Stanford's tautologies on natural selection,preservation etc.

69 views
Skip to first unread message

backspace

unread,
Jan 6, 2012, 3:18:27 AM1/6/12
to
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/

''.....The process of evolution by natural selection is “a process in
which the differential extinction and proliferation of interactors
cause the differential perpetuation of the replicators that produced
them” (Hull 1980, p. 318; see Brandon 1982, pp. 317-318)....''

rephrase:
The natural means of competitive selection(ns) is a process in which
the incremental proliferation of interactors cause the incremental
perpetuation of the replicators.

rephrase:
The natural means of competitive proliferation(ns)
results in incremental proliferation of interactors causing the
perpetuation of the replicators.

rephrase:
As the proliferators compete against others, those winning the process
of proliferation, perpetuate their line of proliferators

rephrase:
Those that competitively proliferate , perpetuate their descendents in
incremental(differential) stages, leading eventually to the formation
of new species that can't -interbreed.

rephrase:
Those that competitively proliferate , perpetuate their descendents.

finally:
Those that proliferate , perpetuate their descendents.

Perpetuate and proliferate in this case are synonyms that self-
referentially refer to the same fact, saying the same twice and thus a
rhetorical tautology. In other instances *dissimilar* terms are used
that self-referentially refer to the same fact. By saying the same
thing twice the authors are able to insert the non-sequitur
conclusion, namely that new species who can't interbreed arose in
small *differential* or *incremental* steps via this process of
Patrick Matthew's *natural means of competitive
selection,proliferation, preservation, perpetuation* etc. , which
Darwin contracted to natural selection , in order to avoid giving
credit to Matthew.

In Citizendium's ns article each paragraph is an exercise in saying
the same thing twice as discussed elsewhere.

Kleuskes & Moos

unread,
Jan 6, 2012, 4:08:33 AM1/6/12
to
On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 00:18:27 -0800, backspace wrote:

> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/
>
> ''.....The process of evolution by natural selection is “a process in
> which the differential extinction and proliferation of interactors cause
> the differential perpetuation of the replicators that produced them”
> (Hull 1980, p. 318; see Brandon 1982, pp. 317-318)....''

<snip rephraseology>

> finally:
> Those that proliferate , perpetuate their descendents.

The important detail your rephrasing process dropped is the very
important word "differentially", thus making the rest of your babble
worthless.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_________________________________________
/ You should all JUMP UP AND DOWN for TWO \
\ HOURS while I decide on a NEW CAREER!! /
-----------------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Burkhard

unread,
Jan 6, 2012, 5:35:40 AM1/6/12
to
On Jan 6, 8:18�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/
>
> ''.....The process of evolution by natural selection is �a process in
> which the differential extinction and proliferation of interactors
> cause the differential perpetuation of the replicators that produced
> them� (Hull 1980, p. 318; see Brandon 1982, pp. 317-318)....''
>
> rephrase:
> The natural means of competitive selection(ns) is a �process in which
> the incremental proliferation of interactors cause the incremental
> perpetuation of the replicators.

Not a truth value preserving rephrase, it changes the empirical
content of the original.

> rephrase:
> The natural means of competitive proliferation(ns)
> results in incremental �proliferation of interactors causing the
> perpetuation of the replicators.
>
> rephrase:
> As the proliferators compete against others, those winning the process
> of proliferation, perpetuate their line of proliferators
>
> rephrase:
> Those that competitively proliferate , perpetuate their descendents in
> incremental(differential) stages, leading eventually to the formation
> of new species that can't -interbreed.
>
> rephrase:
> Those that competitively proliferate , perpetuate their descendents.
>
> finally:
> Those that �proliferate , perpetuate their descendents.

Arkalen

unread,
Jan 6, 2012, 5:44:45 AM1/6/12
to
Good job backspace ! You have discovered that by incrementally changing
something several times you end up with something quite different from
the original ! Like with evolution !

That was what you were trying to show, right ?

--
Arkalen
Praise be to magic Woody-Allen zombie superhero telepathic vampire
quantum hovercraft Tim! Jesus.

deadrat

unread,
Jan 6, 2012, 1:24:51 PM1/6/12
to
backspace <steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/
>
> ''.....The process of evolution by natural selection is “a process in
> which the differential extinction and proliferation of interactors
> cause the differential perpetuation of the replicators that produced
> them” (Hull 1980, p. 318; see Brandon 1982, pp. 317-318)....''
>
> rephrase:
> The natural means of competitive selection(ns) is a process in which
> the incremental proliferation of interactors cause the incremental
> perpetuation of the replicators.
>
<snipped: ignorance/>

If you don't understand what "differential" means, that's fine. But why
not study the subject a little to find out?



Robert Weldon

unread,
Jan 6, 2012, 2:36:11 PM1/6/12
to
"backspace" <steph...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:74b17fe0-58ac-4626...@a11g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/
>

-masturbation snipped

There is something wrong with how your brain is wired. You should get that
looked at, perhaps a mental health expert can fix you up.

Boikat

unread,
Jan 6, 2012, 3:58:55 PM1/6/12
to
<snip>

This reminds me of the old joke about corporate policy:

*****************************
THE PLAN

In the beginning was The Plan.
And then came the assumptions.
And the assumptions were without merit.
And The Plan was without substance.

And darkness was upon the face of the workers.
And they spoke among themselves, saying, “It is
a crock of shit, and it stinketh.”

And the workers went unto their supervisors and said,
“It is a pail of dung, and none may abide the odor thereof.”

And the supervisors went unto their managers, saying, “It is
a container of excrement and it is very strong, such that
none may abide by it.”

And the managers went unto their directors, saying,
“It contains that which aids plant growth, and it is very strong.”

And the directors went unto the VPs, saying unto them,
“It promotes growth and it is very powerful.”

And the VPs went unto the Prez, saying unto him, “This plan
will actively promote the growth and vigor of the company,
with powerful effects.”

And the Prez looked upon the plan, and saw that it was good.
And The Plan became Policy.
This is how shit happens!

**************************************

Boikat

David Hare-Scott

unread,
Jan 6, 2012, 4:19:23 PM1/6/12
to
Tee, Oh, Ah, Tee, Olo Gee, find out what it means to me
Sockit to me, sockit to me, sock it to me .....

I get tired (Just a little bit)
Keep on tryin' (Just a little bit)
You're runnin' out of foolin' (Just a little bit)
And I ain't lyin' (Just a little bit)


With apologies to Otis Redding.


David

backspace

unread,
Jan 6, 2012, 5:22:03 PM1/6/12
to
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Natural_selection has a section about
the directionality of selection. Is selection used literally or
metaphorically? If as metaphor, metaphor for what full sentence as
defined by which person.

jillery

unread,
Jan 6, 2012, 6:18:09 PM1/6/12
to
Are these two my only choices?

backspace

unread,
Jan 6, 2012, 7:12:05 PM1/6/12
to
On Jan 6, 11:18 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 14:22:03 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Natural_selection has a section about
> >the directionality of selection. Is selection used literally or
> >metaphorically? If as metaphor, metaphor for what full sentence as
> >defined by which person.
>
> Are these two my only choices?

yes, either literally or metaphor. Dictionaries provide the literal
usage ,selection -> decision. But as metaphor , it could be used for
anything as I explained at :
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Preferential_decision

You can also google preferential and decision.

T Pagano

unread,
Jan 6, 2012, 7:44:24 PM1/6/12
to
On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 00:18:27 -0800 (PST), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/
>
>''.....The process of evolution by natural selection is “a process in
>which the differential extinction and proliferation of interactors
>cause the differential perpetuation of the replicators that produced
>them” (Hull 1980, p. 318; see Brandon 1982, pp. 317-318)....''

