NS: What naturaled and who did the selecting?

6 views
Skip to first unread message

backspace

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 8:56:32 AM1/3/07
to
Natural Selection is a form of linguistic terrorism. What naturaled and
who did the
selecting?

Dunc Harris

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 9:07:39 AM1/3/07
to

Natural is an adjective meaning "of nature". Nature does the
selecting.

http://www.answers.com/natural

If you want to learn how to twist semantics try quote mining instead of
making yourself look like an idiot the easy way.

bullpup

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 9:14:08 AM1/3/07
to

"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167832592.6...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Natural Selection is a form of linguistic terrorism.

?

>What naturaled

The environment.

> and who did the selecting?

No "who" is involved. Just the environment. It's such a simple concept
that only a blithering idiot would not be able to understand that. Are you
a blithering idiot? If not, what do you not understand?


Boikat


John Wilkins

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 9:16:20 AM1/3/07
to
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Again, it may be asked, how is it that varieties, which I have called
incipient species, become ultimately converted into good and distinct
species, which in most cases obviously differ from each other far more
than do the varieties of the same species? How do those groups of
species, which constitute what are called distinct genera, and which
differ from each other more than do the species of the same genus,
arise? All these results, as we shall more fully see in the next
chapter, follow inevitably from the struggle for life. Owing to this
struggle for life, any variation, however slight and from whatever cause
proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any
species, in its infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and
to external nature, will tend to the preservation of that individual,
and will generally be inherited by its offspring. The offspring, also,
will thus have a better chance of surviving, for, of the many
individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a small
number can survive. I have called this principle, by which each slight
variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term of Natural Selection, in
order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. We have seen
that man by selection can certainly produce great results, and can adapt
organic beings to his own uses, through the accumulation of slight but
useful variations, given to him by the hand of Nature. But Natural
Selection, as we shall hereafter see, is a power incessantly ready for
action, and is as immeasurably superior to man's feeble efforts, as the
works of Nature are to those of Art."

Origin of Species, page 5

"HOW will the struggle for existence, discussed too briefly in the last
chapter, act in regard to variation? Can the principle of selection,
which we have seen is so potent in the hands of man, apply in nature? I
think we shall see that it can act most effectually. Let it be borne in
mind in what an endless number of strange peculiarities our domestic
productions, and, in a lesser degree, those under nature, vary; and how
strong the hereditary tendency is. Under domestication, it may be truly
said that the whole organisation becomes in some degree plastic. Let it
be borne in mind how infinitely complex and close-fitting are the mutual
relations of all organic beings to each other and to their physical
conditions of life. Can it, then, be thought improbable, seeing that
variations useful to man have undoubtedly occurred, that other
variations useful in some way to each being in the great and complex
battle of life, should sometimes occur in the course of thousands of
generations? If such do occur, can we doubt (remembering that many more
individuals are born than can possibly survive) that individuals having
any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance
of surviving and of procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may
feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be
rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favourable variations and the
rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection. Variations
neither useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection,
and would be left a fluctuating element, as perhaps we see in the
species called polymorphic."

Origin of Species, p80f, both from the first edition.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

Diane L.

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 9:35:50 AM1/3/07
to

"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167832592.6...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Natural Selection is a form of linguistic terrorism. What naturaled and
> who did the selecting?

Verbing nouns is bad enough. Verbing adjectives is terribly.

Diane L.


CreateThis

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 9:35:43 AM1/3/07
to
On 3 Jan 2007 05:56:32 -0800, "backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Natural Selection is a form of linguistic terrorism.

You shouldn't drink and post.

CT

backspace

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 9:39:34 AM1/3/07
to
Dunc Harris wrote:
> Natural is an adjective meaning "of nature". Nature does the
> selecting.
> http://www.answers.com/natural
> If you want to learn how to twist semantics try quote mining instead of
> making yourself look like an idiot the easy way.

The phrase Natural Selection is a form of linguistic terrorism. It is a
synonym for bad luck, misfortune, and getting the pointy end of the
stick. It is empirically, that is, scientifically, meaningless, but it
makes a pretty metaphor. It originated in a categorical error parading
as an analogy. For the past 150 years, it has deluded unthinking
simpletons into mistaking it for a real phenomenon, when it is nothing
but a collective anthropomorphization of non-specified natural causes
of mortality presented as a mystical, animist 'presence' possessing the
intelligence and powers of descrimination necessary to make actual
choices, i.e., 'selections'. As such it may be accurately summed up as
a childish religious mystique, that is, as a superstition for the
Godless.

bullpup

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 9:50:53 AM1/3/07
to

"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167835174....@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

Ah, a new net.loon.

Boikat
>

moxm...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 10:12:20 AM1/3/07
to

He's just in time. I haven't seen Bimms posting lately.

mel turner

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 10:32:13 AM1/3/07
to
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167835174....@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

So, are you a Loki troller, or sincere?

> Dunc Harris wrote:
>> Natural is an adjective meaning "of nature". Nature does the
>> selecting.
>> http://www.answers.com/natural
>> If you want to learn how to twist semantics try quote mining instead of
>> making yourself look like an idiot the easy way.
>
> The phrase Natural Selection is a form of linguistic terrorism.

You're actually terrified of words? If so, that's rather sad.

> It is a
> synonym for bad luck, misfortune, and getting the pointy end of the
> stick.

No, not at all. It's about the effects of differential reproductive
success among genetically-differing organisms in a breeding
population.

>It is empirically, that is, scientifically, meaningless, but it
> makes a pretty metaphor.

Nope. It's a scientific concept that you [or rather, the quote's
author] evidently don't understand.

>It originated in a categorical error parading
> as an analogy.

Nope. It's a nice descriptive term for an important biological
phenomenon.

>For the past 150 years, it has deluded unthinking
> simpletons into mistaking it for a real phenomenon,

The "unthinking simpleton" seems to be the remarkably arrogant
ignoramus who is so sure he's right and the 150 years of researchers
who actually study the subject are all wrong.

>when it is nothing
> but a collective anthropomorphization of non-specified natural causes
> of mortality

Not necessarily "mortality", but differential reproductive success.

>presented as a mystical, animist 'presence' possessing the
> intelligence and powers of descrimination necessary to make actual
> choices, i.e., 'selections'.

Also utterly wrong, of course. The point that the author of the above
[who is?] seems so desperate to ignore is that no such "intelligence
and powers of descrimination" are involved or are needed. Does a sieve
also require "mystical intelligence" to "choose" whether or not
particles may pass through it?

