Difference between randomness and automated selection

25 views
Skip to first unread message

backspace

unread,
Jun 17, 2010, 11:06:30 AM6/17/10
to
=== Equivocation between randomness and automated selection ===
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html

"...Sober [1984:99] illustrates the process in this way: imagine a
child's toy that has numbers of three different size balls in a
container, with two internal layers that have increasingly smaller
holes in them. Shaking the toy (a randomising process) increases the
likelihood that the smaller balls will pass through the first filter,
and that the smallest balls through the second. The smallest balls
are, in effect, the most "fit" (or make the best fit) and make it
through to the bottom. There has been a selection, or sorting, process
which results in the smallest balls making it to the bottom...."

Sober confused http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness with
''automated selection''. Lets mix the different size balls in a pot,
then we select out the smaller balls by hand, this is a directed, non-
random filtering process by a human.

(Aristotelians would write directed while theists directed as per
[[Naming Conventions]]. Some believe that "novel accidents" are
continually taking place in trillions of possible parallel universes
including the small balls being selected3 out - it was just a novel
accident in parallel universe 154trillion).

In order to automate the process the person designs a toy that will
allow specific size balls to pass through the layers and be selected2
out. The toy didn't make2 itself, it was designed with a purpose2 -
automating the filtering2 process.

Sober's toy example isn't a randomness or randomizing process but a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sample - (probability
sampling) automated design process.

hersheyh

unread,
Jun 17, 2010, 11:20:45 AM6/17/10
to
On Jun 17, 11:06 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> === Equivocation between randomness and automated selection ===http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html
> Sober's toy example isn't a randomness or randomizing process but ahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sample- (probability
> sampling) automated design process.

Natural selection is an "automatic" filtering process similar (but not
identical) to the one that filters out (or in) different sized balls.
[The local 'environment' acts as the sieve in this analogy.]
Randomness arises from the fact that some small fraction of the
'balls' are not static in size, but have randomly mutated to a
different size before each iteration of the filtering event. And each
generation undergoes a new filtering process (i.e., it is not a one-
time event). Analogies are only useful to the extent that they are
similar.

hersheyh

unread,
Jun 17, 2010, 11:24:19 AM6/17/10
to
On Jun 17, 11:06 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> === Equivocation between randomness and automated selection ===http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html
> Sober's toy example isn't a randomness or randomizing process but ahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sample- (probability
> sampling) automated design process.

If you want to ask what happens in a completely random process with no
selection allowed, you need to think about the drunkard's walk.

Long and short of it is that whether there is natural selection or
not, there will be change in gene frequencies. The only way that
there is the appearance (but not the reality) of gene frequency stasis
is when there is conserving natural selection. IOW, the appearance of
stasis acheived by a dynamic process of selective filtering.

aganunitsi

unread,
Jun 17, 2010, 11:29:59 AM6/17/10
to
On Jun 17, 8:06 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> === Equivocation between randomness and automated selection ===http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html
> Sober's toy example isn't a randomness or randomizing process but ahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sample- (probability
> sampling) automated design process.

The toy is a good example of how adding energy to (some) open systems
can decrease the entropy within the system (increased order).

Now expand on that. Can anyone demonstrate a filter that would occur
naturally, or must all filters be the product of an intelligent
manufacturing process?

If a naturally occurring filter benefits the existence of more
filterers and filterees (that which is filtered), you get a symbiotic
relationship. And then, if either the filterer or filteree is capable
of gradual changes over time, you get an evolutionary process.

Like a cell membrane with ion channels.

backspace

unread,
Jun 17, 2010, 12:14:24 PM6/17/10
to

Depends whether you use filter in the patter or design sense as per
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Naming_Conventions

> If a naturally occurring filter benefits the existence of more
> filterers and filterees (that which is filtered), you get a symbiotic
> relationship.

This is a rhetorical tautology or a logical validity depending on
intent.


> And then, if either the filterer or filteree is capable
> of gradual changes over time, you get an evolutionary process.
> Like a cell membrane with ion channels.

