# What is it with tautologies and NS?

2 views

### odin

Jul 16, 2010, 1:27:07 PM7/16/10
to
Idiots keep stating that NS is a tautology like it is some kind of
weakness.

There are two types of Tautologies:

1. In propositional logic, a tautology is a statement that is
intrinsically true in all cases (independent of any proposition). For
example, the statement "A logical tautology is never false" is a
logical tautology (a definition in fact). So if NS is a logical
tautology, that certainly does not prove NS to be false.

2. In rhetoric, a tautology is a redundant repetition of duplicate
meaning that is said more than once multiple times. So if NS is a
rhetorical tautology, it may be annoying, and it may be true or false,
but being a tautology in and of itself does not prove NS to be false.

The tautology argument... how stupid is that?

-loki

### T Pagano

Jul 16, 2010, 3:14:53 PM7/16/10
to
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:27:07 -0700 (PDT), odin <odin...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Idiots keep stating that NS is a tautology like it is some kind of
>weakness.
>
>There are two types of Tautologies:
>
>1. In propositional logic, a tautology is a statement that is
>intrinsically true in all cases (independent of any proposition). For
>example, the statement "A logical tautology is never false" is a
>logical tautology (a definition in fact). So if NS is a logical
>tautology, that certainly does not prove NS to be false.

Some of the tautological formulations:

1. The survivor's survive. (simple grammatical redundancy)
2. The fit survive or they don't survive because they were not fit.
(in logic: P or not P)
3. Survival of those who are better equipped to survive. (rhetorical
tautology)

In science one of the biggest problems with tautological formulations
is that they have near zero content. They lead nowhere.

Faithful darwinians usually define "fitness" and "survival" in terms
of each other and as such "survival of the fitest" is hopelessly
tautological AND content free. However while tHE gramatical structure
and formulation of tautologies make them logically true, this is
unrelated to whether such statements model real nature.

The fastest, strongest, healthiest, tallest, smartest don't always
survive. Natural selection which turns out to be nothing more than
"differential survival" conjoined to "differential reproductive
success" has never been shown to drive random mutations in any
progressive, coherent direction. Natural selection inherently
conserves the variability that exists within the genome of some
population.

### odin

Jul 16, 2010, 3:34:33 PM7/16/10
to
On Jul 16, 12:14 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:27:07 -0700 (PDT), odin <odinoo...@yahoo.com>

> wrote:
>
> >Idiots keep stating that NS is a tautology like it is some kind of
> >weakness.
>
> >There are two types of Tautologies:
>
> >1. In propositional logic, a tautology is a statement that is
> >intrinsically true in all cases (independent of any proposition). For
> >example, the statement "A logical tautology is never false" is a
> >logical tautology (a definition in fact). So if NS is a logical
> >tautology, that certainly does not prove NS to be false.
>
> Some of the tautological formulations:
>
> 1.  The survivor's survive. (simple grammatical redundancy)
> 2.  The fit survive or they don't survive because they were not fit.
> (in logic:  P or not P)
> 3.  Survival of those who are better equipped to survive. (rhetorical
> tautology)
>
> In science one of the biggest problems with tautological formulations
> is that they have near zero content.  They lead nowhere.

It is true that a tautological statement may have virtually no
semantic content. But that has nothing to do with it being a true or
false statement. If all you are saying is that NS is a tautology, then
I guess that is OK. If you think that then simply avoid stating NS.
But don't try to use that as an argument against the truthfulness of
NS. That does not follow.

> Faithful darwinians usually define "fitness" and "survival" in terms
> of each other and as such "survival of the fitest" is hopelessly
> tautological AND content free.  However while tHE gramatical structure
> and formulation of tautologies make them logically true, this is
> unrelated to whether such statements model real nature.
>
> The fastest, strongest, healthiest, tallest, smartest don't always
> survive.   Natural selection which turns out to be nothing more than
> "differential survival" conjoined to "differential reproductive
> success" has never been shown to drive random mutations in any
> progressive, coherent direction.  Natural selection inherently
> conserves the variability that exists within the genome of some
> population.

Fastest, strongest, healthiest, tallest, smartest? All those traits
come at a cost, and therefore do not represent universal fitness
optimums. If you get chased by cheetahs all day, being fast would be
great. But if you are a sessile critter, like a barnacle, then the
high costs associated with speed would tend to work against your
survival (how many calories a day would a barnicle need to zip around
at 50 mph all the time?). The fact that you don't already understand
this trade-off shows how stupid you are, but yes, as you said, the
smartest don't always survive, and you are living proof of that.

> >2. In rhetoric, a tautology is a redundant repetition of duplicate
> >meaning that is said more than once multiple times. So if NS is a
> >rhetorical tautology, it may be annoying, and it may be true or false,
> >but being a tautology in and of itself does not prove NS to be false.
>
> >The tautology argument... how stupid is that?
>

> >-loki- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

### bpuharic

Jul 16, 2010, 3:42:05 PM7/16/10
to
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:14:53 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:27:07 -0700 (PDT), odin <odin...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Idiots keep stating that NS is a tautology like it is some kind of
>>weakness.
>>
>>There are two types of Tautologies:
>>
>>1. In propositional logic, a tautology is a statement that is
>>intrinsically true in all cases (independent of any proposition). For
>>example, the statement "A logical tautology is never false" is a
>>logical tautology (a definition in fact). So if NS is a logical
>>tautology, that certainly does not prove NS to be false.
>
>Some of the tautological formulations:
>
>1. The survivor's survive. (simple grammatical redundancy)

which is not part of evolution

>2. The fit survive or they don't survive because they were not fit.
>(in logic: P or not P)

which is not part of evolution

>3. Survival of those who are better equipped to survive. (rhetorical
>tautology)

which is not part of evolution

>
>In science one of the biggest problems with tautological formulations
>is that they have near zero content. They lead nowhere.

it's not a problem in science at all. science methodology does not
include tautologies. it includes defineable and testable concepts

>
>Faithful darwinians usually define "fitness" and "survival" in terms
>of each other and as such "survival of the fitest" is hopelessly
>tautological AND content free. However while tHE gramatical structure
>and formulation of tautologies make them logically true, this is
>unrelated to whether such statements model real nature.

those of us who do science for a living, but aren't evolutionary
biolgoists, have no dog in this fight. so we can be objectcive

evolutionary biology has a testable mechanism. differential

creationsm? in 2000 years it has not produced a single testable idea.
not one. it's absolutely useless

>
>The fastest, strongest, healthiest, tallest, smartest don't always
>survive.

which is n ot part of evolution

Natural selection which turns out to be nothing more than
>"differential survival" conjoined to "differential reproductive
>success" has never been shown to drive random mutations in any
>progressive, coherent direction

WTF?? tony has it EXACTLY BACKWARDS!!! random mutations drive natural
selection.

what an IDIOT

creationism...2000 years of failure

### Rusty Sites

Jul 16, 2010, 3:46:25 PM7/16/10
to
On 7/16/2010 12:14 PM, T Pagano wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:27:07 -0700 (PDT), odin<odin...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Idiots keep stating that NS is a tautology like it is some kind of
>> weakness.
>>
>> There are two types of Tautologies:
>>
>> 1. In propositional logic, a tautology is a statement that is
>> intrinsically true in all cases (independent of any proposition). For
>> example, the statement "A logical tautology is never false" is a
>> logical tautology (a definition in fact). So if NS is a logical
>> tautology, that certainly does not prove NS to be false.
>
> Some of the tautological formulations:
>
> 1. The survivor's survive. (simple grammatical redundancy)
> 2. The fit survive or they don't survive because they were not fit.
> (in logic: P or not P)
> 3. Survival of those who are better equipped to survive. (rhetorical
> tautology)
>
> In science one of the biggest problems with tautological formulations
> is that they have near zero content. They lead nowhere.

