sentences can be fallacies,
> > tautologies or illogical''. By analogy a pleonasm is not a tautology.
>
> > Is the contention that "free gift2" is a tautology true? . To assert
> > that such a phrase always says the same thing twice is to miss-frame
> > the particular premise of a user. For example: A man's gift of a
> > dinner and a movie to his date may be a "gift2" but it sometimes comes
> > bundled with expectations. But, if the recipient of the free dinner
> > asks first "if I go with you, are you expecting anything?" and gets
> > the answer "no", then it's accurate to say the invitee got a "free
> > gift" of dinner. It is incorrect that no gift can ever have non-free
> > implications attached to it, therefore the term free-gift is a
> > [[Pleonasm]] and not a tautology: only sentences can be tautologies.
>
> > Reference: Seehttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Premise
>
> A tautology explains everything under all conditions

Eh, no? The converse is true (if you mean by "explains" something like
"implies") a tautology is explained by everything under all conditions
(holds in all models)

>,from the man
> providing a 'free-gift' it is clear that the same sentence could in
> another context imply non-reciprocating behavior from the person
> receiving the gift. Thus the sentence doesn't explain everything in
> all contexts.

I can't see why the sentence ould explain anything in particular -
apart maybe from things such as "why did Jones not pay for the car" -
where the explanation might be : "because it as a free gift".

> By analogy take the sentence 'you have a green light' from Pragmatics:
> depending on the premise it could mean anything, it doesn't explain
> everything in all contexts. In fact devoid of a human premise or
> intent it explains @nothing@. Contradictions like oxymorons explain
> nothing. Oxymorons have the sense of explaining nothing because they
> have the sense of being contradictory. Pleonasm has the sense of
> explaining everything because in the majority of sentences they are
> used in, the sentence explains everything under all
> conditions(tautological).

None of this makes much sense. Contradictions imply everything (so
called logical explosion) Because of that, many think classical logic
is somewhat faulty (and propose things like relevance or
paraconsistent logic instead) In this case, the informal concept of
"explains" and the logical concept of "implies" diverge, which is the
problem.

I have no idea though what you mean in this context with "explains".
"implies" I understand, and also "proves".

>
> Only the premise by the human formulator of a sentence can be
> definitely asserted(no "sense") to be either all explaining or
> contradictory. But because only sentences - meaning the premise behind
> the sentence - can be either contradictions(explains nothing) or
> tautologies(explain everything) , it has lead people to erroneously
> view pleonasms as tautologies.

Seems to be a simple confusion of syntactic categories.
>
> Therefore an oxymoron isn't a contradiction because only the premise
> symbolically represented with a sentence can be a contradiction:
> it(oxymoron) has the sense of being a contradiction.
>
> Finally: Pleonasms have the sense of being tautologies but are not
> because only a human premise can be all explanatory. Oxymorons have
> the sense of being contradictions but are not because only a human
> premise can be a contradiction.

Again I can't make any sense of this. hat do you mean with "have the
sense of .."? Pleonasms are simply terms that use a redundant
expression. You can disaggregate them into a sentence easily, to use
your example, free gift is a pleonasm, "if something is a gift, it is
free" is a tautology.

Burkhard

unread,

Jul 29, 2012, 5:04:32 PM7/29/12

to

On Jul 22, 11:26�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Harshman insists that he is an ape on like the chimp in the zoo is an
> ape(vernacular, use Simian if �you wish). He states �..... @ I am an
> ape @
>
> But if this is true then his sentence, premises and language is just
> as ape like as the shrieks from apes in the zoo. Therefore his
> sentence itself @ I amn an ape @ , should be accorded the intellectual
> weight of monkey chatter.

Quite massive non sequitur that. It has the same logical fallacy as
saying: "I am human, therefore I'm a US citizen". With other words,
being member of a group does not mean I share _all_ the properties of
every member of that group. As a human, I'm most certainly also a
mammal (heck, I've seen females given life birth, and suckling their
young too), but that does not mean tat I have e.g. four legs, horns
and several stomachs, even though cows too are mammals

Burkhard

unread,

Jul 29, 2012, 5:14:39 PM7/29/12

to

On Jul 23, 5:56�pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 23, 12:25 am, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7/22/12 3:41 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