Taken out of context this certainly lacks clarity. And taken in
isolation (as offered here by backspace) it doesn't sound particularly
Darwinian unless "extinction" is being used by Hull in some non
standard way.

Hull seems to be suggesting some sort of non Darwinian theory. While
Darwinists include extinction as having some role, it has never held a
central role (as far as I know). Instead Darwinists usually theorize
that it is the effects of "differential survival" and "differential
reproduction" given a series of mutations which drives
transformational change from WITHIN a species grouping. In Darwinian
evolution differential survival and differential reproduction refer to
individuals within some species grouping and NOT between different
species. Extinction refers to the complete loss of a species or at
the very least the complete loss of some species grouping within some
geographical boundary


With that in mind let's look at Hull's sentence:

differential extinction + the reproduction of those left "causes"
differential survival

Often differential extinction refers to the relative loss between
different species within a particular area. As such "differential
survival" must refer to the relative difference between species. Some
species become extinct and others survive. The survivors "survive" in
large part because they were able to reproduce. So "differential
extinction" + "the reproduction of those left" doesn't cause
"differential survival" it is simply another way of expressing the
same thing. Hence Hull's forumlation is tautologous and lacks any
content. Furthermore what relevence would differential extinction in
this case have to the darwinian process theorized to occur within a
species grouping?

Even if Hull uses "differential extinction" to refer to the relative
loss between geographically separated groups of the same species his
formulation is still tautologous.
<snip>


Regards,
T Pagano

John Harshman

unread,
Jan 6, 2012, 9:12:21 PM1/6/12
to
T Pagano wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 00:18:27 -0800 (PST), backspace
> <steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/
>>
>> ''.....The process of evolution by natural selection is “a process in
>> which the differential extinction and proliferation of interactors
>> cause the differential perpetuation of the replicators that produced
>> them” (Hull 1980, p. 318; see Brandon 1982, pp. 317-318)....''
>
> Taken out of context this certainly lacks clarity.

In context, it doesn't. You just have to know what me means by
"interactors" (usually, that would refer to bodies) and "replicators"
(usually, genomes). He wants to generalize and so uses a general term.
If there is species selection, species might be considered to be both
interactors and replicators, for example.

> And taken in
> isolation (as offered here by backspace) it doesn't sound particularly
> Darwinian unless "extinction" is being used by Hull in some non
> standard way.

He is referring not to species extinction, necessarily, but to any sort
of death. Again, he's trying to generalize. Extinction of individuals
(death), extinction of species (what we usually mean by the term), or
any other removal of interactors from the scene.

> Hull seems to be suggesting some sort of non Darwinian theory.

No.

> While
> Darwinists include extinction as having some role, it has never held a
> central role (as far as I know). Instead Darwinists usually theorize
> that it is the effects of "differential survival" and "differential
> reproduction" given a series of mutations which drives
> transformational change from WITHIN a species grouping. In Darwinian
> evolution differential survival and differential reproduction refer to
> individuals within some species grouping and NOT between different
> species. Extinction refers to the complete loss of a species or at
> the very least the complete loss of some species grouping within some
> geographical boundary

If you try reading in context you might understand what he means. It's
useless to theorize in advance of the facts.

I'll just snip the rest, as it relies on a misreading of Hull's meaning.

Tim Anderson

unread,
Jan 6, 2012, 11:19:54 PM1/6/12
to
Science by Chinese Whispers is fun to watch.

Tim Anderson

unread,
Jan 6, 2012, 11:23:55 PM1/6/12
to
On Jan 7, 11:44 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 00:18:27 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
I'd read the paper first if I were you - the term is not being used in
context to refer to "species extinction" but rather to the death of
individual "replicators". Seems to me the document is an attempt to
provide some clarity in the literal terms used in evolutionary debate.
Nothing wrong with that, if it helps avoid muddled thinking. We don't
have to agree with the choice of terms being used.


backspace

unread,
Jan 7, 2012, 12:47:55 AM1/7/12
to
On Jan 7, 12:44 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 00:18:27 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/
>
> >''.....The process of evolution by natural selection is “a process in
> >which the differential extinction and proliferation of interactors
> >cause the differential perpetuation of the replicators that produced
> >them” (Hull 1980, p. 318; see Brandon 1982, pp. 317-318)....''
>
> Taken out of context this certainly lacks clarity.  And taken in
> isolation (as offered here by backspace) it doesn't sound particularly
> Darwinian unless "extinction" is being used by Hull in some non
> standard way.
>
> Hull seems to be suggesting some sort of non Darwinian theory.  While
> Darwinists include extinction as having some role, it has never held a
> central role (as far as I know).  Instead Darwinists usually theorize
> that it is the effects of  "differential survival" and "differential
> reproduction" given a series of mutations which drives
> transformational change from WITHIN a species grouping.

The DR was coined by http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/JohnTyndall he
meant by differential the small changes in each generation until new
species formed. It is a term and as such can't be used stand-alone,,
one must refer to authors and full sentences.

Differential itself does not give scale, it could be large or small.
DR and NS should be seen as the metaphor for Matthew's 'natural means
of competitive selection' , which implies that the losing creature
will go extinct. The story is no falsifiable because if the other
creature died we would be told the same thing.

Burkhard

unread,
Jan 7, 2012, 5:37:01 AM1/7/12
to
On Jan 7, 5:47 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 7, 12:44 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 00:18:27 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
> > <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/
>
> > >''.....The process of evolution by natural selection is “a process in
> > >which the differential extinction and proliferation of interactors
> > >cause the differential perpetuation of the replicators that produced
> > >them” (Hull 1980, p. 318; see Brandon 1982, pp. 317-318)....''
>
> > Taken out of context this certainly lacks clarity.  And taken in
> > isolation (as offered here by backspace) it doesn't sound particularly
> > Darwinian unless "extinction" is being used by Hull in some non
> > standard way.
>
> > Hull seems to be suggesting some sort of non Darwinian theory.  While
> > Darwinists include extinction as having some role, it has never held a
> > central role (as far as I know).  Instead Darwinists usually theorize
> > that it is the effects of  "differential survival" and "differential
> > reproduction" given a series of mutations which drives
> > transformational change from WITHIN a species grouping.
>
> The DR was coined byhttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/JohnTyndall he
> meant by differential the small changes in each generation until new
> species formed. It is a term and as such can't be used stand-alone,,
> one must refer to authors and full sentences.
>
> Differential itself does not give scale, it could be large or small.
> DR and NS should be seen as the metaphor for Matthew's 'natural means
> of competitive selection' , which implies that the losing creature
> will go extinct. The story is no falsifiable because if the other
> creature died we would be told the same thing.

Which one is "the other creature" and where in any biology textbook do
you find that term? Nor does what you call Matthew's metaphor imply
that anything goes extinct, just that it becomes more rare (hence the
" differential" which you keep either ignoring or misunderstanding as
above), which only in the extreme case result in disappearing
altogether.

As for falsifiablility, the specific causal explanation that would be
offered for the reason why a trait becomes more rare differ of course
between traits, and are perfectly falsifiable. The claim e.g. that
the white fur of polar bears offers them a reproductive advantage
over dark fur because their prey sees them later, would be falsified
if we find out that their prey is blind and identifies predators by
smell or sound

Burkhard

unread,
Jan 7, 2012, 6:56:47 AM1/7/12
to
On Jan 7, 12:44 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 00:18:27 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/
>
> >''.....The process of evolution by natural selection is “a process in
> >which the differential extinction and proliferation of interactors
> >cause the differential perpetuation of the replicators that produced
> >them” (Hull 1980, p. 318; see Brandon 1982, pp. 317-318)....''
>
> Taken out of context this certainly lacks clarity.  And taken in
> isolation (as offered here by backspace)

he has helpfully provided a link. all it takes is to click it to see
the context

> it doesn't sound particularly
> Darwinian unless "extinction" is being used by Hull in some non
> standard way.
>


> Hull seems to be suggesting some sort of non Darwinian theory.