>As such it may be accurately summed up as
> a childish religious mystique, that is, as a superstition for the
> Godless.

Also stupidly wrong. If natural selection is just a "superstition for
the Godless", then why is it so well accepted by so many theists of
all the usual faiths?

So, what is the original source of "your" above plagiarized paragraph?
A web search turns up the same quote used as someone's sig, but
he also doesn't attribute it:

http://www.mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?t=57224

cheers


Kermit

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 10:33:45 AM1/3/07
to

backspace wrote:
> Natural Selection is a form of linguistic terrorism.

Who is terrified by linguistic terrorism? This sounds like newspeak.
"Evolutionary science is double plus ungood".

> What naturaled

The same thing that rains when it rains.

> and who did the selecting?

If we're talking about rabbits, foxes.

Kermit

backspace

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 10:36:31 AM1/3/07
to

John Wilkins wrote:
............. This preservation of favourable variations and the

> rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection. Variations
> neither useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection.

Darwin used the phrase NS over 300 times in his origin of species
establishing
the principle by sheer force of repetition. Yet the only place where he
actually
attempted to define NS is in this quote.

NS is should be the "SELECTION FORCE". It is a force because it does
something.
Who did the "rejection" and "preservation"? Who decided what is
"useful"?
The Selection Force ofcourse! If your language is confused your mind
confused and
your science is confused.

bullpup

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 10:43:35 AM1/3/07
to

"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167838591.1...@k21g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> John Wilkins wrote:
> ............. This preservation of favourable variations and the
> > rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection. Variations
> > neither useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection.
>
> Darwin used the phrase NS over 300 times in his origin of species
> establishing
> the principle by sheer force of repetition.

It's an observed phenomena.

>Yet the only place where he
> actually
> attempted to define NS is in this quote.
>
> NS is should be the "SELECTION FORCE". It is a force because it does
> something.

Citation?

> Who did the "rejection" and "preservation"? Who decided what is
> "useful"?

The environment. Not so much a "who" as a "what".

> The Selection Force ofcourse! If your language is confused your mind
> confused and
> your science is confused.

You're the one who sounds confused. Too much Jack Daniels?

Boikat

Cheezits

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 10:49:58 AM1/3/07
to
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> babbled:

> John Wilkins wrote:
> ............. This preservation of favourable variations and the
>> rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection.
>> Variations neither useful nor injurious would not be affected by
>> natural selection.

I don't see how this could be put any more clearly.

> Darwin used the phrase NS over 300 times in his origin of species
> establishing
> the principle by sheer force of repetition. Yet the only place where
> he actually
> attempted to define NS is in this quote.

He must have thought his readers would be smart enough to get it the
first time.

[babble deleted]


> If your language is confused your mind
> confused and
> your science is confused.

Thanks for providing the perfect example.

Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green

backspace

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 10:58:03 AM1/3/07
to

bullpup wrote:
..... It's an observed phenomena.

Ad-hoc defenition of Science:
"Science is a process where human beings 'at the very least' provide a
well reasoned
description of what they observe." And your descriptions can't be well
reasoned if your language is confused. To "observe" something implies
to provide a well reasoned description of it "at the very least". And
imputing consciousness to inanimate things is language and
mental confusion.

dkomo

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 11:03:14 AM1/3/07
to

"Natural selection" is a *metaphor*, you idiot. Anyone who has studied
biology at the high school level knows that natural selection does not
imply that there is an agent who is consciously doing the selecting on
the basis of fitness, or that there even is a concrete *process* that is
actively selecting. "Natural selection" is simply a shorthand term for
"differential reproductive success."

Another widely used metaphor is "mother nature". No one is fooled by it
into thinking that there really is some female superbeing out there.

Still another metaphor is "God". This is one you're probably quite
familiar with.


--dk...@cris.com

Desertphile

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 11:02:05 AM1/3/07
to

L. Ron Hubbard did it all the time.

Blodgett

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 11:22:59 AM1/3/07
to
Good work - i was beginning to tire of Citizen Bob - he was becoming so
repetitive. Any time somebody compares an academic theory to
"terrorism", my metaphorical ears prick up and I get all excited...
whoop!

> It originated in a categorical error parading
> as an analogy. For the past 150 years, it has deluded unthinking
> simpletons into mistaking it for a real phenomenon, when it is nothing
> but a collective anthropomorphization of non-specified natural causes
> of mortality presented as a mystical, animist 'presence' possessing the
> intelligence and powers of descrimination necessary to make actual
> choices, i.e., 'selections'. As such it may be accurately summed up as

This is just great stuff - I love it.

Previously ever IDer and every creationist I know accepts that
"adaption" or something they call "micro-evolution" can occur as a
result of selective pressure from the environment. Backspace seems to
be denying even that, a position that would put him on the fringes of
what already is in the opinion of most educated people a fringe
opinion.

Or I could just be mis-reading Backspace - he might be complaining that
the English language is full of implicit anthropomphisms. We can say
that a child selects her favourite candy, and we say the environment
selects for features that allow generations organisms to reproduce.
Does it mean that we think the process by which either "selection" is
made is identical? Of course not - that would be absurd.

The first meaning of the word "select" means to make an active concious
decision, the second meaning is really just an analogy, because the
environment has made no "choices" - the environment is not a person,
but it did determine who "gets lucky".

It's tough to utterly avoid anthropomorphism: We often speak of a
computer "knowing" something or an arrow "indicating" something. From
time to time, I have even claimed that a theory "says" something, but I
can assure you I do not believe that computers, arrows or theories are
concious entities.

Diane L.

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 11:38:26 AM1/3/07
to
Bearing in mind that this is from the peson who asked the
question "What naturaled?"

backspace wrote:

> If your language is confused your mind confused and
> your science is confused.

Diane L.


Blodgett

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 11:58:29 AM1/3/07
to
Yes, forget about the laws of nature - let's get the laws of grammar
right first.

bullpup

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 12:12:05 PM1/3/07
to

"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167839882....@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...

>
> bullpup wrote:
> ..... It's an observed phenomena.
>
> Ad-hoc defenition of Science:
> "Science is a process where human beings 'at the very least' provide a
> well reasoned
> description of what they observe." And your descriptions can't be well
> reasoned if your language is confused.

I'm not the one with a language ptonlem.

> To "observe" something implies
> to provide a well reasoned description of it "at the very least".

No, to "observe something" means just that. NS has been observed.