Maybe that's why you never get anywhere. Did you think of that? I
think the principle of natural selection really boils down to survival,
or really reproductive success, is not entirely random but is determined
to some extent by inheritable characteristics. Tautologize that.

>
> Faithful darwinians usually define "fitness" and "survival" in terms
> of each other and as such "survival of the fitest" is hopelessly
> tautological AND content free. However while tHE gramatical structure
> and formulation of tautologies make them logically true, this is
> unrelated to whether such statements model real nature.

>
> The fastest, strongest, healthiest, tallest, smartest don't always
> survive. Natural selection which turns out to be nothing more than
> "differential survival" conjoined to "differential reproductive
> success" has never been shown to drive random mutations in any
> progressive, coherent direction.

Nor is it said to. In fact, a basic tenant of evolutionary theory is
that mutations are random with respect to reproductive success. Have
you not even learned that much in all your time here?

> Natural selection inherently
> conserves the variability that exists within the genome of some
> population.
>

I have to think there is some truth in that statement. Different
members of the same species being subjected to different selective
pressures would promote genetic variability. However, random drift does
not.

### odin

Jul 16, 2010, 3:48:58 PM7/16/10
to
On Jul 16, 12:42 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:14:53 -0400, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:27:07 -0700 (PDT), odin <odinoo...@yahoo.com>

Wow... i missed that bit... how stupid can he get?

> what an IDIOT

### Nashton

Jul 16, 2010, 4:14:19 PM7/16/10
to
On 7/16/10 4:34 PM, odin wrote:

>
> Fastest, strongest, healthiest, tallest, smartest? All those traits
> come at a cost, and therefore do not represent universal fitness
> optimums. If you get chased by cheetahs all day, being fast would be
> great. But if you are a sessile critter, like a barnacle, then the
> high costs associated with speed would tend to work against your
> survival (how many calories a day would a barnicle need to zip around
> at 50 mph all the time?). The fact that you don't already understand
> this trade-off shows how stupid you are, but yes, as you said, the
> smartest don't always survive, and you are living proof of that.

Another cheerleader flies off the handle;)

Where the examples Pagano mentioned too arcane for you to grasp?
Is he an idiot because you have egg on your face because he explained
what you could not understand?

LOL

### odin

Jul 16, 2010, 4:21:46 PM7/16/10
to

Earlier in this thread, Pango seems to be saying that vacuous
redundancies (i.e. tautology and circular reasoning) are somehow are
guaranteed to be untrue statements. But just because something might
not necessarily useful does not prove that it is not true. Is he
really that stupid that he cannot sort that out?

### chris thompson

Jul 16, 2010, 4:27:27 PM7/16/10
to
On Jul 16, 3:14 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:27:07 -0700 (PDT), odin <odinoo...@yahoo.com>

> wrote:
>
> >Idiots keep stating that NS is a tautology like it is some kind of
> >weakness.
>
> >There are two types of Tautologies:
>
> >1. In propositional logic, a tautology is a statement that is
> >intrinsically true in all cases (independent of any proposition). For
> >example, the statement "A logical tautology is never false" is a
> >logical tautology (a definition in fact). So if NS is a logical
> >tautology, that certainly does not prove NS to be false.
>
> Some of the tautological formulations:
>
> 1.  The survivor's survive. (simple grammatical redundancy)

Which is not how natural selection is defined.

> 2.  The fit survive or they don't survive because they were not fit.
> (in logic:  P or not P)

"Fit" is not defined in terms of survival.

> 3.  Survival of those who are better equipped to survive. (rhetorical
> tautology)

There is only one component to survival that matters in terms of
natural selection- did you survive long enough to reproduce.

>
> In science one of the biggest problems with tautological formulations
> is that they have near zero content.  They lead nowhere.

Wrong. Definitions are inherently tautological, and definition of
terms is vital in science (and many other fields).

>
> Faithful darwinians usually define "fitness" and "survival" in terms
> of each other and as such "survival of the fitest" is hopelessly

No they do not. Are you really this ignorant or are you just
dishonest?

> tautological AND content free.  However while tHE gramatical structure
> and formulation of tautologies make them logically true, this is
> unrelated to whether such statements model real nature.
>
> The fastest, strongest, healthiest, tallest, smartest don't always
> survive.

No but if they lead more offspring than their conspecifics, they are
successful.

> Natural selection which turns out to be nothing more than
> "differential survival" conjoined to "differential reproductive
> success" has never been shown to drive random mutations in any
> progressive, coherent direction.

Other people have told you how idiotic this statement is. I will just
point out that no one has ever, ever claimed that natural selection
drives mutations. In fact, it is creationists who desperately wish to
believe that mutations really are nonrandom. Just look at some of the
posts in this newsgroup, Tony.

The random nature of mutations is well-known and well-supported. And
you've been shown the citations over and over again. At this point one
can only conclude the only way you can maintain your faulty
convictions is by lying to yourself, and lying to others.

> Natural selection inherently
> conserves the variability that exists within the genome of some
> population.

No, it does not. There are generally agreed to be 3 kinds of natural
selection: directional selection, which drives the population toward
some maximum. Antlers on Irish Elk might be a good example of this.
Stabilizing selection eliminates the outliers of a population, and the
members of the population are pushed toward a mean value for the trait
in question. Disruptive selection, on the other hand, selects against
mean values for a trait, and selects for the outliers.

Only the last of those tends to preserve variation in a population
(and in case I am not being clear on this, I am speaking of genetic
variation).

>
> >2. In rhetoric, a tautology is a redundant repetition of duplicate
> >meaning that is said more than once multiple times. So if NS is a
> >rhetorical tautology, it may be annoying, and it may be true or false,
> >but being a tautology in and of itself does not prove NS to be false.
>
> >The tautology argument... how stupid is that?

Really, really stupid.

Chris

>
> >-loki

### John Harshman

Jul 16, 2010, 4:39:42 PM7/16/10
to

Tony at his pompous, long-winded, self-contradictory best. Natural
selection is a tautology; natural selection is vacuous; and natural
selection conserves variability within populations. Does he even think
for one moment about what he writes?

Natural selection is differential reproductive success correlated with
genotype. That correlation is important. Consistency of that correlation
enables us to distinguish selection from drift, which Tony seems to
think is impossible. Of course the fittest don't always survive; as
Damon Runyon said, the race is not always to the swift nor victory to
the strong, but that's the way to bet.

Sometimes natural selection conserves variability (negative
frequency-dependent selection, for example); sometimes it reduces
variability (directional and purifying selection, for example). But one
constant of natural selection is that Tony has no clue about it.

### bpuharic

Jul 16, 2010, 4:39:47 PM7/16/10
to

nasht is a liar and so necessarily defends pagano...who also lies.
pagano has lied about the big bang, evidence for it, the CMB, etc.

nasht, even for a creationist, is remarkably stupid

>LOL

### Himself

Jul 16, 2010, 5:26:22 PM7/16/10
to
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:14:53 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:27:07 -0700 (PDT), odin <odin...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Idiots keep stating that NS is a tautology like it is some kind of
>>weakness.
>>
>>There are two types of Tautologies:
>>
>>1. In propositional logic, a tautology is a statement that is
>>intrinsically true in all cases (independent of any proposition). For
>>example, the statement "A logical tautology is never false" is a
>>logical tautology (a definition in fact). So if NS is a logical
>>tautology, that certainly does not prove NS to be false.
>
>Some of the tautological formulations:
>
>1. The survivor's survive. (simple grammatical redundancy)
>2. The fit survive or they don't survive because they were not fit.
>(in logic: P or not P)
>3. Survival of those who are better equipped to survive. (rhetorical
>tautology)
>
>In science one of the biggest problems with tautological formulations
>is that they have near zero content. They lead nowhere.

Do you think Newton's second law of motion, F=ma, is tautalogical? If
not, why not? If it's a tautology, does it have near zero content? If
it has near zero content, is it useless?