Only in the sense that Darwin is dead for quite some time now, and the
entry takes the genetic revolution that happened after his death into
account

> While
> Darwinists include extinction as having some role, it has never held a
> central role (as far as I know).  Instead Darwinists usually theorize
> that it is the effects of  "differential survival" and "differential
> reproduction" given a series of mutations which drives
> transformational change from WITHIN a species grouping.  In Darwinian
> evolution differential survival and differential reproduction refer to
> individuals within some species grouping and NOT between different
> species.  Extinction refers to the complete loss of a species or at
> the very least the complete loss of some species grouping within some
> geographical boundary

In Hull, it can refer as much to loosing a specific trait, he uses it
very widely.
>
> With that in mind let's look at Hull's sentence:
>
> differential extinction  +   the reproduction of those left "causes"
> differential survival
>
> Often differential extinction refers to the relative loss between
> different species within a particular area.  As such "differential
> survival" must refer to the relative difference between species.  Some
> species become extinct and others survive.  The survivors "survive" in
> large part because they were able to reproduce.  So "differential
> extinction" + "the reproduction of those left" doesn't cause
> "differential survival" it is simply another way of expressing the
> same thing.  Hence Hull's forumlation is tautologous and lacks any
> content.

Well, those parts of the theory where you explain your vocabulary
often do. What he is talking about here is simple the
connection between the expressed phenotype on which selection works,
and the underlying genetic machinery. It distinguishes e.g.
evolutionary change in this sense from epigenetic change. We may
observe a proliferation of "drivers of 4x4s" in current urban society,
but that does not make it (necessarily) a case of Darwinian
evolution. If all change were like this, his definition would not so
much be falsified (does not really apply to them) but make them moot,
as in this case there would not be any Darwinian evolution. .

jillery

unread,
Jan 7, 2012, 10:39:33 AM1/7/12
to
Then I'll take the literal form, from Wiktionary:
****************************************
1.The process or act of selecting. The large number of good candidates
made selection difficult.

2.Something selected. My final selection was a 1934 Chateau Lafitte.

3.A variety of items taken from a larger collection. I've brought a
selection of fine cheeses to go with your wine.

4.A musical piece. For my next selection, I'll play Happy Birthday in
F-sharp minor.
****************************************

Now I understand some people say this implies supernatural teleology,
but I disagree. In another thread, Bill argues persuasively that
non-living, unintelligent systems, like thermostats, make decisions
which are in principle no different than those of humans. ISTM if
there is any functional difference between "decision" and "selection",
it is that "decision" infers a selection from intelligence, a
conscious choice, and selection refers to the larger set which
includes unintelligent systems. So I would restate Bill's point by
substituting "selection" for "decision", but the substance remains.

Given that, it doesn't support your oft-repeated (ad nauseam) point
that the definition of "natural selection" is a tautology. Your
arguments are simply word games, an analogue of math proofs which hide
a divide-by-zero step.

Again from Wiktionary:
****************************************
1.(evolutionary biology) A process by which heritable traits
conferring survival and reproductive advantage to individuals, or
related individuals, tend to be passed on to succeeding generations
and become more frequent in a population, whereas other less
favourable traits tend to become eliminated.

2.(quantitative genetics) A process in which individual organisms or
phenotypes that possess favourable traits are more likely to survive
and reproduce: the differential survival and reproduction of
phenotypes.
****************************************

"Advantage" and "favorable" depend on the environment at the moment of
selection, ie the removal of an individual from the reproducing gene
pool. Of course, if there is no selection, there is no natural
selection, and all individuals will maximally reproduce.

HTH

backspace

unread,
Jan 7, 2012, 1:13:38 PM1/7/12
to
Elliot sober says that only sentences can be tautologies. ns is a term
and can only be used as a metaphor because in the literal sense it is
an oxymoron: decisions aren't natural(unintended). Natural is an
interesting term due to its ambiguity. When I make a preferential or
natural selection(decision) for cake over banana,natural is used as
metaphor for intention. Its literal meaning is 'unintentional' . Such
as leaves naturally accumulating in the wind

Google tautology selection and you will find my theory on this
issue.

Terms and words must be defined in the literal sense in dictionaries.

T Pagano

unread,
Jan 7, 2012, 1:17:44 PM1/7/12
to
On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 21:47:55 -0800 (PST), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jan 7, 12:44 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 00:18:27 -0800 (PST), backspace
>>
>> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/
>>
>> >''.....The process of evolution by natural selection is “a process in
>> >which the differential extinction and proliferation of interactors
>> >cause the differential perpetuation of the replicators that produced
>> >them” (Hull 1980, p. 318; see Brandon 1982, pp. 317-318)....''
>>
>> Taken out of context this certainly lacks clarity.  And taken in
>> isolation (as offered here by backspace) it doesn't sound particularly
>> Darwinian unless "extinction" is being used by Hull in some non
>> standard way.
>>
>> Hull seems to be suggesting some sort of non Darwinian theory.  While
>> Darwinists include extinction as having some role, it has never held a
>> central role (as far as I know).  Instead Darwinists usually theorize
>> that it is the effects of  "differential survival" and "differential
>> reproduction" given a series of mutations which drives
>> transformational change from WITHIN a species grouping.
>
>The DR was coined by http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/JohnTyndall he
>meant by differential the small changes in each generation until new
>species formed. It is a term and as such can't be used stand-alone,,
>one must refer to authors and full sentences.

Since neither the isolated sentence you offered from Hull nor my
comments implied otherwise why raise this?


>
>Differential itself does not give scale, it could be large or small.

Not true. While Darwin treated the unknown biological mechanisms as
black boxes he theorized that the "differential" would be small from
one generation to the next. Nothing has changed today. The changes
from one generation to the next are relatively small.


>DR and NS should be seen as the metaphor for Matthew's 'natural means
>of competitive selection' , which implies that the losing creature
>will go extinct. The story is no falsifiable because if the other
>creature died we would be told the same thing.

1. "Differential reproduction" and "natural selection" are not two
different mechanisms. Natural Selection is a label that includes both
"differential reproduction" and "differential survival."

2. Competition between species is NOT the universal cause of
extinction or necessarily even a significant cause of extinction.
Recall that Darwin (in formulating his theory) extrapolated "from"
Malthus's theory of competition in human society groupings "to"
collections of different species in any ecological niche. Darwin
presumed that competition for limited resources would be fierce,
unrelenting, and to the death---a driving force for change. However
we know today that Malthus's theory as extrapolted by Darwin is false.
Usually ecological niches are balanced and not in competition amoung
species to the death.

2. Extinction (whatever its cause) is important in that it is an
environmental factor (among many) that has an effect on "differential
reproduction" and "differential survival" among those species still
left in the same niche.

3. Darwin attempted to explain the origin of biological novelty,
biological diversity and hence new species; not its extinction.
Extinction was simply a factor to be considered. Darwin's theory
attempted to offer a naturalistic mechanism to connect discontinuous
groupings of species depicted in Linnaeus-like classifications in an
unbroken path to some First Common Ancestor.

4. Natural Selection is an observable, testable phenomenon in a
narrow domain. Unfortunately it has no predictive value outside of
that domain in either future events or retrodictive value to
reconstruct past ones. Natural Selection surely exists; however, it
serves to conserve existing information and not drive the creation of
new information.