> And
> imputing consciousness to inanimate things is language and
> mental confusion.

Blathercrap will not make the fact of natual selection, an observed
phenomena, go away. If you wnat to play word games, I'm sure you can find
the appropriate NG or web site to do so.

Boikat
--
<42><

er...@swva.net

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 12:15:13 PM1/3/07
to

Says you. Prove it.

Eric Root

er...@swva.net

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 12:21:06 PM1/3/07
to
backspace wrote:

(snip)

> If your language is confused your mind
> confused and
> your science is confused.

So, _that's_ what happened to you. Got any more of that stuff you are
smoking?

Eric Root

david...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 12:45:29 PM1/3/07
to
Quoted from "captainwifi" from:

http://www.mybroadband.co.za/vb/archive/index.php/t-57224.html

An earlier version is here:

http://www.mybroadband.co.za/vb/archive/index.php/t-28062.html

without "linguistic terrorism." It is attributed to "mturner" from the
www.arn.org discussion board.

Conclusion: some creationists can't even come up with original insane
rants on their own...

CreateThis

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 1:10:39 PM1/3/07
to
On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 09:03:14 -0700, dkomo <dkom...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>backspace wrote:
>> Natural Selection is a form of linguistic terrorism. What naturaled and
>> who did the
>> selecting?
>>
>
>"Natural selection" is a *metaphor*, you idiot. Anyone who has studied
>biology at the high school level knows that natural selection does not
>imply that there is an agent who is consciously doing the selecting on
>the basis of fitness, or that there even is a concrete *process* that is
>actively selecting. "Natural selection" is simply a shorthand term for
>"differential reproductive success."
>
>Another widely used metaphor is "mother nature". No one is fooled by it
>into thinking that there really is some female superbeing out there.

I think you're being overly optimistic here.

>Still another metaphor is "God". This is one you're probably quite
>familiar with.

And here's why. If 90 percent of Americans believe this metaphor is
real, how many believe Mother Nature is?

CT

Steven J.

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 1:15:40 PM1/3/07
to

backspace wrote:
> Natural Selection is a form of linguistic terrorism. What naturaled and
> who did the selecting?
>
"Natural selection" is a metaphor. I realize that many creationists
are confused and terrified by metaphors. Perhaps it would be best to
start slowly: invite a few metaphors to lunch in a safe place in the
company of friends. Get to know these metaphors. You'll find that
many of them are not really all that bad.

Anyway, Darwin noted that human farmers and pet fanciers had, by
carefully picking those individuals of their stock that had the most
desirable (to them) traits and allowing only them to breed, had greatly
modified many domestic animals, and created multiple breeds and
varieties from a single wild stock. He looked for an analogous process
in nature.

He realized that, since in the wild most organisms born, hatched,
sprouted, or whatnot would die without reproducing, the descendants of
any ancestral population would be descendants of only a minority of
individuals in that population. Since there was variation in virtually
all populations, and since some of these variations were more useful in
finding food, avoiding becoming food, finding a mate, etc. than others,
the survivors would not be a random selection of the original
population, but certain traits would be more likely to survive. Such
differential survival of variant offspring would have an effect similar
to that of artificial selection, so Darwin called it "natural
selection."

"Natural" in this case means "the result of the undirected effects of
the environment, not planned or intelligently directed" (as, e.g. in
the phrase "death by natural causes," or "natural disaster").
"Selection" is a metaphor; the environment does not really select, but
differential survival has the effect of selection (albeit at usually a
much slower rate). Other terms for the phenomenon (e.g. "survival of
the fittest," "struggle for survival") have their own problems.

-- Steven J.

Iain

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 1:30:57 PM1/3/07
to

backspace wrote:
> Natural Selection is a form of linguistic terrorism. What naturaled and
> who did the
> selecting?


ANSWER:

Natural selection means that variation(random) within a population is
filtered(non-random) by the environment, because the environment is a
major factor in whether an individual succeeds at replicating itself.

Therefore the environment influences the genetic makeup of the next
generation, every generation.

This means the gene pool is forever re-adjusting itself to the
environment. This continuous re-adjustment we call "evolution".

"Natural selection" exists by analogy to "artificial selection",
commonly known as "selective breeding") :

Natural selection(the environment): "Survival of the fittest(best
suited)"
Artificial selection: "Survival of the cutest", etc

...and so on, although more specifically it is "reproduction of the
fittest".

Come to think of it, intelligence just gets in the way. Neither
Artificial Selection nor Natural Selection involve a great deal of
applied intelligence. Sure, the person doing the breeding has a mind,
but that mind specifies a vague goal, and the real structuring force is
the criteria put in place for selection, which are not necessarily
rooted in intelligent decisions.

~Iain

Iain

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 1:35:18 PM1/3/07
to

backspace wrote:

> John Wilkins wrote:
> ............. This preservation of favourable variations and the
> > rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection. Variations
> > neither useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection.
>
> Darwin used the phrase NS over 300 times in his origin of species
> establishing
> the principle by sheer force of repetition. Yet the only place where he
> actually
> attempted to define NS is in this quote.
>
> NS is should be the "SELECTION FORCE". It is a force because it does
> something.
> Who did the "rejection" and "preservation"? Who decided what is
> "useful"?

CreateThis

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 1:36:43 PM1/3/07
to
On 3 Jan 2007 06:39:34 -0800, "backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Dunc Harris wrote:
>> Natural is an adjective meaning "of nature". Nature does the
>> selecting.
>> http://www.answers.com/natural
>> If you want to learn how to twist semantics try quote mining instead of
>> making yourself look like an idiot the easy way.
>
>The phrase Natural Selection is a form of linguistic terrorism. It is a
>synonym for bad luck, misfortune, and getting the pointy end of the
>stick.

LOL. This is somebody's sockpuppet, right? There couldn't really be
this many antievolutionists that are *this* nuts.

CT

Frank J

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 1:43:01 PM1/3/07
to

OK, ignoring NS for the moment, what do you think explains the origin
of species?

Do you agree that genetic variation happens, and that the more
"adequate" variants are overrepresented in successive generations?

Do you agree that this is the process that was involved in the observed
instances of speciation?

Do you agree that this type of process (including endosymbiosis,
horizontal transfer, and possibly classes of genetic changes not yet
observed in real time) is behind the origin of all species except the
very earliest one (or at most a few)?

Do you agree that, regardless of the process, humans are biologically
related to dogs? To dogwoods?

Do you agree that life on earth has a nearly 4 billion year history?