Which is a non-sequitur from your previous tautology3.


backspace

unread,
Jun 17, 2010, 12:16:40 PM6/17/10
to

Is it an automatic or feedback automatic process? Wilkins wrote in the
same article: "....Natural selection in modern science is a feedback
process....."


aganunitsi

unread,
Jun 17, 2010, 12:35:37 PM6/17/10
to
On Jun 17, 9:14 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>

> > If a naturally occurring filter benefits the existence of more
> > filterers and filterees (that which is filtered), you get a symbiotic
> > relationship.
>
> This is a rhetorical tautology or a logical validity depending on
> intent.

It's a logical validity regardless of intent. An intentless computer
could have spit it out as a randomly generated string of words and it
would still be logically valid.

>
> > And then, if either the filterer or filteree is capable
> > of gradual changes over time, you get an evolutionary process.
> > Like a cell membrane with ion channels.
>
> Which is a non-sequitur from your previous tautology3.

Nope, it is a statement that requires the previous statement for
validity. See the definition for non-sequitur, Señor Palabras No
Tienen Significado. If the filterer/filteree system isn't self
perpetuating in some way, such as symbiosis, gradual changes over time
do not get you an evolutionary process, they get you increased entropy.

backspace

unread,
Jun 17, 2010, 1:15:41 PM6/17/10
to
On Jun 17, 7:35�pm, aganunitsi <ssyke...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Jun 17, 9:14�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > > If a naturally occurring filter benefits the existence of more
> > > filterers and filterees (that which is filtered), you get a symbiotic
> > > relationship.
>
> > This is a rhetorical tautology or a logical validity depending on
> > intent.
>
> It's a logical validity regardless of intent. An intentless computer
> could have spit it out as a randomly generated string of words and it
> would still be logically valid.
>
>
>
> > > And then, if either the filterer or filteree is capable
> > > of gradual changes over time, you get an evolutionary process.
> > > Like a cell membrane with ion channels.
>
> > Which is a non-sequitur from your previous tautology3.
>
> Nope, it is a statement that requires the previous statement for
> validity. See the definition for non-sequitur, Se�or Palabras No

> Tienen Significado. If the filterer/filteree system isn't self
> perpetuating in some way, such as symbiosis, gradual changes over time
> do not get you an evolutionary process, they get you increased entropy.

You wrote:
"...If a naturally occurring filter benefits the existence of more


filterers and filterees (that which is filtered), you get a symbiotic

relationship. And then, if either the filterer or filteree is capable
of gradual changes over time, you get an evolutionary process...."

Their beneficial existence implies symbiosis , beneficial and
symbiosis alludes to the same fact, it is says the same thing twice ,
making your conclusion a non-sequitur.

aganunitsi

unread,
Jun 17, 2010, 2:26:41 PM6/17/10
to
On Jun 17, 10:15 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
<syllosnipstic fallacy>

> "...If a naturally occurring filter benefits the existence of more
> filterers and filterees (that which is filtered), you get a symbiotic
> relationship. And then, if either the filterer or filteree is capable
> of gradual changes over time, you get an evolutionary process...."
>
> Their beneficial existence implies symbiosis , beneficial and
> symbiosis alludes to the same fact, it is says the same thing twice ,
> making your conclusion a non-sequitur.

Nope, there are beneficial relationships that are not universally
defined as symbiotic. "Alluding to" and "implying" are not "saying (as
is )". I outlined the starting conditions, which has potential for
symbiosis, and then clarified with my definition of the resulting
situation. You bitch about "words have no meaning", then you have a
problem with me outlining the situation that defines the word I use.

And actually it's your final clause that is the non-sequitur, even
assuming your first two clauses were true.