Regards,
T Pagano


Burkhard

unread,
Jan 7, 2012, 3:10:33 PM1/7/12
to
On Jan 7, 6:17 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 21:47:55 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 7, 12:44 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 00:18:27 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
> >> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/
>
> >> >''.....The process of evolution by natural selection is “a process in
> >> >which the differential extinction and proliferation of interactors
> >> >cause the differential perpetuation of the replicators that produced
> >> >them” (Hull 1980, p. 318; see Brandon 1982, pp. 317-318)....''
>
> >> Taken out of context this certainly lacks clarity.  And taken in
> >> isolation (as offered here by backspace) it doesn't sound particularly
> >> Darwinian unless "extinction" is being used by Hull in some non
> >> standard way.
>
> >> Hull seems to be suggesting some sort of non Darwinian theory.  While
> >> Darwinists include extinction as having some role, it has never held a
> >> central role (as far as I know).  Instead Darwinists usually theorize
> >> that it is the effects of  "differential survival" and "differential
> >> reproduction" given a series of mutations which drives
> >> transformational change from WITHIN a species grouping.
>
> >The DR was coined byhttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/JohnTyndall he
> >meant by differential the small changes in each generation until new
> >species formed. It is a term and as such can't be used stand-alone,,
> >one must refer to authors and full sentences.
>
> Since neither the isolated sentence you offered from Hull nor my
> comments implied otherwise why raise this?
>
>
>
> >Differential itself does not give scale, it could be large or small.
>
> Not true.  While Darwin treated the unknown biological mechanisms as
> black boxes he theorized that the "differential" would be small from
> one generation to the next.

But that is not what differential reproduction means here. The
differential is not the change in the genetic makeup between
generations, but the difference bewteen individuals with different
traits in their chance to reproduce offsping that is in turn
procreating.

backspace

unread,
Jan 7, 2012, 4:12:49 PM1/7/12
to
Which does not explain how the transition matrix maps poly-peptide
space into frog space.

jillery

unread,
Jan 7, 2012, 4:41:00 PM1/7/12
to
So you actually provide a choice of one? How disingenuous. This puts
you in an awkward position. Either renounce your original claim and
prove your intellectual dishonesty, or address my argument on its
merits. Your choice.

Burkhard

unread,
Jan 7, 2012, 4:42:51 PM1/7/12
to
It also doesn't explain why Manchester United won last year's
premiership, so what?

Ray Martinez

unread,
Jan 7, 2012, 4:38:11 PM1/7/12
to
On Jan 6, 4:44 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 00:18:27 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
The tautologous conclusion is negative, hurting the veracity of the
claim known as "natural selection." Yet Tony failed to tell the
audience that he accepts the claim as scientifically true, having
existence in nature.

I offer the above contradiction as supporting my on-going conclusion
that Tony the Evolutionist is genuinely deluded and/or confused and/or
ignorant.

Ray (Old Earth anti-selectionist/evolutionist-species immutabilist)

Ray Martinez

unread,
Jan 7, 2012, 4:44:45 PM1/7/12
to
On Jan 7, 10:17 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 21:47:55 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
>
>
>
>
> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 7, 12:44 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 6 Jan 2012 00:18:27 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
> >> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/
>
> >> >''.....The process of evolution by natural selection is “a process in
> >> >which the differential extinction and proliferation of interactors
> >> >cause the differential perpetuation of the replicators that produced
> >> >them” (Hull 1980, p. 318; see Brandon 1982, pp. 317-318)....''
>
> >> Taken out of context this certainly lacks clarity.  And taken in
> >> isolation (as offered here by backspace) it doesn't sound particularly
> >> Darwinian unless "extinction" is being used by Hull in some non
> >> standard way.
>
> >> Hull seems to be suggesting some sort of non Darwinian theory.  While
> >> Darwinists include extinction as having some role, it has never held a
> >> central role (as far as I know).  Instead Darwinists usually theorize
> >> that it is the effects of  "differential survival" and "differential
> >> reproduction" given a series of mutations which drives
> >> transformational change from WITHIN a species grouping.
>
> >The DR was coined byhttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/JohnTyndall he
> >meant by differential the small changes in each generation until new
> >species formed. It is a term and as such can't be used stand-alone,,
> >one must refer to authors and full sentences.
>
> Since neither the isolated sentence you offered from Hull nor my
> comments implied otherwise why raise this?
>
>
>
> >Differential itself does not give scale, it could be large or small.
>
> Not true.  While Darwin treated the unknown biological mechanisms as
> black boxes he theorized that the "differential" would be small from
> one generation to the next.  Nothing has changed today.  The changes
> from one generation to the next are relatively small.
>
> >DR and NS should be seen as the metaphor for Matthew's 'natural means
> >of competitive selection' , which implies that the losing creature
> >will go extinct. The story is no falsifiable because if the other
> >creature died we would be told the same thing.
>
> 1.   "Differential reproduction" and "natural selection" are not two
> different mechanisms.  Natural Selection is a label that includes both
> "differential reproduction" and "differential survival."
>

Once again, Tony's egregious ignorance continues unabated.
Differential reproduction and survival are NOT synonymous with
"natural selection" or synonyms; rather, natural selection is a three
component claim made about differential reproduction and survival. A
huge difference that Tony has been unable to grasp.

Ray
> T Pagano- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Ray Martinez

unread,
Jan 7, 2012, 7:59:39 PM1/7/12
to
Tony will undoubtedly point out that he was merely crticizing Hull, as
if Hull is somehow outside of Darwin. Hull was a fanatical Darwinian.
Upthread one can find that Tony thinks otherwise. What Hull said (in
his own words) is what Darwin has said----that's what makes him a
Darwinian. Natural selection, as Tony and Backspace have pointed out,
is a tautology. Yet, as I already pointed out, Tony accepts the
existence of natural selection despite his correct belief that natural
selection is tautologous. The contradiction that I have established in
Tony's position stands.

Ray

backspace

unread,
Jan 8, 2012, 3:45:30 AM1/8/12
to
On Jan 7, 9:44 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >DR and NS should be seen as the metaphor for Matthew's 'natural means
> > >of competitive selection' , which implies that the losing creature
> > >will go extinct. The story is no falsifiable because if the other
> > >creature died we would be told the same thing.

> > 1.   "Differential reproduction" and "natural selection" are not two
> > different mechanisms.  Natural Selection is a label that includes both
> > "differential reproduction" and "differential survival."

> Once again, Tony's egregious ignorance continues unabated.
> Differential reproduction and survival are NOT synonymous with
> "natural selection" or synonyms; rather, natural selection is a three
> component claim made about differential reproduction and survival. A
> huge difference that Tony has been unable to grasp.

DR was coined by John Tyndall, who used SoF and ns . SoF is a phrase,
ns and ds is a term, he used both terms as metaphors for phrase SoF.
Today one can use the term ns as a metaphor for anything else. The
problem with today's usage of ns is like using phlogiston theory as
the metaphor for quantum theory: nobody knows what we are referring
to.

> > 4.  Natural Selection is an observable, testable phenomenon in a
> > narrow domain.  Unfortunately it has no predictive value outside of
> > that domain in either future events or retrodictive value to
> > reconstruct past ones.   Natural Selection surely exists; however, it
> > serves to conserve existing information and not drive the creation of
> > new information.