Foe each "no" answer, please provide a detailed alternative explanation.

backspace

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 1:39:38 PM1/3/07
to

Blodgett wrote:
> Previously ever IDer and every creationist I know accepts that
> "adaption" or something they call "micro-evolution" can occur as a
> result of selective pressure from the environment. Backspace seems to
> be denying even that, a position that would put him on the fringes of
> what already is in the opinion of most educated people a fringe
> opinion.

Spot on Blodgett! P.T. Saunders refered to the lack of a clear
definition of Darwinism: "There is no canonical definition of
neo-Darwinism, and surprisingly few writers on the subject seem to
consider it necessary to spell out precisely what it is that they are
discussing. This is especially curious in view of the controversy which
dogs the theory, for one might have thought that a first step towards
resolving the dispute over its status would be to decide upon a
generally acceptable definition over it. ... Of course, the lack of
firm definition does, as we shall see, make the theory much easier to
defend." P.T. Saunders & M.W. Ho, "Is Neo-Darwinism Falsifiable? - And
Does It Matter?", Nature and System (1982) 4:179-196, p. 179.

Evolution is not defined. And you can't disprove the non-existance of
something you can't define. As a technical term NS is a misleading
oxymoron. Via linguistic slight of hand Darwin dropped the word 'FORCE'
and prefixed 'NATURAL' to create the meaningless phrase NS. You can't
even begin to provide a "well reasoned description" (WRD) of something
if you confuse the cause with the effect. An elephant is an effect and
so is a tree. Nothing is explained by conflating a universal mechanism
NS in your attempt at describing it. Infact NS functioning as some sort
of universal mechanism is just as implausable as a single differential
equation explaining all of physics.

Is NS a cause or an effect? The way it isused in popular publications
it comes accross as some sort of cause. But if it is an effect than
what is the cause and if it is a cause then what is the effect? For any
theory to be WRD it must clearly diffarentiate between the cause and
the effect. By tagging every third paragraph in the Jouranl of Biology
with NS the WRD part of the phenomena is destroyed. If you replace NS
with 'expialidosis' in a peer reviewed article it will show just how
information destroying the phrase NS is. By repeating "NS" over and
over again a form of brainwashing of society has resulted.

Now if 'evolution' is not defined then how could my fellow creationists
accept 'micro evolution'? What micro'd and what macro'd? Lets take
"Decent with modification". Who did the modifying - the Selection
Force? All these phrases "micro evolution", "macro evolution", "Decent
with modification", "NS", "Selection" are liberally sprinkled over peer
reviewed articles in Biology Journals functioning collectivly as a
Universal Mechanism.

As Fred Hoyle stated in his book ...... "... Biologists have in a sense
become mentally ill". Indeed and this mental illness now even extends
to my the creationists like http://www.answersingenesis.org and
http://www.icr.org As Ken Ham stated:"I believe in Natural Selection".
AIG has over $15million in cash. If AIG states that Evolution is not
defined than what on earth would there be further to discuss? Why build
Dinosaur adventure lands and engage in longwinded arguments from
design. The argument-from-design(AFD) fails because it attempts to
refute something that Ken Ham can't even define. And you can't solve a
problem or refute an argument if you can't define it. Exasperated
http://www.icr.org brings up the IC argument from Behe. And IC is
obviously is correct. The bacterial flagellum is IC. What neither Behe
nor Dawkins seem to understand is that the 'Selection Force' via it's
supernatural powers of 'selection' simply 'selected' for the stator and
rotor in exactly the same whay that God would have done it. NS can
effortlessly solve any and all problems even IC because it simply
'selects' the right solution. NS as a 'FORCE' with a mind all of it's
own simply built the flagellum step for step. The irreducible
complexity of the flagellum thus doesn't disprove the 'Selection Force'
because just like the Christian God, the 'Selection Force' simply
selected the right parts. While chiding the creationsists for believing
in the Supernatural the Evolutionists themselves believe in an abstract
mystical Selection Force. And now amount of 'Naturaling' and dropping
the word 'Force' from the word 'Selection' is going to make this fact
go away.

We are locked in an eternal debate between Scordova, Behe, Dembski,
Russel Humphreys and Dawkins. Because if you are going to attempt to
disprove the non-existance of Elvs on the planet Zog and you can't even
define what the planet Zog looks like you will be kept busy for
eternity.

http://www.uncommondescent.com and http://www.pandasthumb.org, are
engaging in a debate of utter irrelevance - since neither side can
define what exactly it is that they are attacking or defending. This
whole ID-evolution debate has now become a sort of a cottage industry
where people like Ken Ham are not really trying to state the truth but
is keeping the debate allive because they derive money from it. AiG has
$15million in cash for example. http://www.drdino.com for example talks
so much nonsense that it is an embarrasment for the creationist cause.
Kent Hovind has made millions out of 'attacking evolution'. How do you
attack something if you can't even define it mr.Hovind?

Frank J

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 1:45:14 PM1/3/07
to

Yeah, but did he ever go cruising?

moxm...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 2:06:47 PM1/3/07
to

Do you even read the responses to your posts before you spout of more
idiocy?

hersheyh

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 2:25:48 PM1/3/07
to

On Jan 3, 9:39 am, "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dunc Harris wrote:
> > Natural is an adjective meaning "of nature". Nature does the
> > selecting.
> >http://www.answers.com/natural
> > If you want to learn how to twist semantics try quote mining instead of

> > making yourself look like an idiot the easy way.The phrase Natural Selection is a form of linguistic terrorism. It is a


> synonym for bad luck, misfortune, and getting the pointy end of the
> stick.

NS most certainly is not a synonym of "bad luck", which implies that
the effect of NS is due to pure chance rather than to "cause". NS
happens because of a *causal* interaction of an individual's phenotype
and the environment that individual is in. What happens when pure
chance is involved is called "neutral drift".

NS happens *when* one suffers misfortune or the pointy end of the stick
*because* of one's phenotype in that environment. NS also happens
*when* one suffers *less* misfortune or the good end of the stick
*because* of one's phenotype in that environment.

> It is empirically, that is, scientifically, meaningless, but it
> makes a pretty metaphor.