A. You have two initial premises that say the same thing twice
B. Therefore your conclusion is a non-sequitur (false - non-sequitur)

A. My name is Steve
B. My name is Steve
C. Therefore my name is spelled S-T-E-V-E (true)

backspace

unread,
Jun 17, 2010, 3:32:07 PM6/17/10
to
On Jun 17, 9:26 pm, aganunitsi <ssyke...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Jun 17, 10:15 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <syllosnipstic fallacy>
>
> > "...If a naturally occurring filter benefits the existence of more
> > filterers and filterees (that which is filtered), you get a symbiotic
> > relationship. And then, if either the filterer or filteree is capable
> > of gradual changes over time, you get an evolutionary process...."
>
> > Their beneficial existence implies symbiosis , beneficial and
> > symbiosis alludes to the same fact, it is says the same thing twice ,
> > making  your conclusion a non-sequitur.
>
> Nope, there are beneficial relationships that are not universally
> defined as symbiotic.

Since words don't mean anything they can't have definitions: Only
ideas are defined. The idea you represented with beneficial is the
same represented with symbiotic, in the context used they alluded to
the same fact. The idea represented with "selectus" 2000 years ago was
defined as decision for example, today different ideas are
represented.

Quark is defined as meaning anything: Only the concept of a German
cheese or atomic particle can be defined. "Quark" is the semantic
symbolic representation of either or both ideas depending on how the
user wields the tool. "Quark" is a tool it has no meaning, thus can't
have any definitional meaning either.

backspace

unread,
Jun 17, 2010, 3:46:01 PM6/17/10
to

Are you using Selection the pattern or designs sense as per :
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Naming_Conventions

> Long and short of it is that whether there is natural selection or


> not, there will be change in gene frequencies.

Begging the question here, I am not conceding that "natural selection"
is even a valid term. If I did concede, then the sentence wouldn't be
circular reasoning.

> The only way that
> there is the appearance (but not the reality) of gene frequency stasis
> is when there is conserving natural selection.

Where are we now, Darwin didn't know about genes ....

aganunitsi

unread,
Jun 17, 2010, 3:51:16 PM6/17/10
to

A. Words represent ideas
B. Ideas are defined
C. Therefore, a word that represents an idea shares the definition of
that idea, dumbass

bpuharic

unread,
Jun 17, 2010, 4:09:58 PM6/17/10
to
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 08:06:30 -0700 (PDT), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:


>In order to automate the process the person designs a toy that will
>allow specific size balls to pass through the layers and be selected2
>out. The toy didn't make2 itself, it was designed with a purpose2 -
>automating the filtering2 process.
>
>Sober's toy example isn't a randomness or randomizing process but a
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sample - (probability
>sampling) automated design process.

a scientist creates lightening in a lab. does this prove all
lightenin is inteligently designed?

really....you people need to start thinking instead of bleating
slogans

hersheyh

unread,
Jun 17, 2010, 7:08:33 PM6/17/10
to

Tell me what *you* think distinguishes the two phrases: "automatic
feedback process" or "feedback process". If you are using "automatic"
to mean that there is no need for intelligent intervention by a
sentient outside agent, then *natural* selection is automatic and
*artificial* selection is not, as the latter requires repeated
intervention by humans.

hersheyh

unread,
Jun 17, 2010, 7:31:43 PM6/17/10
to

Selection is a process or mechanism. Whether what it produces is
called "pattern" or "design" is determined by the observer's defining
convention. If the observer requires that "design" be produced by an
intelligent entity, then *natural* selection is not design and
*artificial* selection is.

> > Long and short of it is that whether there is natural selection or
> > not, there will be change in gene frequencies.
>
> Begging the question here, I am not conceding that "natural selection"
> is even a valid term. If I did concede, then the sentence wouldn't be
> circular reasoning.

Whether or not you regard "natural selection" to be 'valid' is
irrelevant in the face of the fact that the process biologists
describe as "natural selection" exists both experimentally and in the
wild. That description (fundamentally, environmentally caused
differential reproductive success of phenotypes) differs significantly
from the catch phrase "survival of the fittest". The process
described by the term "neutral drift" also exists. With the sole
exception of "conservative or stabilizing natural selection", all the
other processes lead to change in allele frequencies. And that
exception, "conservative or stabilizing natural selection", only
produces the false appearance of stasis. It is a dynamic process.