### odin

Jul 16, 2010, 6:23:37 PM7/16/10
to
On Jul 16, 2:26 pm, Himself <hims...@net.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:14:53 -0400, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:27:07 -0700 (PDT), odin <odinoo...@yahoo.com>

> >wrote:
>
> >>Idiots keep stating that NS is a tautology like it is some kind of
> >>weakness.
>
> >>There are two types of Tautologies:
>
> >>1. In propositional logic, a tautology is a statement that is
> >>intrinsically true in all cases (independent of any proposition). For
> >>example, the statement "A logical tautology is never false" is a
> >>logical tautology (a definition in fact). So if NS is a logical
> >>tautology, that certainly does not prove NS to be false.
>
> >Some of the tautological formulations:
>
> >1.  The survivor's survive. (simple grammatical redundancy)
> >2.  The fit survive or they don't survive because they were not fit.
> >(in logic:  P or not P)
> >3.  Survival of those who are better equipped to survive. (rhetorical
> >tautology)
>
> >In science one of the biggest problems with tautological formulations
> >is that they have near zero content.  They lead nowhere.
>
> Do you think Newton's second law of motion, F=ma, is tautalogical? If
> not, why not? If it's a tautology, does it have near zero content? If
> it has near zero content, is it useless?

Since F actually is M*A, it is actually a tautology. You could say
that it is no more than an arbitrary definition for the word "force".
But it did give rise to a new way of thinking that made Newtonian
physics workable. BTW... to say that a definition is by definition a
tautology is a tautology. Redundant but true and with near zero
content.

### Ron O

Jul 16, 2010, 6:58:25 PM7/16/10
to

What a nut job, NashT. Pags is a vaccuous windbag, and you'd have to
be a total incompetent not to know that by now. What kind of idiot
would claim otherwise?

Ron Okimoto

### Nashton

Jul 16, 2010, 7:06:51 PM7/16/10
to

There are many a windbag in this ng and at the top of the heap is a
gentleman called Ron Okimoto.

### Nashton

Jul 16, 2010, 7:05:30 PM7/16/10
to

The problem with tautological logic is that when you use it in science,
it acquires the connotation of an axiomatic principal. No matter which
way you look at it, you're not actually proving anything, since with
tautological logic, everything goes and no matter what the propositional
values, the result is always true.

I personally believe that this is at the crux of the reason that the ToE
is of no or very limited use.

It is a cesspool of tautologies.
What would be very pleasant is if for a change, we could dispense with
the insults and maybe have a discussion.

### Nashton

Jul 16, 2010, 7:07:57 PM7/16/10
to
On 7/16/10 5:27 PM, chris thompson wrote

LOL

### chris thompson

Jul 16, 2010, 7:21:20 PM7/16/10
to
On Jul 16, 7:07 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> On 7/16/10 5:27 PM, chris thompson wrote
>
> LOL

Almost as good a rebuttal as the "I'm rubber you're glue" argument you

Chris

### bpuharic

Jul 16, 2010, 7:26:29 PM7/16/10
to
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:05:30 -0300, Nashton <na...@na.ca> wrote:

>The problem with tautological logic is that when you use it in science,

that's why it's not used in science.

>
>I personally believe that this is at the crux of the reason that the ToE
>is of no or very limited use.

no, you think it's of no use because you're a taliban christian unable
to think rationally

>
>It is a cesspool of tautologies.

like i said above...

>What would be very pleasant is if for a change, we could dispense with
>the insults and maybe have a discussion.

you call science a cesspool...all the while believing an idea which,
for 2000 years has proven useless...

>
>
>

### Nashton

Jul 16, 2010, 7:26:18 PM7/16/10
to
On 7/16/10 5:27 PM, chris thompson wrote:

>
> Wrong. Definitions are inherently tautological, and definition of
> terms is vital in science (and many other fields).

ROTF

### bpuharic

Jul 16, 2010, 7:27:20 PM7/16/10
to
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:06:51 -0300, Nashton <na...@na.ca> wrote:

>>
>
>
>There are many a windbag in this ng and at the top of the heap is a
>gentleman called Ron Okimoto.

and you, with all haste, and no reservation, return the favor.

he has something to say. you? nothing

### Nashton

Jul 16, 2010, 7:29:15 PM7/16/10
to
On 7/16/10 7:23 PM, odin wrote:

> Since F actually is M*A, it is actually a tautology. You could say
> that it is no more than an arbitrary definition for the word "force".
> But it did give rise to a new way of thinking that made Newtonian
> physics workable. BTW... to say that a definition is by definition a
> tautology is a tautology. Redundant but true and with near zero
> content.
>
>

No, you're mistaken.

### odin

Jul 16, 2010, 7:33:49 PM7/16/10
to

Correct. An "axiomatic principal" (it would be less wind-baggish to
just refer to it as an "axiom", "assumption" or "premise") does not
actually proving anything. That's OK. That's not its purpose. It is
rather an initial assumption that may be true or false, which is then
used as the basis for further reasoning. The assumptions are where you
start and the conclusions are where you try to get to. But you have
not addressed the issue here. Even if NS was a tautology, that in and
of its self does not confer truth or falsehood on the TOE. NS is the
premise (which you can accept or reject) and the TOE is the conclusion
(which may be true or false). F=M*A could arguably be described as a
tautology. That does not change the fact that Newtonian physics is
based on it and we have landed a man on the moon based on it (not that
utility is a prerequisite for truth). The bottom line is that whether
or not NS is a tautology that has no effect on its validity. It may be
true or it may be false, but tautologies are irrelevant to truth. Do
you get that?

> I personally believe that this is at the crux of the reason that the ToE
> is of no or very limited use.

Limited use? Why would that matter? Are only useful facts true? Truth
is not related to utility. Do you not get that either?
Look, I agree that the TOE is not that useful. No big deal. But I
would have to say that all the evidence indicates that it is probably
true.

-loki

### Himself

Jul 16, 2010, 7:34:35 PM7/16/10
to
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:23:37 -0700 (PDT), odin <odin...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Jul 16, 2:26 pm, Himself <hims...@net.net> wrote:

When I wrote that post I was thinking that maybe Tony thought of the
laws of motion as *good* tautologies. Then I remembered that he's a
geocentrist who apparently rejects both Newtonian mechanics and
relativity.

### odin

Jul 16, 2010, 7:38:23 PM7/16/10
to

Rhetorical skills typical of a creationist...

### hersheyh

Jul 16, 2010, 8:29:55 PM7/16/10
to
On Jul 16, 3:14 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:27:07 -0700 (PDT), odin <odinoo...@yahoo.com>

> wrote:
>
> >Idiots keep stating that NS is a tautology like it is some kind of
> >weakness.
>
> >There are two types of Tautologies:
>
> >1. In propositional logic, a tautology is a statement that is
> >intrinsically true in all cases (independent of any proposition). For
> >example, the statement "A logical tautology is never false" is a
> >logical tautology (a definition in fact). So if NS is a logical
> >tautology, that certainly does not prove NS to be false.
>
> Some of the tautological formulations:
>
> 1.  The survivor's survive. (simple grammatical redundancy)
> 2.  The fit survive or they don't survive because they were not fit.
> (in logic:  P or not P)
> 3.  Survival of those who are better equipped to survive. (rhetorical
> tautology)
>
> In science one of the biggest problems with tautological formulations
> is that they have near zero content.  They lead nowhere.
>
> Faithful darwinians usually define "fitness" and "survival" in terms
> of each other and as such "survival of the fitest" is hopelessly
> tautological AND content free.  However while tHE gramatical structure
> and formulation of tautologies make them logically true, this is
> unrelated to whether such statements model real nature.