Whatever exists must be formulated using full sentences. NS is the
contraction of the matthew's full sentence: 'natural means of
competitive selection,preservation,incrementation'

ns is the shorthand so that we don't have to give the full sentence
every time. The full sentence is a meaningful unfalsifiable concept,
like what happens,happens is meaningful and unfalsifiable. The problem
today is that people use ns no longer as the metaphor for Matthew,
thus they are formulating meaningless sentences, reflecting the fact
that neither Ken Ham, Dembski, PZ Myers, Stephen Myers has a qlue what
they mean with ns.

Its like all the animals in animal farm ordered to chant a slogan :
they are not really thinking.

backspace

unread,
Jan 8, 2012, 3:57:30 AM1/8/12
to
> Rayyh

My position on natural selection is that it isn't a tautology: its not
even a sentence. Elliot Sober stated that only sentences can be
tautologies.

The interested reader should google Selection + tautology or link to
my wiki where I have taken great effort to explain why 'natural
selection' as a term can't be a tautology.

http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology

Bob Casanova

unread,
Jan 8, 2012, 1:34:11 PM1/8/12
to
On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 10:13:38 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:

>Elliot sober says that only sentences can be tautologies.

But what does Elliot say when he's drunk? In vino veritas...
--

Bob C.

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

John S. Wilkins

unread,
Jan 8, 2012, 4:34:51 PM1/8/12
to
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Sat, 7 Jan 2012 10:13:38 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
> <steph...@gmail.com>:
>
> >Elliot sober says that only sentences can be tautologies.
>
> But what does Elliot say when he's drunk? In vino veritas...

I've never seen him drunk, unlike some other well known philosophers of
biology I might mention :-)
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

Ray Martinez

unread,
Jan 8, 2012, 4:57:17 PM1/8/12
to
> My position on natural selection is that it isn't a tautology: its not
> even a sentence. Elliot Sober stated that only sentences can be
> tautologies.
>

The comments above, in totality, say you agree with Sober (and nothing
else).

"Sober stated" could accurately be re-phrased as saying "Sober
asserted." While he is a big time evo scholar his assertions are not
necessarily and automatically fact (and I like Sober; one of the few
likeable evos out there whom I respect).

First off, no one, to my knowledge, ever claimed that the "phrase
itself" (natural selection) was tautologous. Rather, meaning or
explanation is tautologous. So Sober's assertion is not relevant. He
is a selectionist, which means he has a motive to insulate the
tautologous nature of natural selection.

Your very many "re-phrasing" topics, over the years, Stephan, have
significantly contributed to my position that natural selection
epitomizes tautology (How you can void all the work you've done based
on a skeletal assertion by one scholar is beyond me.) The fact that
natural selection is a tautology does not mean that natural selection
is false, but it is a negative conclusion contributing to
falsification. I happen to agree with Gould 2002: natural selection,
first and foremost, is a three component claim of logic. The
tautologous refutation is a minor nail in the proverbial coffin.

> The interested reader should google  Selection + tautology or link to
> my wiki where I have taken great effort to explain why 'natural
> selection'  as a  term can't be a tautology.
>
> http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology

But no one is talking about the term itself being a tautology, only
the meaning of the term.

Anyway : )

Ray (anti-selectionist/anti-evolutionist-species immutabilist)

backspace

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 3:03:47 AM1/9/12
to
Only with his assertion that only sentences can be tautologies,
everything else he is wrong. I think he even mixes up a tautology and
circ. reasoning.

> "Sober stated" could accurately be re-phrased as saying "Sober
> asserted." While he is a big time evo scholar his assertions are not
> necessarily and automatically fact (and I like Sober; one of the few
> likeable evos out there whom I respect).

> First off, no one, to my knowledge, ever claimed that the "phrase
> itself" (natural selection) was tautologous. Rather, meaning or
> explanation is tautologous. So Sober's assertion is not relevant. He
> is a selectionist, which means he has a motive to insulate the
> tautologous nature of natural selection.

Sober is wrong on many things, but his assertion that only sentences
can be tautologies for me seems correct.

> Your very many "re-phrasing" topics, over the years, Stephan, have
> significantly contributed to my position that natural selection
> epitomizes tautology (How you can void all the work you've done based
> on a skeletal assertion by one scholar is beyond me.)

As i wrote on my wiki, ns was an arbitrary grammatical gargoyle tacked
unto a tautological sentence. Because the sentence itself cannot be
refuted it led people to assume that a term ns has some sort of
universal magical explanatory power.

> The fact that
> natural  selection is a tautology does not mean that natural selection
> is false, but it is a negative conclusion contributing to
> falsification. I happen to agree with Gould 2002: natural  selection,
> first and foremost, is a three component claim of logic. The
> tautologous refutation is a minor nail in the proverbial coffin.
>
> > The interested reader should google  Selection + tautology or link to
> > my wiki where I have taken great effort to explain why 'natural
> > selection'  as a  term can't be a tautology.
>
> >http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology

> But no one is talking about the term itself being a tautology, only
> the meaning of the term.

But terms have no meaning, neither do sentences: only ideas have
meaning. Its an issue of semantics, I could be wrong, but am nearly
certain that as a generalized language fact that only sentences can be
tautologies and not terms. Terms can be used as short hand proxies for
defined terms.

If the term 'natural selection' is a fixed tautology then I would not
be able to recycle the words and use it represent a 'preferential
decision'. Google for preferential+decision , the page should come
up.

Such is my view, if I am wrong from a linguistic point, I would change
my position and credit the author because I have been wrong many
times. At one point Wilkins had to explain to me that a tautology and
circular reasoning are not the same thing, for which I am very
thankful.

backspace

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 8:00:11 AM1/9/12
to
http://www.ephilosopher.com/philosophy-forums/philosophy-of-science-forum/natural-selection-is-a-tautology/6/

''.....The observation that something that exists has not ceased to exist does not explain why it exists in the first place. NS is a tautology because it restates its premise as its conclusion.....''

Restating the premise in conclusion is circular reasoning and not a tautology.

Confusing tautologies with circ. reasoning leads to endless confusion.

Begging the question means that a conclusion is formulated without stating the premise and I was amazed to see people with philosophy degrees confuse this with a tautology.

Burkhard

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 9:14:21 AM1/9/12
to
On Jan 9, 1:00 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.ephilosopher.com/philosophy-forums/philosophy-of-science-f...
>
> ''.....The observation that something that exists has not ceased to exist does not explain why it exists in the first place. NS is a tautology because it restates its premise as its conclusion.....''
>
> Restating the premise in conclusion is circular reasoning and not a tautology.

circular reasoning has the form A, B, ....Xn |- A. Since this holds
in all models (is true in all possible worlds), it is indeed
tautologous in the technical sense.

>
> Confusing tautologies with circ. reasoning leads to endless confusion.
>
> Begging the question means that a conclusion is formulated without stating the premise and I was amazed to see people with philosophy degrees confuse this with a tautology.

Begging the question is not the same as circular reasoning, at least
not if you follow Aristotle's definition of the two terms.:

"To beg and assume the original question is a species of failure to
demonstrate the problem proposed; but this happens in many ways. A
man may not reason syllogistically at all, or he may argue from
premisses
which are less known or equally unknown, or he may establish the
antecedent
by means of its consequents; for demonstration proceeds from what
is more certain and is prior. Now begging the question is none of
these: but since we get to know some things naturally through
themselves,
and other things by means of something else (the first principles
through themselves, what is subordinate to them through something
else), whenever a man tries to prove what is not self-evident by means
of itself, then he begs the original question. This may be done by
assuming what is in question at once...";


In that sense, the sentence you quote above is in Aristotle's terms
begging the question, but not circular reasoning - it is not that the
conclusion is also a premise, rather the person who wrote it seems to
complain tha tthe premise is irrelevant for the conclusion, hence not
a syllogistic argument at all.
Whether Aristotle's distinction between circular reasoning and begging
the question is ultimately convincing is another matter, but if you
don't follow him and identify both, they are both equally
tautologous.


backspace

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 9:47:01 AM1/9/12
to
On Jan 9, 2:14 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Jan 9, 1:00 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.ephilosopher.com/philosophy-forums/philosophy-of-science-f...
>
> > ''.....The observation that something that exists has not ceased to exist does not explain why it exists in the first place. NS is a tautology because it restates its premise as its conclusion.....''
>
> > Restating the premise in conclusion is circular reasoning and not a tautology.
>
> circular reasoning has the form A, B, ....Xn |- A.  Since this holds
> in all models (is true in all possible worlds), it is indeed
> tautologous in the technical sense.