One empirically measures NS as levels of "relative fitness". That is,
one compares (produces a ratio of) two phenotypes, say an individual
with blue eyes to an individual with brown eyes, in a particular
environment, say Sweden, on the metric of reproductive success (which
is the only metric that counts in NS, but for which one can *sometimes*
substitute other measures such as survival to reproductive maturity).
If individuals with blue eyes have *significantly* greater reproductive
success, then we say that NS favors blue-eyed individuals in that
environment. If individuals with brown eyes have *significantly*
greater reproductive success, then we say that NS favors brown-eyed
individuals in that environment. If neither eye color has a
*significant* effect on reproductive success, we say that NS is not
occurring wrt eye color in that environment. You can substitute other
phenotypes of your choosing. But anytime there is a *significant*
difference in relative fitness in a specified environment, NS is
occurring. NS does not occur when there is no *significant* difference
in relative reproductive success. In that case, change in phenotype is
purely due to chance, and we consider the changes to be due to neutral
drift. That sounds pretty much empirically measureable to me. But
perhaps your definition of 'empirical' differs from mine.

> It originated in a categorical error parading
> as an analogy.

Explain? Or are you just spouting words without knowing what they
mean?

> For the past 150 years, it has deluded unthinking
> simpletons into mistaking it for a real phenomenon, when it is nothing
> but a collective anthropomorphization of non-specified natural causes
> of mortality

Actually, since the *cause* of the effect (significant difference in
reproductive success), when NS does occur, is a consequence of the
interaction of the organism's phenotype and the dumb, unintelligent
environment, I don't see any anthropomophism here at all. And since,
for one to measure NS, both the organismal phenotypes and the selective
environment must be explicitly specified, your idea that the 'causes of
mortality' [sic; it should be differential reproductive success] of NS
are 'non-specified' is wrong, wrong, wrong, in the most fundamental
ways possible..

> presented as a mystical, animist 'presence' possessing the
> intelligence and powers of descrimination necessary to make actual
> choices, i.e., 'selections'.

This is hilarious coming from someone who proposes that all these
things are due to the actions of a mystical animistic 'presence'
possessing the intellignece and powers of discrimination necessary to
make actual choices. Again, in NS nothing of intelligence makes any
'choices'. An organism's phenotype is not made by any intelligent
source but is a consequence of genetics involving considerable numbers
of random events. The environment that discriminates between different
phenotypes is not doing so 'intelligently', any more than water
'intelligently' chooses to flow downhill. NS is (when it occurs; one
should remember that NS does not always occur) a consequence of the
interaction between organismal phenotype and environment. To the
extent that the phenotype examined is genetically influenced, this
interaction differentially affects genotype as well as phenotype. It
is only to this extent that NS has evolutionary consequences.

> As such it may be accurately summed up as
> a childish religious mystique, that is, as a superstition for the
> Godless.

As opposed to the superstition that everything that happens to
organisms, including their differential fates in specific environments
that is a consequence of the interaction of phenotype and environment,
is an 'intelligent choice' of a loving God? God wants Tay-Sachs kids
to die a wonderful slow death, right?

Luminoso

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 2:33:12 PM1/3/07
to
On 3 Jan 2007 05:56:32 -0800, "backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Natural Selection is a form of linguistic terrorism. What naturaled and
>who did the selecting?

It IS a rather nasty phrase, isn't it ? There's no "who" and
"selection" usually implies an act involving some conscious
deliberation.

R. Baldwin

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 2:30:49 PM1/3/07
to
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167835174....@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

> Dunc Harris wrote:
>> Natural is an adjective meaning "of nature". Nature does the
>> selecting.
>> http://www.answers.com/natural
>> If you want to learn how to twist semantics try quote mining instead of
>> making yourself look like an idiot the easy way.
>
> The phrase Natural Selection is a form of linguistic terrorism. It is a
> synonym for bad luck, misfortune, and getting the pointy end of the
> stick. It is empirically, that is, scientifically, meaningless, but it
> makes a pretty metaphor. It originated in a categorical error parading
> as an analogy. For the past 150 years, it has deluded unthinking

> simpletons into mistaking it for a real phenomenon, when it is nothing
> but a collective anthropomorphization of non-specified natural causes
> of mortality presented as a mystical, animist 'presence' possessing the

> intelligence and powers of descrimination necessary to make actual
> choices, i.e., 'selections'. As such it may be accurately summed up as

> a childish religious mystique, that is, as a superstition for the
> Godless.
>

Piffle. The phrase "natural selection" was coined to distinguish it from
artificial selection or selective breeding, a well-known process in
agriculture that has been practiced for millenia.

backspace

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 2:44:46 PM1/3/07
to

hersheyh wrote:
> On Jan 3, 9:39 am, "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Dunc Harris wrote:

.... It is only to this extent that NS has evolutionary consequences.

And since "Evolutionary" is not defined I am in no possition to either
confirm
or deny your assertion that the 'Selection Force' has this undefined
consequence.

You see for it is nothing else but a 'Force' and will not allow my
mind, sanity and language
to be changed by brute force repetition and frankly intimidation.
Because you probably will be
chased out of the class if you tell the instructor that you refuse to
cower in fear infront of him
and use his confused language set. And Christians don't refer to NS as
the "Selection Force"
because of this intimidation.

Cheezits

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 4:12:34 PM1/3/07
to
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> hersheyh wrote:
>> On Jan 3, 9:39 am, "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Dunc Harris wrote:
>
> .... It is only to this extent that NS has evolutionary consequences.
>
> And since "Evolutionary" is not defined I am in no possition to either
> confirm
> or deny your assertion that the 'Selection Force' has this undefined
> consequence.
[then he went off the deep end]

Oh for Pete's sake:

ev·o·lu·tion·ar·y – adjective
1. pertaining to evolution or development; developmental: the
evolutionary origin of species.
2. of, pertaining to, or in accordance with a theory of evolution, esp.
in biology.
3. pertaining to or performing evolutions.

If you can't afford a friggin dictionary use the net:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionary

You're in no position to say anything useful about any subject.

R. Baldwin

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 4:24:47 PM1/3/07
to
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167853486.6...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> hersheyh wrote:
>> On Jan 3, 9:39 am, "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Dunc Harris wrote:
>
> .... It is only to this extent that NS has evolutionary consequences.
>
> And since "Evolutionary" is not defined I am in no possition to either
> confirm
> or deny your assertion that the 'Selection Force' has this undefined
> consequence.
>
[snip]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3341


noctiluca

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 4:34:16 PM1/3/07
to

backspace wrote:
> Natural Selection is a form of linguistic terrorism. What naturaled and
> who did the
> selecting?

I smell a Loki. Has anyone seen Dana and backspace in the same place at
the same time?

RLC

The Enigmatic One

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 4:44:09 PM1/3/07
to
In article <1167835174....@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
sawirel...@yahoo.com says...