>
> > > On Jul 20, 3:52 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Jul 19, 10:59 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> On Jul 16, 3:30 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>> I am working the concept of an oxymoron as the opposite to a pleonasm.
> > >>>> My theory athttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wikiisthat'natural
> > >>>> selection' as semantic construct is an oxymoron and would appreciate
> > >>>> any ideas on this issue. Especially Burkhard, Ray and UC comments
> > >>>> would be most welcome
>
> > >>> "In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, Natural Selection is a
> > >>> false term" (Charles Darwin).
>
> > >>> Stephan: could you please supply the full reference for this quote?
>

> > >> OoS. Text file available at archive.org. Download and press Ctrl+F
> > >> for search enter section of the sentence to find the full one.
>
> > > Stephan: By "asking" I gave you the benefit of any doubt. The fact of
> > > the matter is that Darwin never said it.
>
> > > Ray
>
> > Ray, as usual, your incompetent "scholarship" betrays you. Darwin did
> > write the above. A few seconds of searching revealed it's from
> > Darwin's "Origin of Species" Chapter IV. The whole paragraph reads:
> > "Several writers have misapprehended or objected to the term Natural
> > Selection. Some have even imagined that natural selection induces
> > variability, whereas it implies only the preservation of such variations
> > as arise and are beneficial to the being under its conditions of life.
>
> Reduce:
> beneficial variations are preserved. Beneficial <=> preserved in the
> context used, it is a claim of logic.
> This is also why I have written athttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wiki
> that Darwin meant *preservation* with *selection*, he preferred
> preservation as his actual term as he indicated in a letter written to
> somebody. My point is that he used multiple *dissimilar*http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Dissimilarterm to formulate a water
> tight proposition as a claim of logic and thus untestable. No test can
> be devised to either refute or confirm the following generalized
> assertion:
> 1) Beneficial ones are preserved.

same test as last time. Count number of individuals with a trait over
time, if the ratio of that trait in a population never changes, or
changes in a pattern unrelated to environmental changes (e.g.
increases every leap year, decreases otherwise) the claim is refuted.

> 2) Selected ones are preserved.

same test as last time. Count number of individuals with a trait over
time, if the ratio of that trait in a population never changes, or
changes in a pattern unrelated to environmental changes (e.g.
increases every leap year, decreases otherwise) the claim is refuted.

> 3) The perpetuators proliferate ( Stanford tautologies thread)
> 4) etc.. you get the point

Yep. You still don;t understand how to test scientific claims

> There are thousands of *dissimilar* terms one could interchange with
> *selection* to formulate a claim of logic.
>
> > No one objects to agriculturists speaking of the potent effects of man s
> > selection; and in this case the individual differences given by nature,
> > which man for some object selects, must of necessity first occur. Others
> > have objected that the term selection implies conscious choice in the
> > animals which become modified; and it has even been urged that, as
> > plants have no volition, natural selection is not applicable to them!
>
> eerrr... plants don't have volition as far as I know?

Yes, that's the point. But NS applies to them nonetheless, hence it
shows a misunderstanding of the term by whoever made it.

>
> > *In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a
> > false term;* but who ever objected to chemists speaking of the elective
> > affinities of the various elements? and yet an acid cannot strictly be
> > said to elect the base with which it in preference combines.
>
> This confuses a pattern which represents itself with a pattern that
> represents something other than itself.
> Computers rely in the "affinities" between copper atoms to calculate
> algorithms, but the algorithms themselves represents something other
> than themselves while the "affinities" or chemical effects between
> atoms represents only itself.

So where is the confusion? NS is like the affinity of copper atoms,
and not similar to the algorithm.

>
> > It has been
> > said that I speak of natural selection as an active power or Deity; but
> > who objects to an author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling
> > the movements of the planets?
>
> Because gravity only represents itself, ruling was used
> metaphorically. With 'natural selection' as contracted shorthand for
> the full sentence 'natural means of competitive selection' from
> Matthew, Darwin is trying to salvage his concept from metaphorical
> bafoonism and not acknowledge the real author who coined the term.
>
> > Every one knows what is meant and is
> > implied by such metaphorical expressions; and they are almost necessary
> > for brevity.
>
> Exactly, just like Darwin's term 'natural selection' was the *brevity*
> shorthand for SoF which in turn is an apt shorthand for: The
> acquisition of attributes via the natural means of competitive
> preservation(selection etc) as entities compete to dominate an
> ecological niche. This is a claim of logic, not test can verify or
> refute it.
>

The same tests that were given you last time do the job just fine.
Observing that all traits remain stable, always (Garden Eden
scenario") , is just one observation that would refute it

> > So again it is difficult to avoid personifying the word
> > Nature; but I mean by Nature, only the aggregate action and product of
> > many natural laws, and by laws the sequence of events as ascertained by
> > us.
>
> This is a tautology.