*Biologists* define "natural selection as a *comparison* (hence terms
like "fittest" or "fitter") of alternative phenotypes or genotypes
(the latter is most relevant when discussing evolutionary impact of
"fitness"), all other things being equal in a specified environment on
some metric of reproductive success. The metric of reproductive
success can often be some measure of survival to reproductive age, but
there are other cases (such as sterility or where mating opportunities
are rare -- as in the black widow spiders) where survival is not the
best measure. Natural selection occurs only *when* the difference
between the alternative phenotypes or genotypes is large enough to be
significantly greater than zero. When the difference between the
alternative traits is not significantly different from zero, that is
called "selective neutrality".

Now, I certainly admit that it is convention to refer to the phenotype
or genotype that has the *significantly* higher level of reproductive
success (on whichever metric is used) as being "fitter" or "better"
than its alternative. You can, of course, always claim that you are a
member of a biological death cult that looks upon chastity and/or
early death as "good", so that the phenotype/genotype that results in
earlier death is the desired one that you consider "fitter". Not many
people will agree with that, but feel free to make that claim.
Changing the names around, however, will not have any effect at all
wrt which of the alternative phenotypes/genotypes will likely be more
common in subsequent generations as long as environments don't change
again.

Below I will present a modified explanation of how biologists use the
terms "natural selection", "artificial selection", and "selective
neutrality" that I have presented to that other "tautology" expert,
backspace.

Remember that "natural selection" involves a comparison of two
alternative features in an organism on some metric of "differential
reproductive success". I will use the metric of "differential
survival until reproductive maturity" in my examples (because
creationists, but not biologists seem to focus on the "survival" and
not sex), but remember that there are other possible ways of measuring
'reproductive success'.

We will be looking at an imaginary organism (but one that has features
like many real ones), the Lake Monroe Oysters. The oysters have two
alternative features: some are red and taste like shit, others are
blue and taste like ambrosia. Once a year, the oysters, about a
thousand strong, put out their little legs and walk to a small pond
owned by Gene Poole, where they dump in all their gametes (sperm and
eggs) and then die without ever going back to Lake Monroe. But, 10
days later, all the little oyster babies formed (about 10,000 strong)
walk from the Gene Poole Pond back to Lake Monroe, where they either
grow up over the course of the next year or die. The survivors then
repeat the process to make subsequent generations.

Example One: Selective Neutrality.

The adults that go to Gene Poole Pond are 30% red/shit and 70% blue/
ambrosia. They empty their gametes into the Gene Poole Pond and,
because fusion to produce zygotes is a random process according to
Mendelian genetics and according to the rules of Hardy-Weinberg, we
get just about 30% red and 70% blue progeny in the pond that will
travel back to Lake Monroe. Quite a number of these progeny (about
90%) will die over the course of the year (see Malthus for an
explanation). But, when we look at the progeny that survive their
year in Lake Monroe and go back to the Gene Poole Pond for the next
oyster orgy and re-generation, we observe that again 30% are red and
70% are blue. What this means is that there has been no
*differential* survival until reproductive maturity with respect to
the two alternative features (phenotypes) we are following: red or
blue. That is, all the death that has occurred was due either to
chance alone or to features
unlinked to the color/taste of the oysters. The key numbers to look
at is the % of red versus blue in
the parent generation at birth (actually, at zygote fusion) and in the

Now, of course, the actual %s will probably not be *exactly* 30/70 for
the same reason you would not expect to get
*exactly* 50 heads: 50 tails every time you flipped an honest coin 100
times. But there are statistical ways to estimate whether the
observed result is *significantly* different from such a random
expectation. Observing a 31% to 69% ratio would not be a surprising
result if the numbers are small enough in the population or in a
random sample from the population. In this case, we would observe 310
red to 690 blue. A deviation from expectation (300 red/700 blue) this
large or smaller by chance about half the time, so I would consider
this to be merely a chance deviation and not a significant deviation.
[I am using a simple chi-square test and regard any deviation that
could occur by chance 95% of the time to be non-significant.

A second minor point, but an evolutionarily important one, is that, as
many a gambler has found out, "chance has no memory". If the new %
entering the Gene Poole Pond is 31%/69%, the expectation of chance is
that that ratio (rather
than 30/70) would be the expected %s entering Lake Monroe and exiting
it the next year. This is the reason why "selective neutrality" leads
to "neutral drift" and eventual fixation of one or the other genotypes
in the population. In this case, where the starting point is 30% red/
70% blue, the expectation is that 30% of the time, red will become
fixed in the population and 70% of the time it will be blue. [All
dependent upon a constant selective (or in this case, non-selective)
environment.]

A third minor point. I am ignoring the diploid genetics of this case,
so I am not examining specific *genotypes*. If I did, I might find
that this is an example of "heterozygote advantage" like that seen in
sickle cell anemia. That would only be observable over a number of
generations (by deviation from the expectations of random drift) or by
examining the ratios of homozygotes and heterozygotes in the genes
change between birth and reproductive maturity.

With the exception of heterozygote advantage, this is an example of
the *absence* of "significant differential selection". Or, if you
prefer, an example where neither color had any *differential* effect
on survival. In biology, this pure chance process is NOT called
"natural selection" precisely because there is no *differential*
selection related to the features. This example is
(tentatively) called "selective neutrality" and leads to "neutral
drift". Again, this is NOT considered "natural selection". However,
the random walk that occurs by "neutral drift" does lead to evolution
(genetic change) over time to the extent that these features have a
genetic basis. [And this would also lead to the discovery of
"heterozygote advantage" if that were the reason for the apparent
absence of change.]

To summarize: In the absence of evidence for *selection* in a
comparison of traits, there is no "natural selection"; there is
"selective neutrality" leading to "neutral drift". IOW, pure chance
and only chance is NOT "natural selection". There is no *differential
selection* at all, and it is relatively easy to determine that that is
the case

Example Two: Natural selection.

The adults that go to Gene Poole Pond are 30% red/shit and 70% blue/
ambrosia and produce just about 30% red and 70% blue progeny in the
pond that will travel back to Lake Monroe. This is the same starting
point. Quite a number of these
progeny will die over the course of the year (see Malthus for an
explanation). But, when we look at the progeny that survive their
year in Lake Monroe and go back to the Gene Poole Pond for the next
oyster orgy, we observe that *now* 80% are red and 20% are blue. That
is, there has been a *selective* loss of blue oysters relative to red
ones over the course of the year.

Humans had been forbidden anywhere in the Lake Monroe watershed for
this entire year because of a toxic (to humans) algae bloom. The lake
was also much warmer than usual. But this *is* a case where there has
been a significant *differential* impact on the metric of
"differential survival until reproductive maturity" that is clearly
strongly correlated with the color of the oysters. Red oysters have
increased in frequency from 30% to 80%, with a concommitant decrease
in the alternative phenotype of blue. Moreover, this occurred in the
absence of human or any known or knowable intelligent intervention.
Completely in the absence of any known conscious "designer". This
*is* an example of what Darwin meant by "natural selection". And, not
surprisingly, it also meets the requirement of "differential
reproductive success due to alternative phenotype" of the modern
definition or "survival of the fittest (in this year, red is the
fitter type of oyster and because there are only two types, it is also
the fittest type of oyster this year)". A simple chi square test
shows the probability of a *difference* as the one we observe
occurring by chance to be much less than 0.01%. That is, the
*difference* in the "differential reproductive success" (as measured
by differential survival to reproductive age) is
highly statistically significant.

A biologist might hypothesize that this example of "natural selection"
might be due to the red oysters being more resistant to the toxin of
the algae or to a temperature effect (directly or indirectly), but
identifying or even correctly identifying the cause is not necessary
in declaring that this meets the requirement of being "natural
selection" ala the idea described by Darwin.
All that is needed to declare this to be NS is evidence to support
that this is *significantly* different from the expectations of chance
alone (such as was described in Example 1).