> > The only way that
> > there is the appearance (but not the reality) of gene frequency stasis
> > is when there is conserving natural selection.
>
> Where are we now, Darwin didn't know about genes ....

SFW? He also used the phrase "survival of the fittest" (or, rather,
borrowed it from Spenser) that no one uses today. But he also, in his
books, qualified that phrase to include what we now describe as
environmentally caused differential reproductive success (rather than
just survival). Note that in my definition, I did not use the term
'genotype' but the term 'phenotype' to describe what is undergoing
selection. 'Phenotype' is what Darwin could see and describe
(although not at the gene level). I do point out that only if
'phenotype' has a hereditary component will there be a change in the
frequencies such hereditary features (which we now call 'genes' and
their 'alleles'). That is because the process of selection does not
care if the deer was born without a leg because of exposure to
thalidomide, lost it in a trap, or had a hereditary defect that caused
the defect. But only in the last case would there be any evolutionary
consequences. Since I did not use 'genes' in my definition, you are
still up shit creek without a paddle trying to find some other excuse
to avoid actually dealing with the process that *does* exist in *real*
nature whether or not you accept some particular 'phrase'.


David Hare-Scott

unread,
Jun 17, 2010, 8:10:36 PM6/17/10
to

Did you create this inexact analogy in a pattern sense or a design sense?
What does its failure say about you its creator?

David

backspace

unread,
Jun 18, 2010, 1:46:47 AM6/18/10
to

In control theory a "feedback" involves non-linear and linear
responses. IF the transfer function changes as the input changes, the
transfer function is non-linear. To those not skilled in the art
"feedback" is used as a quasi-sophisticated weasel word they hijacked
in the continuation of the Aristotelian tautoligification of society.

What then distinguishes "automatic feedback process" or "feedback
process" ? Since the phrases have no meaning, what could be
distinguished is only the ideas represented with them in a specific
context given the knowledge of the users. With two control engineers
they would involve vivid imagery of Laplace transformations and
toppling robots.

With a little 6-year old Empedoclian having his thinking tautologified
within a black/white dichotomy, it would become yet another pseudo-
sophisticated weasel word like "phenotypic plasticity" that he would
mix with the Aristotelian tautological core: Those constituted weren't
perishable while those not constituted were perishable.


monke...@gmail.com

unread,
Jun 18, 2010, 2:06:20 AM6/18/10
to

Words have no meaning so all I read from your response was, "blah blah
blah I'm a stupid douchebag." Was this your intent?

backspace

unread,
Jun 18, 2010, 2:35:14 AM6/18/10
to

> He also used the phrase "survival of the fittest" (or, rather,


> borrowed it from Spenser) that no one uses today.  

SoF and NS was but different symbols for the same idea. SoF like NS
has no meaning, only the idea represented with the symbols has
meaning. Darwin referred to Spencer:|".... one of the greatest
thinkers in the history of mankind...." Especially Spencer's part
about ".... blacks responding to their white masters like tail wagging
cocker spaniels ....." must have been really intellectually awh
inspiring back then!


> But he also, in his
> books, qualified that phrase to include what we now describe as
> environmentally caused differential reproductive success (rather than
> just survival).

He never said DRS , I see you at least now concede this point.


> Note that in my definition, I did not use the term
> 'genotype' but the term 'phenotype' to describe what is undergoing
> selection.

phenotype like genotype has no meaning, it depends what idea is being
represented with the words.

I do point out that only if
> 'phenotype' has a hereditary component will there be a change in the
> frequencies such hereditary features (which we now call 'genes' and
> their 'alleles').  That is because the process of selection does not
> care if the deer was born without a leg because of exposure to
> thalidomide, lost it in a trap, or had a hereditary defect that caused
> the defect.