Nope, it is an explanation of what is meant by "nature" in this
context - the very "making explicit the metaphor" that you demand
below.

>Why does Opium induce sleep? Because of its
> 'optimific' properties as pointed out by John Brey in his book
> Tautological Oxymorons.
>
> > With a little familiarity such superficial objections will be
> > forgotten."
>
> Sadly yes, the biological community routinely use the oxymoron non-
> metaphorically , formulating meaningless sentences. Only the
> *metaphorical* usage of ns makes sense and then only if it is made
> clear to what this metaphor refers -> Patrick Matthew. Logical
> validities by logical necessity must make sense, since they are
> universal truths, imagine if What happens, happens weren't true in all
> contexts. What we are after are falsifiable theories explaining how
> Neural control algorithms as a universal math construct is transmitted
> from amino acids to another collection of amino acids.

That specific theory may be what you are after, nobody else however
is, and most certainly not evolutionary biologists.

Burkhard

unread,

Jul 29, 2012, 6:28:02 PM7/29/12

to

On Jul 26, 4:09嚙緘m, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When a traffic robot is both green and red due to ''intentionally ''
> connecting it as such at the street we have a contradiction.

OK, with you so far, we'd have a bit of contradictory advice.
Typically resolved through a meta rule

A picture
> of a green/red robot in a book is an oxymoron at first sight,

Not really, oxymorons are terms, not images.

> it only
> becomes a contradiction when we know the ''intent''

Don't think that is necessary or relevant here

>. A tornado hits a
> robot shorting the wires and lighting up the green/red leds, we have
> an oxymoron and not a contradiction because tornado's don't have
> intent.

We have neither. Robots are not linguistic entities, hence they are
neither oxymorons nor contradictions. You could say that the message
given by the robot is a contradiction - and it is that regardless of
where it was caused by a tornado or by a prankster playing
intentionally with the wiring.

> Only intentionality,will, volition or purpose maps an oxymoron
> into a contradiction and a pleonasm into a tautology.
>
Not really, no. The difference between oxymoron and contradiction,
pleonasm and tautology has nothing to do ith intent, and everything to
do with syntactic categories. Only terms are sometimes pleonasms or
oxymorons, only sentences sometimes tautologies or contradictions.

> Only premises could be contradictory or tautological.

Of course not. Conclusions can be just as well. Every syntactic entity
that can have truth values 9normally, sentences) qualifies as possible
candidate.

>A sentence isn't
> a premise, because a sentence as a symbolic representation of a
> premise doesn't 嚙箱onstitute the essence of 嚙稼[Purpose1]], will or
> volition.

The "because part" makes no sense.hat makes a sentence a premise is
simply its place in an argument.

> 嚙瞎axwell's equations describe the property of magnetism but
> not the essence of magnetism: nobody knows what energy or magnetism;
> its essence is.

e don;t kno, from a scientific perspective, what the essence of
anything is. Science gave up the search for essences long long time
ago, and settles for what can be described.

> Sentences have a physical location,

Well, yes and no. sentence tokens yes, sentence types no.

>but purpose or
> will has no physical location. This is not a falsifiable view, but
> neither is the reverse. 嚙瘦od and humans with intentions use *sentence
> objects* to express their premise, their premise can only be decoded
> by signal receiver if there is mutual agreement on the symbolism with
> either an acceptance or rejection of Type Video1 or Type video2
> symbolism.
>
> Question: Is falsifiability itself falsifiable?

"Falsifiability" is a term. Terms are neither true or false, hence
also not "falsifiable". Only things that can in principle be true or
false can be falsifiable. Theories (in the limiting case, theories of
only one sentence) are the typical example of something that may be
falsifiable.

So if you mean: "is the theory of falsification falsifiable" you need
to be a bit more specific. Popper's original formulation, in the Logic
of Scientific Discoveries, was arguably not just falsifiable, it has
been falsified. That's because a very specific version was presented
at least in part as an accurate description of how science in practice
works - and subsequent studies (by Kuhn, initially, and then
generations of historians of science) showed that scientists typically
(and for good reasons) do not behave like Popper's theory predicts.
Every theory of falsification that too makes the claim to be an
adequate description of actual scientific practice can be falsified
the same way.