To summarize: This is an example of "natural selection", that is,
significant differential reproductive success of one phenotype rather
than the alternative in the absence of human intervention in a
specified environment (Lake Monroe that year). It is the absence of
conscious human intervention that makes this "selection" "natural"
rather than "artificial" in Darwin's terminology because there was no
observable "designer" involved that had the intent or consciousness of
selectively changing the ratio from the expectations of a "random
pattern".

Example 3: Artifical Selection.

Start out with the same 30/70 red/blue ratio. But now we introduce
humans who love the blue oysters and, in fact, are part of a Blue
Oyster Cult. The Blue Oyster Cult has observed the life cycle of
oysters, and consciously recognize that if they go to the Gene Poole
Pond and prevent the shit-tasting red oysters from reaching the pond,
that they will have more of the delicious blue kind reaching Lake
Monroe. So they frantically remove red oysters on their little trek
to the Gene Poole Pond and compost them. Only 1/6th of the starting
300 or so red oysters still manage to reach the pool. That is, the
ratio of new oysters in the pool is now 50 to 700 (7% to 93%) red to
blue. The next generation to reach the Lake Monroe is now also 7%/93%
(indicating that, in the absence of the human intervention, the red
and blue traits were indistinguishably selectively neutral wrt each
other.

This is an example of what Darwin meant by "artificial selection" and
represents a significant conscious change in frequency
due to the conscious actions of humans to *selectively* favor the
reproductive success of the blue
feature over the red.

The above 3 examples are rather clear cut. And they cover the typical
examples and use of the terms NS, AS, and selective neutrality. Of
course, as in all of science and science based on induction and
statistics, all the conclusions
of randomness and non-randomness are tentative and one can have
marginal cases where one is not sure if the result is due to
randomness (aka selective neutrality), natural selection (non-random
and without a designer), or artificial selection (non-random due to
the conscious action of a designer agent).

Although it is possibile for a designer to consciously try to mimic a
selective neutrality, that is actually quite difficult for humans to
acheive. We tend to homogenize and don't introduce enough variance
without using a mechanical or other kind of random number generator.

Example 4: Natural selection or artificial selection, but selection
none-the-less.
As in the other examples, the starting population is 30%red and
70%blue oysters and that is also the %s of the offspring that enter
Lake Monroe to mature. But now humans, because they dearly love the
blue oyster taste have, instead of doing selection as in #3 to
increase the frequency of blue oysters, instead simply harvest mature
blue oysters in Lake Monroe just before the time of year in which the
oysters walk to the Gene Poole Pond to mate. They put the blue
oysters in their pots,
stewily, and toss the red oysters back because they love to eat the
blue ones and are disgusted by the red ones.

The human hunter/gatherers ignore the oysters after they leave Lake
Monroe and walk to Gene Poole Pond. Not
surprisingly, the % of the two alternative types that reach the pond
now are changed, to a *significantly different* 50% red and 50% blue,
because of the *selective* harvesting of blue oysters by humans. Thus
the next generation of oysters is now 50:50 red:blue instead of 30:70
and, each generation, there are fewer and fewer blue oysters and more
and more red
ones in Lake Monroe, greatly increasing the value and cost of blue
oysters.

This is pretty obviously not the conscious intelligent intent of the
humans harvesting the oysters, since it means that there will be fewer
and fewer of the desirable blue oysters. But it superficially might
be called "artificial selection" both because it is due to human
involvement in and represents differential non-random selection of the
alternative types of oyster. Perhaps "artificial selection" should be
restricted to those breeding changes that humans do *consciously* for
their own purposes, like making toy poodles because they are cute and/
or sheep dogs because they are useful to shepherds.

Unconscious selection by differential predation without intent to
selectively breed for what one desires, might better be considered
"natural selection" even though done by humans, just as it would be
if, instead of by humans, it were done by racoons selectively hunting
the blue oysters.

Example 5: God did it.

Invent an invisible undetectable superintelligent and omnipotent agent
that can produce whatever it wants and whatever can be observed
without itself being observed. Explain all or any random subset of
the other examples as being due to the actions of this agent; thus
everything is due to the actions of this unobservable agent.

Now, can you tell me why Example 2 (which is what biologists mean by
"natural selection") is a tautology? Is neutral drift also a
tautology? Is "artificial selection" also a tautology?

### David Hare-Scott

Jul 16, 2010, 8:35:42 PM7/16/10
to
My pot is silver your kettle is black

### John Harshman

Jul 16, 2010, 10:18:16 PM7/16/10
to

"O Oysters, come and walk with us!"
The Walrus did beseech.
"A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk,
Along the briny beach:
We cannot do with more than four,
To give a hand to each."

The eldest Oyster looked at him,
But never a word he said:
The eldest Oyster winked his eye,
Meaning to say he did not choose
To leave the oyster-bed.

But four young Oysters hurried up,
All eager for the treat:
Their coats were brushed, their faces washed,
Their shoes were clean and neat--
And this was odd, because, you know,

### Rusty Sites

Jul 16, 2010, 10:17:40 PM7/16/10
to
On 7/16/2010 4:05 PM, Nashton wrote:

> What would be very pleasant is if for a change, we could dispense with
> the insults and maybe have a discussion.
>

LOL

### chris thompson

Jul 16, 2010, 11:03:50 PM7/16/10
to

Yes, we know. Are you banging your head on the floor this time, or do
you have those really long sleeves that tie up in back?

Chris
of teats on a bull:

*****
So by your own definition, teats on a bull- being without function-
must be vestigial.

Thank you.
*****

you know nothing, as was evident from your posts)

*****
Damn you don't know _anything_ about biochemistry, do you? Isoprene is
one of the oldest bio-molecules, and it's a starting point for the
synthesis of many other molecules. The pathways organisms use differ
from group to group. It so happens that the synthesis pathways
possessed by Plasmodium are identical to those found organisms with
functional plastids- meaning they are more closely related to algae
than anything else. So if we design a drug that targets plastids
rather than mitochondria, we can kill Plasmodium without detrimental
effects on the patient.

That should be plenty for you to look up the material. I (and Ernest
Major, too) provided plenty of lit cites earlier. If you want to claim
you rebutted this material, use the cites posted earlier and tell us
why they are wrong. When you do otherwise (or when you piss your skirt
and flee the thread) just know that I will always post this in
*****

Keep running, Nashton. And change your skirt- the stains are showing.
And if you ever should be contract malaria, make sure you don't take
fosmidomycin, since its use as an antimalarial was based on the ToE.

Chris

### chris thompson

Jul 16, 2010, 11:11:20 PM7/16/10
to

No, you are an idiot with no knowledge of rhetoric or logic.

But then, the fact that we could predict that finding based on your
lack of knowledge in biology, paleontology, geology, astronomy,
archaeology and history (among others) shows that Pagano's notion that
induction is worthless is itself, worthless.

Um, much like you.

Chris

### Shane

Jul 17, 2010, 12:06:35 AM7/17/10
to

The hypocrisy of the fundie shows up again.

20 minutes after this plea,

"What would be very pleasant is if for a change, we could dispense with
the insults and maybe have a discussion."

and Nicky is back to his insulting behaviour. What is it with fundies
and their almost total inability to operate without being hypocrites?

### J. J. Lodder

Jul 17, 2010, 5:24:20 AM7/17/10
to
odin <odin...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Idiots keep stating that NS is a tautology like it is some kind of
> weakness.
>
> There are two types of Tautologies:
>
> 1. In propositional logic, a tautology is a statement that is
> intrinsically true in all cases (independent of any proposition). For
> example, the statement "A logical tautology is never false" is a
> logical tautology (a definition in fact). So if NS is a logical
> tautology, that certainly does not prove NS to be false.
>

> 2. In rhetoric, a tautology is a redundant repetition of duplicate
> meaning that is said more than once multiple times. So if NS is a
> rhetorical tautology, it may be annoying, and it may be true or false,

> but being a tautology in and of itself does not prove NS to be false.