''.... Those that proliferate , perpetuate their descendants...'' .
Which one is the premise and which one the conclusion? As far as I can
see perpetuate and proliferate says the same thing twice in all
contexts whatever your premise and conclusion.

A tautology can't be refuted , nor verified in any context. With
circular reasoning , if it can be shown what premise , not clearly
stated by the formulator is being assumed then we can make his
conclusion conditional on exploring the validity of his premise and
thus perhaps agree that his conclusion follows logically from his
premise. With tautologies, any conclusion is a non-sequitur.

With the evo debates , we have two issues:
1) It is assumed that fossil dead bones had babies that made it to
reproductive age, something we will never know.
2) To obfuscate this fact a struggle theme or battle between the
creatures is introduced which can't be falsified.

> > Begging the question means that a conclusion is formulated without stating the premise and I was amazed to see people with philosophy degrees confuse this with a tautology.


> Begging  the question is not the same as circular reasoning,

I am aware of this, but have not yet been able to formulate why in
words clearly. The technical def. of begging the question though is
that the conclusion is formulated without stating the premise or
twisting the premise. Circular reasoning on the other hand is assuming
the premise in conclusion, meaning that the premise is stated clearly
but that it can't be assumed because the premise is in dispute. For
example Tiktaalik, we are told that he was the ancestor of somebody
else. Thus the premise is that he had kids, something we can't
assume.

(I am not sure I am making sense here).

Burkhard

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 10:21:44 AM1/9/12
to
On Jan 9, 2:47 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2:14 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 9, 1:00 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.ephilosopher.com/philosophy-forums/philosophy-of-science-f...
>
> > > ''.....The observation that something that exists has not ceased to exist does not explain why it exists in the first place. NS is a tautology because it restates its premise as its conclusion.....''
>
> > > Restating the premise in conclusion is circular reasoning and not a tautology.
>
> > circular reasoning has the form A, B, ....Xn |- A. Since this holds
> > in all models (is true in all possible worlds), it is indeed
> > tautologous in the technical sense.
>
> ''.... Those that  proliferate , perpetuate their descendants...'' .
> Which one is the premise and which one the conclusion? As far as I can
> see perpetuate and proliferate says the same thing twice in all
> contexts whatever your premise and conclusion.

Since this does not seem to be an argument at all, but a statement of
fact, something we simply observe, the talk of "premise" and
"conclusion" is inapplicable. Nor do proliferate and perpetuate say
the same thing. One is about quantity, the other about endurance.
What we could have observed e.g are animals that proliferate a lot
(have lots of offspring) but they don't perpetuate the offspring, as
it dies before being able to procreate in turn (in an extreme form
getting eaten by their parents) . So the statement (bearing in mind I
don;t know the context) simply says is what we observe in nature is
that animals that proliferate (parent generation) have a statistically
increased chance that their traits are perpetuated in their
grandchildren and grand-grandchildrens etc generations. There are of
course several possible new observations we coudl intheory mae that
woudl call the correctness of this statement into question.


>
> A tautology can't be refuted , nor verified in any context.

a tautology is by definition true in every context, i.e. self-
verufying.

>With
> circular reasoning , if it can be shown what premise , not clearly
> stated by the formulator is being assumed then we can make his
> conclusion conditional on exploring the validity of his premise and
> thus perhaps agree that his conclusion follows logically from his
> premise. With tautologies, any conclusion is a non-sequitur.

That doesn't make much sense. As I said, every circular argument is
itself a tautology.
Nor is it true that you can't derive valid conclusions from an
argument where the premises
are all tautologies - all mathematical proofs are of that form. So
there are lots of arguments
that are not just valid, but extremely interesting, that have
tautologies as premises.

>
> With the evo debates , we have two issues:
> 1) It is assumed that fossil dead bones had babies that made it to
> reproductive age, something we will never know.

We know it with the same degree of certainty that we can know that
people 2000 years ago had offspring.
We observe that today, all species of animals have members that have
offspring that at least in some cases has offspring in turn.
Nothing form the physiology of the dead bones indicates that animals
in the past were
not able to have viable offspring, and indeed the fact that we find
a) fossils of eggs and juveniles and b) in some cases even fossilised
pregnant animals
pretty strongly indicates they had offspring just as we do. With the
evidence as strong as that, any claim to the contrary has the burden
of proof - so if you find e.g.
genetic or skeletal evidence that shows that animals in the apst
were all sterile, feel free to show it - this woudl indeed falsify the
ToE, one of the many ways that this can be done.



> 2) To obfuscate this fact a struggle theme or battle between the
> creatures is introduced which can't be falsified.

Course it can. Finding evidence that all species survive due to
abundance, or all die out after a set period of time, would falsify
the idea that there is competition for scarce resources.
>
> > > Begging the question means that a conclusion is formulated without stating the premise and I was amazed to see people with philosophy degrees confuse this with a tautology.
> > Begging the question is not the same as circular reasoning,
>
> I am aware of this, but have not yet been able to formulate why in
> words clearly. The technical def. of begging the question though is
> that the conclusion is formulated without stating the premise or
> twisting the premise. Circular reasoning on the other hand is assuming
> the premise in conclusion, meaning that the premise is stated clearly
> but that it can't be assumed because the premise is in dispute. For
> example Tiktaalik, we are told that he was the ancestor of somebody
> else. Thus the premise is that he had kids, something we can't
> assume.

We can assume it on the basis that its physiology indicates the
features we would expect in any creature that procreates.
That is really all we need to know to make this a valid, if of course
falsifiable assumption.

jillery

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 12:28:55 PM1/9/12
to
You're not. Only the willfully ignorant claim as meaningful the
argument about not knowing if a particular fossil had descendants.

Rolf

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 12:38:11 PM1/9/12
to
Can you explain, do you have any clue at all about what happens in nature;
you know, like with flowers and bees? You really think someboyd is standing
by, manipulating their genes - or is the process left to nature's own ways?

Rolf

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 12:42:39 PM1/9/12
to
Natural selection does not drive the creation of any information. Where did
you get the silly idea that anyone would be silly enough to believe that?
Natural selection acts on existing information regardless of the source of
the information. What else could it be?

I read your responses one after the other, they all contain the same silly
and boring misunderstanding of everything, all the time. Phew.

Ernest Major

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 12:59:14 PM1/9/12
to
In message <jef8ps$pkt$1...@news.albasani.net>, Rolf
<rolf.a...@tele2.no> writes
That answer here depends on what is meant by information.

Frequency dependent selection results in a less compressible gene pool.
That could be considered the creation of (Shannon or Kolmgorov)
information.

The gene pool of a lineage records (imperfectly and indirectly) the
nature of the lineage's past environment. (For example the broken GULO
gene is primates records that millions of years ago primates had a
vitamin-C (fruit) rich diet.) That could be considered as creating
information.