Popper later shifted the focus away from actual scientific practice
and said that falsificationism was mainly a normative claim:
Scientists OUGHT to produce easily falsifiable theories and abandon
them as soon as counter-evidence is presented. OK, with that sort of
statement, the question of falsification is more difficult to answer.
Generally, commands are not the type of sentence that can be true or
false, hence they can't be falsified in principle. However, as soon as
a justification for the command is given, that can be falsified. So,
"scientists should develop falsifiable theories because this is the
fastest way to grow our knowledge" is falsifiable.

<snip unintelligible stuff about videos and copper>

>
> YEC 嚙窮re using volitional type language that was used to represent all
> concepts as either type Vid1 or Vid2. Atheists disagrees that type
> Vid1 and Vid2 are our only options and are using the same semantic
> objects YEC use to represent a world view where Platonic primary
> contrasts are not *assumed*.

As far as I can make sense of what you write, you confuse "having a
third alternative" with "talking about different alternatives"
Purpose vs non-purposive is simply a different pair from "goal
directed vs non-goal directed", and bot are different from random vs
non-random.

Note that I wrote assume and Dawkins also
> wrote that he does not *assume* Platonic opposites, because this is
> not a matter of falsifiable scientific testable constructs but about
> what unfalsifiable untestable validities we *assume* as logical.
>
> By the precepts of empiricism the claims of logic are not falsifiable
> and since our falsifiable theories must assume logical validities , we
> have to make clear what we assume, that which we know to be true,
> neither refutable nor verifiable for eternity.

another non-sequitur, That logical tautologies are not falsifiable
does not mean we can't proof (in some cases) or argue for (in others)
for their validity. That's what logicans and mathematicians do all the
time. Falsification is simply only a property of empirical claims.

> There is therefore no such thing as a literal meaning with alphabetic
> objects found in a dictionary, all semantic objects are used in either
> the majority metaphor or minority metaphor. Dictionaries document the
> majority metaphor.

seems to make no sense whatsoever, or at least a very unorthodox
meaning of "metaphor"

<snip more stuff I can;t make any sense of>
>
> In other words instead of informing me as to the "meaning" of
> random,undirected,non-random etc. 嚙範esignate the type of video(vid1)
> or Vid2 you would upload to Youtube to represent what is meant with
> 'undirected' in the ID wikipedia page. 嚙瞌ne would especially be
> interested in Video type 3 , the video demonstrating the third
> alternative to a pattern with a purpose and pattern with a purpose,
> this is the type of video John Wilkins, Dawkins, Burkhard actually
> mean with the objects random,non-random. If only they would upload it.

Videos of mathematical properties are pretty pointless. Non-random
simply means : can be predicted with certainty, random means: can only
be predicted, if at all, probabilistically.
If I HAD to make to videos, the first would be of someone about to
drop a ball 9or a rock being dislodged from a mountain through wind,
doesn't matter which) , me putting a mark on the ground where I think
the object will end up, and the object then actually ending up there:
non-random event.

Random event: film of someone throwing a fair dice, me predicting
before every throw the outcome AND before all throws that after a
large number of throws, every side ill show up roughly in similar
numbers. Me getting it wrong with most individual throws, and getting
it right overall: random event(s)

Grandbank

unread,

Jul 29, 2012, 11:17:49 PM7/29/12

to

On Jul 28, 12:58�pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1112641006/ufo-lying-on-the-bottom...

>
> Noah's flood that destroyed the civilization after God judged the
> earth. It is not a ufo, but a designed stone formation.

Now I hope all you half-assed creationists like Nashton are taking
notes on this thread. Your pitiful little screeds with their
whimpering and complaining about this or that are looking pretty lame
next to Backspace and Ray here. This is big time crazy, this is what
fills the bleachers, this is what brings in the box office. Get with
it.

KP

John Stockwell

unread,

Aug 1, 2012, 11:38:20 AM8/1/12

to

On Monday, July 16, 2012 4:30:52 PM UTC-6, backspace wrote:
> I am working the concept of an oxymoron as the opposite to a pleonasm.
>
> My theory at
>

> http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wiki is that 'natural

>
> selection' as semantic construct is an oxymoron and would appreciate
>
> any ideas on this issue. Especially Burkhard, Ray and UC comments
>
> would be most welcome

"Lacking any sense of creativity or a willingness to do actual scientific
investigation, backspace, resorts to word games in a futile attempt
to define evolution out of existence."

Slow Vehicle

unread,

Aug 1, 2012, 2:20:41 PM8/1/12

to

Some day, I gotta buy you a beer...