>
>
>Dunc Harris wrote:
>> Natural is an adjective meaning "of nature". Nature does the
>> selecting.
>> http://www.answers.com/natural
>> If you want to learn how to twist semantics try quote mining instead of
>> making yourself look like an idiot the easy way.
>
>The phrase Natural Selection is a form of linguistic terrorism. It is a
>synonym for bad luck, misfortune, and getting the pointy end of the
>stick. It is empirically, that is, scientifically, meaningless, but it
>makes a pretty metaphor. It originated in a categorical error parading
>as an analogy. For the past 150 years, it has deluded unthinking
>simpletons into mistaking it for a real phenomenon, when it is nothing
>but a collective anthropomorphization of non-specified natural causes
>of mortality presented as a mystical, animist 'presence' possessing the
>intelligence and powers of descrimination necessary to make actual
>choices, i.e., 'selections'. As such it may be accurately summed up as
>a childish religious mystique, that is, as a superstition for the
>Godless.
>

Damn.

You're amazingly fucking dumb!


-Tim

backspace

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 4:44:31 PM1/3/07
to

Cheezits wrote:
> ev·o·lu·tion·ar·y – adjective
> 1. pertaining to evolution or development; developmental: the
> evolutionary origin of species.
> 2. of, pertaining to, or in accordance with a theory of evolution, esp.
> in biology.
> 3. pertaining to or performing evolutions.
>
> If you can't afford a friggin dictionary use the net:
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionary

>From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionary
ev·o·lu·tion (ěv'ə-lōō'shən, ē'və-) Pronunciation Key
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and
usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.

Now my question is who established this and by what means was this
established?

"We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we
are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told,
often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that
indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well
as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;' but
we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein,
precisely, this evidence consists." Smith, Wolfgang (1988) Teilhardism
and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin, Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books & Publishers Inc.,
p.2


Kermit

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 4:44:54 PM1/3/07
to

backspace wrote:
> hersheyh wrote:
> > On Jan 3, 9:39 am, "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Dunc Harris wrote:
>
> .... It is only to this extent that NS has evolutionary consequences.
>
> And since "Evolutionary" is not defined I am in no possition to either
> confirm

Sure it is; it's defined here frequently: the change in frequency of
alleles in a population over time.

> or deny your assertion that the 'Selection Force' has this undefined
> consequence.

It's not a force.
"Force: A vector quantity that tends to produce an acceleration of a
body in the direction of its application. The capacity to do work or
cause physical change. Energy, strength, or active power."

Tsk. You should be more precise with your language. And mine, for that
matter. If a rabbit is caught by a fox because it wasn't as alert as
the rabbit next to it, what force was involved, what exerted it, and
upon what mass?

>
> You see for it is nothing else but a 'Force'

No it's not. Force is the ability to do work. What work is involved?

>and will not allow my
> mind, sanity and language
> to be changed by brute force repetition and frankly intimidation.

Nor education, nor reason. Perhaps by anti-psychotics?

As for the intimidation, I apologize. Big Sal and his baseball bat were
supposed to be sent to the loon across the street. Or did you mean that
words frighten you?

> Because you probably will be
> chased out of the class if you tell the instructor that you refuse to
> cower in fear infront of him

In how many classrooms is this considered acceptable behavior? Why
could you consider sitting politely and listening to be cowering in
fear?

> and use his confused language set.

[...]

Heh. Sometimes post provide their own comments, which cannot be
improved upon.

> And Christians don't refer to NS as the "Selection Force" because of this intimidation.

Maybe most Christians are not as confused as you. Some of them even
understand science just fine. And nearly all have a normal grasp of
their mother tongue.

Kermit

backspace

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 5:02:55 PM1/3/07
to

Kermit wrote:

> Sure it is; it's defined here frequently: the change in frequency of
> alleles in a population over time.

Precisely my point. Who exactly established this and by what means?
Ofcourse there
must be change in the frequency. If an organism lives
there must by defenition be some "change". Why is this conflated with
'Selection Forces'?

Newton established F=ma. There isn't endless Internet debates over
this. Nobody is
confused. We don't describe F=ma as being a "success". Why is Evolution
the
only theory that drags in the word "success". For something to be a
success there
must be some predetermined goal.

Pip R. Lagenta

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 5:14:53 PM1/3/07
to
On 3 Jan 2007 06:39:34 -0800, "backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
[snip]
>It (Natural Selection) is a

>synonym for bad luck, misfortune, and getting the pointy end of the
>stick.
[snip]

When it rains heavily out in the plains, washing away some of the
finer soil and leaving behind the larger rocks, does the fine soil
that was moved get "the pointy end of the stick", or is it the rocks
that were moved less by the rain the ones that are having the "bad
luck" and "misfortune"?

>
--
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌

-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)

backspace

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 5:21:54 PM1/3/07
to

R. Baldwin wrote:
> "backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1167853486.6...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

"....In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is
all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve."
Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

So what evolves changes and what changes evolves. This is known as a
circular argument.
So galaxies "change" and who could possibly argue with that. Ofcourse
they change
and so do rocks and every single atom in the universe. Exactly who
other than Futuyma himself states that "galaxies evolve or change".
Says who and in what year was this
established?

CreateThis

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 5:37:26 PM1/3/07
to
On 3 Jan 2007 14:02:55 -0800, "backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

For somebody to be this dense, there must be a predetermined goal.

CT

Pip R. Lagenta

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 5:41:01 PM1/3/07
to
On 3 Jan 2007 14:02:55 -0800, "backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
[snip]

>Why is Evolution
>the
>only theory that drags in the word "success".

*YOU* have dragged in the word "success". "Evolution" and "natural
selection" are simply observed to various degrees in various
circumstances. Using the word "success" as you have here is just the
same as saying that two plus two *succeeds* in adding up to four.
Also, please see:
<http://www.ehow.com/how_5953_question-mark.html>

>For something to be a
>success there
>must be some predetermined goal.

Failure to go extinct is not a "predetermined goal", but merely an
observed occurrence.

jrs...@sbcglobal.net

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 5:44:53 PM1/3/07
to

"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167835174....@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

> Dunc Harris wrote:
>> Natural is an adjective meaning "of nature". Nature does the
>> selecting.
>> http://www.answers.com/natural
>> If you want to learn how to twist semantics try quote mining instead of
>> making yourself look like an idiot the easy way.
>
> The phrase Natural Selection is a form of linguistic terrorism.