Natural selection is neither.
It is circular reasoning, in a benign way,
and there is nothing wrong with that,

Jan

### Nashton

Jul 17, 2010, 6:36:09 AM7/17/10
to

LOL

This is not not about rhetorical skills. A formula in Newtonian physics
is not a tautology.

End of story.

### Nashton

Jul 17, 2010, 6:50:38 AM7/17/10
to

Poor chris. I knew there was something pitiful about you the first time

### Nashton

Jul 17, 2010, 6:48:53 AM7/17/10
to

Actually, the term axiomatic principal describes this better than your
"axiom" or "premise". Axiomatic principal as opposed to a non axiomatic
principal.

does not
> actually proving anything. That's OK. That's not its purpose. It is
> rather an initial assumption that may be true or false, which is then
> used as the basis for further reasoning.

The assumptions in the ToE that Pagano was tslking about are not initial
assumptions, they are part of the fabric of the ToE.

The assumptions are where you
> start and the conclusions are where you try to get to. But you have
> not addressed the issue here.

Yes, I have. Your analogies are flawed. F-M*A is not a tautology.
Tautologies are useless because all the outcomes of your propositional
statements are true. When axioms, assumptions etc. have been accepted,
they are not repeated ad nauseam. They are the substrate of newer
propositions that are not tautologies.

Even if NS was a tautology, that in and
> of its self does not confer truth or falsehood on the TOE. NS is the
> premise (which you can accept or reject) and the TOE is the conclusion
> (which may be true or false). F=M*A could arguably be described as a
> tautology. That does not change the fact that Newtonian physics is
> based on it and we have landed a man on the moon based on it (not that
> utility is a prerequisite for truth). The bottom line is that whether
> or not NS is a tautology that has no effect on its validity. It may be
> true or it may be false, but tautologies are irrelevant to truth. Do
> you get that?

No, F=M*A is not a tautology because you say it is, no matter how hard
you try to convince me otherwise.

>
>> I personally believe that this is at the crux of the reason that the ToE
>> is of no or very limited use.
>
> Limited use?

Why would that matter?

I'm not discussing why it would matter, I'm of the opinion that it is
useless. In this day and age, allocating funds to research that is
useful is of paramount importance.

Are only useful facts true?

No, but given that the ToE is rife with tautologies, I am making a
connection between this fact and the limited usefulness of the theory.

Truth
> is not related to utility. Do you not get that either?
> Look, I agree that the TOE is not that useful. No big deal. But I
> would have to say that all the evidence indicates that it is probably
> true.

You really don't get what a tautology is, that much is clear.
>
> -loki
>
>
>

### Nashton

Jul 17, 2010, 8:08:38 AM7/17/10
to
On 7/17/10 12:03 AM, chris thompson wrote:
> On Jul 16, 7:26 pm, Nashton<n...@na.ca> wrote:
>> On 7/16/10 5:27 PM, chris thompson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Wrong. Definitions are inherently tautological, and definition of
>>> terms is vital in science (and many other fields).
>>
>> ROTF
>
> Yes, we know. Are you banging your head on the floor this time, or do
> you have those really long sleeves that tie up in back?

>
> Chris
> of teats on a bull:
>
> *****
> So by your own definition, teats on a bull- being without function-
> must be vestigial.
>
> Thank you.
> *****

LOL

>
> you know nothing, as was evident from your posts)

Look chris, we know we all ought to rely on you, a cheerleader in this
ng for anything related to biochemistry.

LOL

>
> *****
> Damn you don't know _anything_ about biochemistry, do you?
Isoprene is
> one of the oldest bio-molecules, and it's a starting point for the
> synthesis of many other molecules.

This is common knowledge and easily accessible. Which class of molecule
is it? How is it synthesized? Why are isoprenoids similar to steroids?
biochemistry, thompson.

The pathways organisms use differ
> from group to group. It so happens that the synthesis pathways
> possessed by Plasmodium are identical to those found organisms with
> functional plastids- meaning they are more closely related to algae
> than anything else. So if we design a drug that targets plastids
> rather than mitochondria, we can kill Plasmodium without detrimental
> effects on the patient.

You're parroting from Wikipedia. It's pretty obvious.

>
> That should be plenty for you to look up the material. I (and Ernest
> Major, too) provided plenty of lit cites earlier. If you want to claim
> you rebutted this material, use the cites posted earlier and tell us
> why they are wrong. When you do otherwise (or when you piss your skirt
> and flee the thread) just know that I will always post this in

I was never stupid enough to become an addict.

Take that.

### chris thompson

Jul 17, 2010, 8:19:57 AM7/17/10
to
On Jul 17, 8:08 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> On 7/17/10 12:03 AM, chris thompson wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 16, 7:26 pm, Nashton<n...@na.ca>  wrote:
> >> On 7/16/10 5:27 PM, chris thompson wrote:
>
> >>> Wrong. Definitions are inherently tautological, and definition of
> >>> terms is vital in science (and many other fields).
>
> >> ROTF
>
> > Yes, we know. Are you banging your head on the floor this time, or do
> > you have those really long sleeves that tie up in back?
>
> > Chris
> > of teats on a bull:
>
> > *****
> > So by your own definition, teats on a bull- being without function-
> > must be vestigial.
>
> > Thank you.
> > *****
>
> LOL

>
>
>
> > you know nothing, as was evident from your posts)
>
> Look chris, we know we all ought to rely on you, a cheerleader in this
> ng for anything related to biochemistry.

>
> LOL
>
>

>
>
>
> > *****
> > Damn you don't know _anything_ about biochemistry, do you?
>   Isoprene is
> > one of the oldest bio-molecules, and it's a starting point for the
> > synthesis of many other molecules.
>
> This is common knowledge and easily accessible. Which class of molecule
> is it? How is it synthesized? Why are isoprenoids similar to steroids?
> biochemistry, thompson.

Oh, goalpost shifting again! Pathetic. I don't need to do your reading
for you. You've been shown the work over and over. Demanding ever more
refs or information is just the coward's way. But then, we knew that
applied to you.

>
> The pathways organisms use differ
>
> > from group to group. It so happens that the synthesis pathways
> > possessed by Plasmodium are identical to those found organisms with
> > functional plastids- meaning they are more closely related to algae
> > than anything else. So if we design a drug that targets plastids
> > rather than mitochondria, we can kill Plasmodium without detrimental
> > effects on the patient.
>
> You're parroting from Wikipedia. It's pretty obvious.
>
>
>
> > That should be plenty for you to look up the material. I (and Ernest
> > Major, too) provided plenty of lit cites earlier. If you want to claim
> > you rebutted this material, use the cites posted earlier and tell us
> > why they are wrong. When you do otherwise (or when you piss your skirt
> > and flee the thread) just know that I will always post this in
> > response to your idiocy.
>
> I was never stupid enough to become an addict.
>
> Take that.

Ah, unable to respond in any meaningful fashion, you attempt to resort
to emotional wounding.

You cannot win at that either. Nothing you say has that power, since
you are not important enough to warrant the attention. But thank you
for giving me one more tidbit for your credentialing society.

Keep running.

Chris

### Ron O

Jul 17, 2010, 8:22:55 AM7/17/10
to
> gentleman called Ron Okimoto.-

Projection is just a way of life for a nutjob like you. Why can't you
control yourself? Why publically demonstrate your mental foibles?
Projecting your own legion of shortcomings onto everyone around you
must make you a joy to be around. If you weren't such a nasty person
it would be sad. As it is, it is just about what you likely deserve.