Unless an operational definition of information is provided, arguments
about whether evolutionary processes can create information are
worthless.
>
>I read your responses one after the other, they all contain the same silly
>and boring misunderstanding of everything, all the time. Phew.
>
>>> Regards,
>>> T Pagano- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>
>

--
alias Ernest Major

Rolf

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 1:29:39 PM1/9/12
to
What is tautological about nature doing what nature does? What is unnatural
in selection on nature's own premises? You mean things cannot happen
naturally because natural is what nature is?

I bet you can't even describe what "Natural selection" means. Prove me wrong
for once. Just make sure you investigate what natural selection actually
means, not what you desperately claim it is and what it is not.


Natural selection is naturtal in the same sense that 'natutral death' is
natural, i.e. not god-willed. Got it?

Anything thatt happens on its own accord, so to speak, i.e. due to the
forces of nature - you know, chemistry, physics energy , is natural. Like
traffic accidents, collapsing bridges, and most other things.

> Ray


Rolf

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 1:30:26 PM1/9/12
to
The real meaning, or your imagined meaning?

Bob Casanova

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 1:29:14 PM1/9/12
to
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 06:47:01 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:

>On Jan 9, 2:14 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On Jan 9, 1:00 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.ephilosopher.com/philosophy-forums/philosophy-of-science-f...
>>
>> > ''.....The observation that something that exists has not ceased to exist does not explain why it exists in the first place. NS is a tautology because it restates its premise as its conclusion.....''
>>
>> > Restating the premise in conclusion is circular reasoning and not a tautology.
>>
>> circular reasoning has the form A, B, ....Xn |- A.  Since this holds
>> in all models (is true in all possible worlds), it is indeed
>> tautologous in the technical sense.
>
>''.... Those that proliferate , perpetuate their descendants...'' .
>Which one is the premise and which one the conclusion?

Neither. It's an observation of fact.

Your problem (of which you may or may not be aware) is that
NS doesn't talk about reproduction per se, but about
*differential reproductive success*. It's obvious (or should
be) that the individuals within a population which are best
adapted to their environment will, on average, have more
offspring than their less-adapted counterparts. Where NS
gets into the act is in the fact that offspring aren't
clones of their parents, and every generation will have
members better adapted to the environment, and that these
individuals will on average have greater reproductive
success, and thus more offspring, than their counterparts.
And since this happens with each generation, over many
generations the species will change, and always in the
direction of greater adaptation to the environment. Or it
goes extinct if the environment changes significantly and it
*doesn't* adapt.

> As far as I can
>see perpetuate and proliferate says the same thing twice in all
>contexts whatever your premise and conclusion.
>
>A tautology can't be refuted , nor verified in any context. With
>circular reasoning , if it can be shown what premise , not clearly
>stated by the formulator is being assumed then we can make his
>conclusion conditional on exploring the validity of his premise and
>thus perhaps agree that his conclusion follows logically from his
>premise. With tautologies, any conclusion is a non-sequitur.
>
>With the evo debates , we have two issues:
>1) It is assumed that fossil dead bones had babies that made it to
>reproductive age, something we will never know.
>2) To obfuscate this fact a struggle theme or battle between the
>creatures is introduced which can't be falsified.

The struggle, being a public and persistent observation
rather than a hypothesis, doesn't require test. Orif you
prefer, it's been tested and shown to be valid, since it's
characteristic of almost all living things.

>> > Begging the question means that a conclusion is formulated without stating the premise and I was amazed to see people with philosophy degrees confuse this with a tautology.
>
>
>> Begging  the question is not the same as circular reasoning,
>
>I am aware of this, but have not yet been able to formulate why in
>words clearly. The technical def. of begging the question though is
>that the conclusion is formulated without stating the premise or
>twisting the premise. Circular reasoning on the other hand is assuming
>the premise in conclusion, meaning that the premise is stated clearly
>but that it can't be assumed because the premise is in dispute. For
>example Tiktaalik, we are told that he was the ancestor of somebody
>else. Thus the premise is that he had kids, something we can't
>assume.

No, we can't. We *can*, however, place Tiktaalik in the
temporal map of creatures whose fossils we have and
determine, at least tentatively, which came before and which
after, and how they all appear to be related based on
morphology.

>(I am not sure I am making sense here).

Well, that's the beginning of wisdom...

backspace

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 2:39:21 PM1/9/12
to
On Jan 9, 5:59 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Unless an operational definition of information is provided, arguments
> about whether evolutionary processes can create information are
> worthless.

Unless you can specify the transition matrix that maps protein space
into cow space you don't have a theory.

Ray Martinez

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 3:20:02 PM1/9/12
to
> ''.....The observation that something that exists has not ceased to exist does not explain why it exists in the first place. NS is a tautology because it restates its premise as its conclusion.....''
>
> Restating the premise in conclusion is circular reasoning and not a tautology.
>
> Confusing tautologies with circ. reasoning leads to endless confusion.
>
> Begging the question means that a conclusion is formulated without stating the premise and I was amazed to see people with philosophy degrees confuse this with a tautology.

"But terms have no meaning, neither do sentences: only ideas have
meaning."

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ffb1c8cf7cdc7337

How can you respond to the quoted sentence (''.....The observation
that something that exists has not ceased to exist does not explain
why it exists in the first place. NS is a tautology because it
restates its premise as its conclusion.....'') if terms or sentences
have no meaning? Since you did respond the same means you claim to
understand.

Ray

backspace

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 2:46:10 PM1/9/12
to
On Jan 9, 6:29 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >''.... Those that  proliferate , perpetuate their descendants...'' .
> >Which one is the premise and which one the conclusion?

> Neither. It's an observation of fact.

> Your problem (of which you may or may not be aware) is that
> NS doesn't talk about reproduction per se, but about
> *differential reproductive success*. It's obvious (or should
> be) that the individuals within a population which are best
> adapted to their environment will, on average, have more
> offspring than their less-adapted counterparts.

Which is a formulation that guarantees the truth of your proposition
and thus not falsifiable.

> Where NS
> gets into the act is in the fact that offspring aren't
> clones of their parents, and every generation will have
> members better adapted to the environment, and that these
> individuals will on average have greater reproductive
> success, and thus more offspring, than their counterparts.

Where NS gets into the act is that it is an oxymoron arbitrarily
associated with an unfalsifiable proposition.

Kermit

unread,
Jan 9, 2012, 4:04:42 PM1/9/12
to
On Jan 6, 2:44 am, Arkalen <arka...@inbox.com> wrote:
> (2012/01/06 17:18), backspace wrote:
> >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/
>
> > ''.....The process of evolution by natural selection is “a process in
> > which the differential extinction and proliferation of interactors
> > cause the differential perpetuation of the replicators that produced
> > them” (Hull 1980, p. 318; see Brandon 1982, pp. 317-318)....''
>
> > rephrase:
> > The natural means of competitive selection(ns) is a  process in which
> > the incremental proliferation of interactors cause the incremental
> > perpetuation of the replicators.
>
> > rephrase:
> > The natural means of competitive proliferation(ns)
> > results in incremental  proliferation of interactors causing the
> > perpetuation of the replicators.
>
> > rephrase:
> > As the proliferators compete against others, those winning the process
> > of proliferation, perpetuate their line of proliferators
>
> > rephrase:
> > Those that competitively proliferate , perpetuate their descendents in
> > incremental(differential) stages, leading eventually to the formation
> > of new species that can't -interbreed.
>
> > rephrase:
> > Those that competitively proliferate , perpetuate their descendents.
>
> > finally:
> > Those that  proliferate , perpetuate their descendents.
>
> > Perpetuate and proliferate in this case are synonyms that self-
> > referentially refer to the same fact, saying the same twice and thus a
> > rhetorical tautology. In other instances *dissimilar* terms are used
> > that self-referentially refer to the same fact. By saying the same
> > thing twice the authors are able to insert the non-sequitur
> > conclusion, namely that new species who can't interbreed arose in
> > small *differential* or *incremental* steps via this process of
> > Patrick Matthew's *natural means of competitive
> > selection,proliferation, preservation, perpetuation* etc. , which
> > Darwin contracted to natural selection , in order to avoid giving
> > credit to Matthew.
>
> > In Citizendium's ns article each paragraph is an exercise in saying
> > the same thing twice as discussed elsewhere.
>
> Good job backspace ! You have discovered that by incrementally changing
> something several times you end up with something quite different from
> the original ! Like with evolution !
>
> That was what you were trying to show, right ?
>
> --
> Arkalen
> Praise be to magic Woody-Allen zombie superhero telepathic vampire
> quantum hovercraft Tim! Jesus.