I wish that it were, so I could beat some sense into you with it.

>It is a


> synonym for bad luck, misfortune, and getting the pointy end of the

> stick. It is empirically, that is, scientifically, meaningless, but it
> makes a pretty metaphor.

Yes, scientific concepts tend to be meaningless to the ill-informed.

> It originated in a categorical error parading
> as an analogy.

Well, since NS has been upheld by the evidence for 150 years, I can only
hope to fuck up things to your definition of an error.

> For the past 150 years, it has deluded unthinking
> simpletons into mistaking it for a real phenomenon,

Hold on there partner, when did we change this discussion to Creation
Science?

>when it is nothing
> but a collective anthropomorphization of non-specified natural causes
> of mortality presented as a mystical, animist 'presence' possessing the
> intelligence and powers of descrimination necessary to make actual
> choices, i.e., 'selections'.

What do gods have to do with evolutionary theory, and can we please get back
to talking about Natural Selection?

>As such it may be accurately summed up as
> a childish religious mystique, that is, as a superstition for the
> Godless.
>

Yes, the "Godless" do in fact have weak faith and think that it is right to
lie for Jesus.

JR

R. Baldwin

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 5:45:26 PM1/3/07
to
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167862913.8...@i80g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

A definition is not an argument at all, nincompoop! You said there was no
definition. I provided one for you, showing that you were incorrect.


Pip R. Lagenta

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 5:49:32 PM1/3/07
to
On 3 Jan 2007 14:21:54 -0800, "backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Perhaps some background information would be of help.
Try:
<http://evolution.mbdojo.com/evolution-for-beginners.html>
<http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml>
<http://darwiniana.org/intro1.htm#Introduction>
<http://evolution.berkeley.edu/>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution>
<http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html>
<http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html>
<http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm>
<http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/whatevoisnt.html>
<http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/evolution.html>
<http://www.evolutionhappens.net/>
<http://home.houston.rr.com/bybayouu/Tenets_of_evolution.html>
<http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Top10MythsEvol.HTM>
<http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science2.html>
<http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science3.html>
<http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122science7.html>
<http://www.rothamsted.bbsrc.ac.uk/notebook/courses/guide/>
<http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122sciencedefns.html>
<http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/evo_science.html>
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html>
<http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/FEvolutionCase.htm>
<http://www.csharp.com/creationism.html>
<http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/factandtheory.html>
<http://home.entouch.net/dmd/rtbanthro.htm>
<http://www.creationtheory.org/Introduction/Evidence.shtml>
<http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/biol1510.htm>

Feel free to come back when you have acquired a little understanding
of the basic concepts involved.

backspace

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 5:57:28 PM1/3/07
to

jrs...@sbcglobal.net wrote:

> What do gods have to do with evolutionary theory, and can we please get back
> to talking about Natural Selection?

Lets talk about something different: Finite-State Grammar. In some
sense a grammar capable of generating the sentences of English must
store information, holding it in reserve untiil needed. The simplest
such grammar is a pushdown storage automaton. Now palindromic sequences
have been discovered in the genome - DNA. But palindromes can't be
generated by a finite-state grammar. IF molecular biological grammars
exist, they have to be at least as complex as a pushdown storage
automaton.
Question:
If genetic code is informed by grammatical constraints of a nontrivial
nature,how in turn did they arise if in the first instance they are
necessary to working of the code?
Source: Black Mischief by David Berlinski First edition

Now how on earth do these Universal phrases micro, macro, evolved,
natural selection even begin to answer the question?

John Harshman

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 6:09:17 PM1/3/07
to
backspace wrote:

If you would stop typing gibberish it might be possible to discuss
something with you. The term "genetic code" has a simple meaning that
doesn't seem to fit anything you say above: it's the mapping of DNA or
RNA triplets to amino acids. If you want to call that a grammar, it's a
ridiculously simple one. There is a start signal, which doubles as the
signal for the first amino acid of a protein. There is a stop signal,
which ends translation. And their are "words" that correspond to amino
acids.

Can you define "finite-state grammer"? Why can't a finite-state grammar
produce a palindrome? What does any of this have to do with the genetic
code or with DNA or genomes?

Desertphile

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 6:37:29 PM1/3/07
to

There is a massive amount of evidence that supports the hypothesis that
yes indeed a great many Creationists can be this nuts.

What we see here is yet another Creationist who has confused "is" with
"ought:" scientists say natural selection is one of the mechanisms that
run evolution--- which many Creationists turn, inside their heads, into
"Scientists say natural selection is what should be engaged in."

I suppose this way of "thinking" is derived from the belief that the
universe is an artifact.

backspace

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 6:41:24 PM1/3/07
to

John Harshman wrote:
> backspace wrote:

> Why can't a finite-state grammar
> produce a palindrome?

Because it simply can't, it is just a mathematical fact. The palindrome
Berlinksi refered to was 256 in length. "ATDC" the four codes of the
gene were found to be symmetric about the axis - they read forwards and
backwards the same. Now just take pen and paper and actually try and
create a Palidrome yourself using "ATDC" for a length of 256 letters.
It's simply impossible. But as you attempt to do it you will note that
you have to memorise the letters and keep it in reserve for the future.
IF NS is blind and random and this palindrome arose step by step and
not all at once then how did NS "know" what the middle sequence would
be? The answer is NS is a Force with a mind all of it's own it via it's
supernatural powers it simply 'selected' the right sequences. All
problems are effortlessly solved by the Selection Force. NS explains
everything and a theory that explains everything explains nothing, it's
control of the facts is an illusion.

Now lets take the phrase "small changes". How small is small? If you
change just one letter you don't have a palindrome anymore. How did the
palindrome arise in the first place? For the organism to survive or
live in the first place it had to have this palindrome gene sequence.
No palindrome no organism. And thus I propose that this palindrome is a
far better example of Irreducible Complexity (IC) than Behe's flagellum
example because a palindrome is an abstract mathematical concept
independant of it's medium in this case genes.

As I stated you can't solve a problem you can't define. And we are not
debating this issue in terms of concepts such as palindromes but in
terms of "Selection Forces" that "naturaled" stuff on a micro scale
into a macro scale. In short Evolutionists don't have the faintest clue
what on earth they are talking about since they can't even define the
problem.

jrs...@sbcglobal.net

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 6:43:56 PM1/3/07
to

"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167865048.2...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Try asking a question relevant to evolution, and I'll give it a shot.
Berlinski is a crank, and I'll bet that you that you don't understand what
he is getting at anymore than anyone else does. So, why don't *you state
why you think this "Finite-State Grammar" idea is a problem, or even
relevant to molecular biology?