One of the biggest mysteries for the antiscience types is that a lot
of them know they have squat, but they carry on anyway. Wouldn't you
rather have a real argument rather than having to stoop to what you
are stuck doing? It has to be a sad existence when you know that
however you bad mouth what you don't like you understand that you have
nothing better, and that it is so much worse that you don't even
bother to put it up. All you can do is snipe and make yourself look
like a loser. Just take this natural selection bullpucky of yours.
You can't deny that natural selection is a fact of nature. Even a
dolt like you could be trained to collect the data that would
demonstrate the existence of natural selection, so what is your
problem? Instead of attacking the real problem you have to satisfy
yourself by being an ineffective sniper. How sad is that? Where is
your alternative to natural selection? Do yoiu have anything
equivalent? Supporting Pags isn't going to get you any closer to what
you need to have to look less like a loser. You can draw attention to
Pags and claim "Hey, this guys is more of a loser than I am," but you
would still be a loser.

Ron Okimoto

### Nashton

Jul 17, 2010, 8:27:18 AM7/17/10
to

Perhaps you would like to demonstrate how all definitions are inherently
tautological?

Insults won't get you anywhere.

### Nashton

Jul 17, 2010, 8:31:40 AM7/17/10
to

LOL

>
>>
>>
>>
>>> *****
>>> Damn you don't know _anything_ about biochemistry, do you?
>> Isoprene is
>>> one of the oldest bio-molecules, and it's a starting point for the
>>> synthesis of many other molecules.
>>
>> This is common knowledge and easily accessible. Which class of molecule
>> is it? How is it synthesized? Why are isoprenoids similar to steroids?
>> biochemistry, thompson.
>
> Oh, goalpost shifting again! Pathetic. I don't need to do your reading
> for you. You've been shown the work over and over. Demanding ever more
> refs or information is just the coward's way. But then, we knew that
> applied to you.

Anybody versed in biochemistry would have been capable of coming up with

>
>>
>> The pathways organisms use differ
>>
>>> from group to group. It so happens that the synthesis pathways
>>> possessed by Plasmodium are identical to those found organisms with
>>> functional plastids- meaning they are more closely related to algae
>>> than anything else. So if we design a drug that targets plastids
>>> rather than mitochondria, we can kill Plasmodium without detrimental
>>> effects on the patient.
>>
>> You're parroting from Wikipedia. It's pretty obvious.
>>
>>
>>
>>> That should be plenty for you to look up the material. I (and Ernest
>>> Major, too) provided plenty of lit cites earlier. If you want to claim
>>> you rebutted this material, use the cites posted earlier and tell us
>>> why they are wrong. When you do otherwise (or when you piss your skirt
>>> and flee the thread) just know that I will always post this in
>>
>> I was never stupid enough to become an addict.
>>
>> Take that.
>
> Ah, unable to respond in any meaningful fashion, you attempt to resort
> to emotional wounding.

LOL

>
> You cannot win at that either. Nothing you say has that power, since
> you are not important enough to warrant the attention. But thank you
> for giving me one more tidbit for your credentialing society.

ROTF

### hersheyh

Jul 17, 2010, 10:24:00 AM7/17/10
to

Don't fear the reaper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Öyster_Cult

### bpuharic

Jul 17, 2010, 10:25:31 AM7/17/10
to
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 07:48:53 -0300, Nashton <na...@na.ca> wrote:

>
>I'm not discussing why it would matter, I'm of the opinion that it is
>useless. In this day and age, allocating funds to research that is
>useful is of paramount importance.

evolution is very useful. you're a taliban christian, so of course
think science should be banned in favor of religion

>
>Are only useful facts true?
>
>No, but given that the ToE is rife with tautologies, I am making a
>connection between this fact and the limited usefulness of the theory.

i notice you don't provide any evidence of tautologies. so we just
have you word as a gentleman...

and creationism?

in 2000 years, not a single testable mechanism. not one.

### bpuharic

Jul 17, 2010, 10:27:18 AM7/17/10
to

nor is it rooted in creationism. it's science. and it shows that, in
2000 years, creationism has had no contributions to understanding how
the universe works

>
>End of story.

### hersheyh

Jul 17, 2010, 10:33:17 AM7/17/10
to
> (Don't fear) the reaper

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Öyster_Cult

### Nashton

Jul 17, 2010, 10:32:11 AM7/17/10
to
On 7/17/10 9:31 AM, Nashton wrote:

>>>
>>>> from group to group. It so happens that the synthesis pathways
>>>> possessed by Plasmodium are identical to those found organisms with
>>>> functional plastids- meaning they are more closely related to algae
>>>> than anything else. So if we design a drug that targets plastids
>>>> rather than mitochondria, we can kill Plasmodium without detrimental
>>>> effects on the patient.

OK thompson, are you going to explain the metabolism of lipids?
Better yet, explain how a certain medication Merck developed and
patented helps control cholesterol. All the way down the chain.

Waiting, Mr. biochemistry expert.

### Boikat

Jul 17, 2010, 10:40:23 AM7/17/10
to
On Jul 17, 5:48 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:

<snip>

>
> I'm not discussing why it would matter, I'm of the opinion that it is
> useless. In this day and age, allocating funds to research that is
> useful is of paramount importance.

Your opinion of the usefulness of the ToE and some pocket change might
get you something out of a gum-ball machine, and afterwards, the used
gum would still be of more value than your short-sighted and willfully
ignorant opinion.

Boikat

### Bob Casanova

Jul 17, 2010, 3:37:34 PM7/17/10
to
On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 10:35:42 +1000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "David Hare-Scott"
<sec...@nospam.com>:

>My pot is silver your kettle is black

>> What would be very pleasant is if for a change, we could dispense with
>> the insults and maybe have a discussion.

This points up the only real problem with CWs, since without
knowing the identity of the poster it's impossible to know
whether it's a valid CW.
--

Bob C.

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

### chris thompson

Jul 17, 2010, 3:52:45 PM7/17/10
to

Why do you think you are important enough for me to do your homework?

You've been provided numerous times with sufficient information to
figure this out- if you have the brains of a claw hammer- a
proposition still open to speculation.

Just start by refuting what's already been presented to you.

Chris

### chris thompson

Jul 17, 2010, 3:54:52 PM7/17/10
to
On Jul 17, 10:32 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:

Begin by explaining why, according to your own definition, teats on a
bull are not vestigial, if they are so useless as to have spawned an
aphorism.

Chris

### John S. Wilkins

Jul 17, 2010, 9:06:53 PM7/17/10
to
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 10:35:42 +1000, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "David Hare-Scott"
> <sec...@nospam.com>:
>
> >My pot is silver your kettle is black
>
> >> What would be very pleasant is if for a change, we could dispense with
> >> the insults and maybe have a discussion.
>
> This points up the only real problem with CWs, since without
> knowing the identity of the poster it's impossible to know
> whether it's a valid CW.

The Rules do not prohibit naming the CWer.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond University
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

### Nashton

Jul 17, 2010, 9:11:33 PM7/17/10
to

You have no idea, do you?

LOL

### Nashton

Jul 17, 2010, 9:17:43 PM7/17/10
to

In order for these structures to be considered vestigial, by the ever so
often revised definition of "vestigial" in this ng, we would need solid
evidence that they were actually part of a fully functional lactating
apparatus.

So, dummy, you lose.

Now how about an expose on all the steps involved (reduction, enzymatic
activity), and a description of the specific metabolic pathway that a
very well known drug acts upon to reduce HDLs.

You were the one that stated that I was clueless about biochemistry (I
flew through those courses more than 20 years ago and still remember
most of what I learned, I have a great memory-I'm serious).

>
> Chris
>

### Nashton

Jul 17, 2010, 9:21:01 PM7/17/10
to
On 7/17/10 4:54 PM, chris thompson wrote:

Oh, and I want to apologize for the comment I made about you being
stupid to have acquired an addiction. Addictions are not a choice and
I'm sorry.

And I strongly encourage you to keep the fight, and good for you I can
say that I have a lot of respect for you on that front.