But the changes cumulatively indicate a trend. So the question is, is
there intelligence behind that trend, or simply a mindless response to
(yet to be specified) but largely unchanging conditions?

Also, is it Lamarckian, Darwinian, or some other kind of evolution?

Kermit

backspace

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 12:49:42 AM1/10/12
to

backspace

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 1:18:16 AM1/10/12
to
As a stand alone sentence with no context ''.... Those that
proliferate , perpetuate their descendants...'' has a premise and
conclusion that can't be disassociated from one another. Lets for now
assume that begging the question and circular reasoning are exactly
the same thing and use the terms interchangeably .

In the proposition that there were descendants from the fossil bones
that in their present state would not be able to interbreed with those
original ancestors, these are assumptions not made clear. It assumes
the fossils had children. Lets assume not a single fossil had kids but
they all died in a flood. In other words there is a dispute about what
we are assuming.

In tautologies a semantic trick is constructed by formulating a
proposition so that it cannot be disputed in any context, meaning that
that the unwary reader will assume that any arbitrary conclusion has
to be correct instead of a non-sequitur. Because of this he becomes
unable to question the underlying premise leading to his arbitrary
conclusion. Thus a tautology, once identified can be stripped out of a
paragraph to more clearly see how the premise leads to the conclusion,
meaning what assumptions in the premise is being made.

With ''.... Those that proliferate , perpetuate their
descendants...'' we have an observable fact stated twice. A theory as
to why descendants increased will involve some sort of premise that
must be made clear, when the premise isn't clear, a conclusion is
reached that not all would agree on if the premises were clear. By
stating the same fact twice, there is an obfuscation in the paragraph
as to what is being assumed.

Begging the question usually in evo-speak takes place in a whole
paragraph , with such paragraph containing a tautology.

We have a limitation in language that makes it difficult to express
this distinction. Or I have a limitation in brains in comprehending
it, both could be possible.

backspace

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 3:36:00 AM1/10/12
to
The question is how did the transition matrix that maps protein space
into tiger space arise in the first place and where is it located ?

Burkhard

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 4:36:46 AM1/10/12
to
No it hasn't. A conclusion is of the form: " Y...because of X", where
Y would be a set of premises.

None of this applies to this sentence. The sentence simply reports an
observation.

>Lets for now
> assume that begging the question and circular reasoning are exactly
> the same thing and use the terms interchangeably .
>
> In the proposition that there were descendants from the fossil bones
> that in their present state would not be able to interbreed with those
> original ancestors, these are assumptions not made clear. It assumes
> the fossils had children. Lets assume not a single fossil had kids but
> they all died in a flood. In other words there is a dispute about what
> we are assuming.
>

As all the evidence supports the idea that they had offspring, and
none of it supports the idea that all the offspring died in a flood,
that would be a short dispute

> In tautologies a semantic trick is constructed by formulating a
> proposition so that it cannot be disputed in any context, meaning that
> that the unwary reader will assume that any arbitrary conclusion has
> to be correct instead of a non-sequitur. Because of this he becomes
> unable to question the underlying premise leading to his arbitrary
> conclusion. Thus a tautology, once identified can be stripped out of a
> paragraph to more clearly see how the premise leads to the conclusion,
> meaning what assumptions in the premise is being made.
>
> With ''.... Those that  proliferate , perpetuate their
> descendants...'' we have an observable fact stated twice.

No, we have two separate observations, one about the parent
generation, one about the offspring generations

> A theory as
> to why descendants increased will involve some sort of premise that
> must be made clear, when the premise isn't clear, a conclusion is
> reached that not all would agree on if the premises were clear. By
> stating the same fact twice, there is an obfuscation in the paragraph
> as to what is being assumed.

No there isn't Even if the same fact were stated twice this does not
make it a tautology. "The sun is a planet and the sun is a planet" is
stylistically clumsy, but not a tautology.

The sentence in question isn't even doing that , it states something
we observe _now_, and can be checked by simply counting offspring over
generations, It would be possible to observe something else (e.g. a
fixed rate of descend, or one where despite large offspring in the
next generation, no proliferation of across generations takes place
etc etc) hence it can't be a tautology

backspace

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 4:46:13 AM1/10/12
to
1=1 is a tautological assertion. There are three main types of
tautologies: assertions, expressions and propositions. usually there
is an equivocation between the two to obfuscate that a tautological
proposition is formulated. Only propositions are fallacies not
assertions and expressions.

1=1 can't be verified nor refuted, it is a mathematical redundancy, no
test can be devised to falsify it. We accept it as reflecting Godel's
theorem, meaning than in any logical description, something must be
assumed that can't be proven. If something can't be proven, it means
it can't be refuted nor verified.

On my wiki page http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Physics_equations_aren't_tautologies
I made the case that John Wilkins equivocated between assertions and
propositions in order to obfuscate that NS is used as a proxy for an
unfalsifiable battle for survival mythology: 'natural means of
competitive selection' , which is a sentence. ns the term is the
metaphor for the sentence, this avoids having to write out the full
sentence every time.

backspace

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 5:05:40 AM1/10/12
to
''....Those who proliferate , perpetuate their descendants.....''
can be restated as either
1. We observe a proliferation of descendants.
2. We observe a perpetuation of descendants.

By formulating two separate sentences, it becomes clear that
proliferate <=> perpetuate in the single original sentence.

We observe rabbits proliferating. It then raises the question(not begs
the question): why do they proliferate and how did they acquire the
attributes that enable them to perpetuate?

Because Epicureans can't define the transition matrix that maps rabbit
proteins into fluffy bundles carrot eating herbivores , they state a
truism and reformulate it as a tautology.

Obviously rabbits proliferate, this goes without saying. The truism
gets reformulated as:
..... Rabbits who proliferate, perpetuate their descendants.... and
therefore the rabbits acquired attributes that weren't in their
previous generations.. The conclusion is a non-sequitur. In order to
hide this fact the sentence gets fleshed out with additional wordy
terms to turn it into paragraph.



Burkhard

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 5:25:08 AM1/10/12
to
That's because mathematics is not an empirical science, where you deal
with proofs and disproofs, not tests.


>We accept it as reflecting Godel's
> theorem, meaning than in any logical description, something must be
> assumed that can't be proven.

The tautological status of 1=1 has nothing to do with Goedel.it can be
proven(and as all mathematically proven statements is a tautology) in
systems much weaker than Peano Arithmetic, it's proof follows from the
definition of the "=" sign.

>If something can't be proven, it means
> it can't be refuted nor verified.
>
> On my wiki pagehttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Physics_equations_aren't_tautologies

Kleuskes & Moos

unread,
Jan 10, 2012, 5:37:57 AM1/10/12