John Harshman

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 7:07:27 PM1/3/07
to
backspace wrote:

> John Harshman wrote:
>
>>backspace wrote:
>
>
>>Why can't a finite-state grammar
>>produce a palindrome?
>
>
> Because it simply can't, it is just a mathematical fact.

If you don't know, just say so.

> The palindrome
> Berlinksi refered to was 256 in length. "ATDC" the four codes of the
> gene were found to be symmetric about the axis - they read forwards and
> backwards the same.

Your near-total ignorance of biology is showing. It's ATGC, not ATDC,
and those aren't "codes", which you seem to be using as a buzzword for
anything genetic; they're bases or nucleotides.

> Now just take pen and paper and actually try and
> create a Palidrome yourself using "ATDC" for a length of 256 letters.
> It's simply impossible.

That's silly. It's easy enough.

> But as you attempt to do it you will note that
> you have to memorise the letters and keep it in reserve for the future.
> IF NS is blind and random and this palindrome arose step by step and
> not all at once then how did NS "know" what the middle sequence would
> be?

NS didn't have to "know" anything. It would merely be required that for
some reason a palindrome was advantageous, and that anything closer to a
palindrome than what was there already was better than what was there.

> The answer is NS is a Force with a mind all of it's own it via it's
> supernatural powers it simply 'selected' the right sequences. All
> problems are effortlessly solved by the Selection Force. NS explains
> everything and a theory that explains everything explains nothing, it's
> control of the facts is an illusion.

Did you just make up your own answer and then reject it? Now that's
convenient. Why bother responding to other people at all when you can
talk to yourself?

> Now lets take the phrase "small changes". How small is small? If you
> change just one letter you don't have a palindrome anymore.

But you have a near-palindrome. You are assuming that a near-palindrome
is no better than a random sequence. Why?

> How did the
> palindrome arise in the first place? For the organism to survive or
> live in the first place it had to have this palindrome gene sequence.

You don't know that. Do you have any idea what the palindrome's function
is? Or even if it has a function? How about some details. Whose genome
is this palindrome in? Where in that genome? What kind of sequence? Now
I would guess that the function would be in making double hairpins,
though I'm not sure why a genome would want to do that.

> No palindrome no organism. And thus I propose that this palindrome is a
> far better example of Irreducible Complexity (IC) than Behe's flagellum
> example because a palindrome is an abstract mathematical concept
> independant of it's medium in this case genes.

Why would that make it better?

> As I stated you can't solve a problem you can't define. And we are not
> debating this issue in terms of concepts such as palindromes but in
> terms of "Selection Forces" that "naturaled" stuff on a micro scale
> into a macro scale. In short Evolutionists don't have the faintest clue
> what on earth they are talking about since they can't even define the
> problem.

Well, I don't have much of a clue what *you* are talking about. But I
don't think you do either. You seem to know nothing of biology, which is
the subject you are pontificating on, and near-total ignorance would
seem to be a handicap in making judgments on a subject. Which problem is
it that you think is undefined? I have no idea. Nobody except you seems
to be talking about "selection forces". Natural selection is a very
simple idea that for some reason many people (like you) have trouble
understanding. But given a few simple conditions that are borne out
experimentally, it can't help but operate in living organisms.

R. Baldwin

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 7:24:13 PM1/3/07
to
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1167865048.2...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Why do you think a Finite State Grammar cannot generate a palindrome?

Why do you think a pushdown storage automaton is relevant to biology?

Can you point to anyone besides a Discovery Institute ID advocate who
supports your views?

Ernest Major

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 7:58:53 PM1/3/07
to
In message <NOXmh.37$Nf.0@trndny05>, R. Baldwin
<res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net> writes

>"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1167865048.2...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> jrs...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>>
>>> What do gods have to do with evolutionary theory, and can we please get
>>> back
>>> to talking about Natural Selection?
>>
>> Lets talk about something different: Finite-State Grammar. In some
>> sense a grammar capable of generating the sentences of English must
>> store information, holding it in reserve untiil needed. The simplest
>> such grammar is a pushdown storage automaton. Now palindromic sequences
>> have been discovered in the genome - DNA. But palindromes can't be
>> generated by a finite-state grammar. IF molecular biological grammars
>> exist, they have to be at least as complex as a pushdown storage
>> automaton.
>> Question:
>> If genetic code is informed by grammatical constraints of a nontrivial
>> nature,how in turn did they arise if in the first instance they are
>> necessary to working of the code?
>> Source: Black Mischief by David Berlinski First edition
>>
>> Now how on earth do these Universal phrases micro, macro, evolved,
>> natural selection even begin to answer the question?
>>
>
>Why do you think a Finite State Grammar cannot generate a palindrome?

A bit of quick Googling found several sites stating that a FSM cannot
*recognise* a palindrome.


>
>Why do you think a pushdown storage automaton is relevant to biology?
>
>Can you point to anyone besides a Discovery Institute ID advocate who
>supports your views?
>

--
alias Ernest Major

Lexington Victoria-Rice

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 8:11:30 PM1/3/07
to
backspace wrote:
> hersheyh wrote:
>> On Jan 3, 9:39 am, "backspace" <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Dunc Harris wrote:
>
> .... It is only to this extent that NS has evolutionary consequences.
>
> And since "Evolutionary" is not defined I am in no possition to either
> confirm
> or deny your assertion that the 'Selection Force' has this undefined
> consequence.
>
> You see for it is nothing else but a 'Force' and will not allow my
> mind, sanity and language

Natural selection is a process as much as falling is. No one claims
that falling is a "force." Modifications that don't contribute to the
success of a species are eliminated.


> to be changed by brute force repetition and frankly intimidation.
> Because you probably will be
> chased out of the class if you tell the instructor that you refuse to
> cower in fear infront of him
> and use his confused language set. And Christians don't refer to NS as
> the "Selection Force"
> because of this intimidation.
>


--
And yeah, a great way to marginalize creationists is to use their idiocy
to highlight the weaknesses of religion, and draw people away from the
churchly hothouse that fosters that kind of damned dumb thinking.
Meanwhile, some people make excuses for the source of our nation's curse
and beg us not to pick on poor, blameless religion, because that will
antagonize people.

Tough.

PZ Myers
Pharyngula Blog, 12/26/2006

R. Baldwin

unread,
Jan 3, 2007, 9:22:56 PM1/3/07