### Rusty Sites

Jul 17, 2010, 9:59:54 PM7/17/10
to
On 7/17/2010 6:17 PM, Nashton wrote:
> On 7/17/10 4:54 PM, chris thompson wrote:
>> On Jul 17, 10:32 am, Nashton<n...@na.ca> wrote:
>>> On 7/17/10 9:31 AM, Nashton wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> from group to group. It so happens that the synthesis pathways
>>>>>>> possessed by Plasmodium are identical to those found organisms with
>>>>>>> functional plastids- meaning they are more closely related to algae
>>>>>>> than anything else. So if we design a drug that targets plastids
>>>>>>> rather than mitochondria, we can kill Plasmodium without detrimental
>>>>>>> effects on the patient.
>>>
>>> OK thompson, are you going to explain the metabolism of lipids?
>>> Better yet, explain how a certain medication Merck developed and
>>> patented helps control cholesterol. All the way down the chain.
>>>
>>> Waiting, Mr. biochemistry expert.
>>
>> Begin by explaining why, according to your own definition, teats on a
>> bull are not vestigial, if they are so useless as to have spawned an
>> aphorism.
>
> In order for these structures to be considered vestigial, by the ever so
> often revised definition of "vestigial" in this ng, we would need solid
> evidence that they were actually part of a fully functional lactating
> apparatus.

WRONG! Do you think that penguin wings are considered vestigial because
they were once part of a fully functioning flipper? That would be the
parallel to your statement. I don't know what the origin of male teats
is, but I'd bet it wasn't part of a milk delivery system. That wouldn't
mean they aren't vestigial.

>
> So, dummy, you lose.

Right back at you.

### Shane

Jul 17, 2010, 10:34:59 PM7/17/10
to

I don't really need to, as others have done so, but here goes, with an
example,

I will assume that you would find the statment *a right angle, 90 degree
bend* tautological. and indeed I do as well.

Given that a right angle is defined as one that has an angle of 90
degrees, then the definition is tautological as they both define the
same thing as a 90 degree angle is a right angle.

Now I could try and reference every definition in existance to show that
they are all tautological, but that would take up too much bandwidth,
and doubt you have the attention span to read them all. But as you seem
so sure that there is at least one definition out there that is not
tautological, then why not post it here and demonstrate the error of
those that have supported the opposite view to yours.

All it takes is one non-tautological definition from you, whereas we
could post millions of definitions and still not necessarily prove our
case--although the weight of number is definitely on our side--until all
possible definitions have been examined.

Are you up to the challenge? All you need is one non tautological
definition.

> Insults won't get you anywhere.

If you feel that pointing out facts about your behaviour is insulting,
it may be time to change your behaviour.

### chris thompson

Jul 17, 2010, 10:54:25 PM7/17/10
to
On Jul 17, 9:17 pm, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> On 7/17/10 4:54 PM, chris thompson wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 17, 10:32 am, Nashton<n...@na.ca>  wrote:
> >> On 7/17/10 9:31 AM, Nashton wrote:
>
> >>>>>> from group to group. It so happens that the synthesis pathways
> >>>>>> possessed by Plasmodium are identical to those found organisms with
> >>>>>> functional plastids- meaning they are more closely related to algae
> >>>>>> than anything else. So if we design a drug that targets plastids
> >>>>>> rather than mitochondria, we can kill Plasmodium without detrimental
> >>>>>> effects on the patient.
>
> >> OK thompson, are you going to explain the metabolism of lipids?
> >> Better yet, explain how a certain medication Merck developed and
> >> patented helps control cholesterol. All the way down the chain.
>
> >> Waiting, Mr. biochemistry expert.
>
> > Begin by explaining why, according to your own definition, teats on a
> > bull are not vestigial, if they are so useless as to have spawned an
> > aphorism.
>
> In order for these structures to be considered vestigial, by the ever so
> often revised definition of "vestigial" in this ng, we would need solid
> evidence that they were actually part of a fully functional lactating
> apparatus.

Oh, this is rich. You are the only one who keeps revising the
definition. You have to do that, because once you stop moving the goal
posts, they get rammed up your ass.

You are such a loser. I'm sorry for you.

Chris

### T Pagano

Jul 17, 2010, 11:28:48 PM7/17/10
to
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:34:33 -0700 (PDT), odin <odin...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Jul 16, 12:14 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:27:07 -0700 (PDT), odin <odinoo...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Idiots keep stating that NS is a tautology like it is some kind of
>> >weakness.
>>
>> >There are two types of Tautologies:
>>
>> >1. In propositional logic, a tautology is a statement that is
>> >intrinsically true in all cases (independent of any proposition). For
>> >example, the statement "A logical tautology is never false" is a
>> >logical tautology (a definition in fact). So if NS is a logical
>> >tautology, that certainly does not prove NS to be false.

That the survivor's survive is self evidently true and quite vacuuous.
There is no "scientific" content and no predictions. It is usually
virtually impossible to predict in advance which individuals in a
population will survive except in highly controlled experimental
environments. It is equally impossible to predict which couples in
a population will produce more offspring.

>> Some of the tautological formulations:
>>
>> 1.  The survivor's survive. (simple grammatical redundancy)
>> 2.  The fit survive or they don't survive because they were not fit.
>> (in logic:  P or not P)
>> 3.  Survival of those who are better equipped to survive. (rhetorical
>> tautology)
>>
>> In science one of the biggest problems with tautological formulations
>> is that they have near zero content.  They lead nowhere.
>

>It is true that a tautological statement may have virtually no
>semantic content.

It is the lack of scientific content which we care about.

> But that has nothing to do with it being a true or
>false statement. If all you are saying is that NS is a tautology, then
>I guess that is OK. If you think that then simply avoid stating NS.
>But don't try to use that as an argument against the truthfulness of
>NS. That does not follow.

That the survivors survive is both true and vacuuous.

>
>> Faithful darwinians usually define "fitness" and "survival" in terms
>> of each other and as such "survival of the fitest" is hopelessly
>> tautological AND content free.  However while tHE gramatical structure
>> and formulation of tautologies make them logically true, this is
>> unrelated to whether such statements model real nature.
>>

>> The fastest, strongest, healthiest, tallest, smartest don't always
>> survive.   Natural selection which turns out to be nothing more than
>> "differential survival" conjoined to "differential reproductive
>> success" has never been shown to drive random mutations in any
>> progressive, coherent direction.  Natural selection inherently
>> conserves the variability that exists within the genome of some
>> population.

>
>Fastest, strongest, healthiest, tallest, smartest? All those traits
>come at a cost, and therefore do not represent universal fitness
>optimums. If you get chased by cheetahs all day, being fast would be
>great. But if you are a sessile critter, like a barnacle, then the
>high costs associated with speed would tend to work against your
>survival (how many calories a day would a barnicle need to zip around
>at 50 mph all the time?). The fact that you don't already understand
>this trade-off shows how stupid you are, but yes, as you said, the
>smartest don't always survive, and you are living proof of that.

Odin misses the point. The point is that there is no way to establish
in advance what constitutes diagnostic characteristics of fitness (and
hence to make predictions). What is "fit" at time t in location x
might not be fit at t+1 in location x. Survival and fitness tend to
be higly situational and localized. Likewise predicting weather
conditions, predators, and food supplies in advance is a crap shoot at
best. Making these kinds of predictions is a bigger stab in the dark
than anything Dembski has offered.

Furthermore the costs that Odin refers to works against any and all
transformational change (supposedly selected and guided by NS) not
simply against the lowly barnacle sprouting wings should the cheetah
suddenly take a liking to them; these costs were raised by Haldane as
a serious argument against transformational change.

Evolutionists have largely ignored these costs.

Regards,
T Pagano

>
>> >2. In rhetoric, a tautology is a redundant repetition of duplicate
>> >meaning that is said more than once multiple times. So if NS is a
>> >rhetorical tautology, it may be annoying, and it may be true or false,

>> >but being a tautology in and of itself does not prove NS to be false.
>>
>> >The tautology argument... how stupid is that?
>>
>> >-loki- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>