Is this process a pattern or design or "design subset of pattern"
process?

>  But only in the last case would there be any evolutionary
> consequences.

Is evolutionary consequence a pattern or design?


hersheyh

unread,
Jun 18, 2010, 11:55:12 AM6/18/10
to

Not at the present time. And you have been using SoF as if it were a
perfect definition of what biologists mean by NS. It isn't and never
had been. SoF is archaic and has been dropped because of its
confusing and erroneous implications. SoF, taken literally, only
describes some of the features of NS. Like I said, even "survival of
the fitter" is better. But I have given you a better *definition* of
NS; one that is actually in current usage. That is the one you need
to argue against, not game-play with SoF as if it described NS
literally.

>SoF like NS
> has no meaning, only the idea represented with the symbols has
> meaning.

And that is something you have shown no ability to understand because
you are focused solely on the words and not on the idea represented by
the words.

>Darwin referred to Spencer:|".... one of the greatest
> thinkers in the history of mankind...."  Especially Spencer's  part
> about ".... blacks responding to their white masters like tail wagging
> cocker spaniels ....." must have been really intellectually awh
> inspiring back then!

Evidence?

> > But he also, in his
> > books, qualified that phrase to include what we now describe as
> > environmentally caused differential reproductive success (rather than
> > just survival).
>
> He never said DRS , I see you at least now concede this point.

He never used the exact words DRS. However, he clearly, in his
writings, showed that when he used the phrase "survival of the
fittest" he meant the broader concept of differential reproductive
success. But, then, I tend to read for understanding, unlike you.
You, apparently, want all languages to be 'dead' languages. I am
sorry, but the meanings of words in *living* languages like English do
change over time, and the understanding of what *natural selection* is
can be and has since been stated in clearer language than the phrase
"survival of the fittest", which Darwin did not particularly like (for
exactly the same reasons I think it a flawed definition of NS). That
is why the phrase "survival of the fittest" is no longer used as a
synonym of "natural selection". So forget the archaic phrase SoF and
concentrate on the real *meaning* or the *ideas* behind the phrase
NS. Or admit that you are an ignoramus trying to define words out of
context as if that mattered.

> > Note that in my definition, I did not use the term
> > 'genotype' but the term 'phenotype' to describe what is undergoing
> > selection.
>
> phenotype like genotype has no meaning, it depends what idea is being
> represented with the words.

I see that, whenever there is something you cannot intelligently
respond to, you think saying that "words have no meaning" gets you off
the hook. Instead it merely makes you look like an ass who doesn't
know how to shit (and thus are full of it). If you do not understand
the words, look them up and learn what they mean. I can understand
why a three-year old would think that 'genotype' and 'phenotype' have
no meaning, but you are claiming (falsely) to be an adult serious
critic of evolution. And not just another creationist nut job playing
word games to pretend you know something.

> I do point out that only if
>
> > 'phenotype' has a hereditary component will there be a change in the
> > frequencies such hereditary features (which we now call 'genes' and
> > their 'alleles').  That is because the process of selection does not
> > care if the deer was born without a leg because of exposure to
> > thalidomide, lost it in a trap, or had a hereditary defect that caused
> > the defect.
>
> Is this process a pattern or design or "design subset of pattern"
> process?

As I pointed out, if your definition of "design" requires the
intervention of an intelligent 'designer', then *natural* selection is
not design but *artificial* selection by humans is. The process is
the same in both cases (and both types of selection are 'natural' in
the sense of not, AFAWCT, being directed by a supernatural entity).

> >  But only in the last case would there be any evolutionary
> > consequences.
>
> Is evolutionary consequence a pattern or design?

The question shows a lack of comprehension of cause and effect
relationships. As mentioned, if your definition of "design" requires
the intervention of an intelligent 'designer', then *natural*
selection is not design but *artificial* selection by humans is. That
is, the same process of selection can be either pattern or design (if
'pattern' means non-design and 'design requires an intelligent
designer) depending on the evidence that exists for a intelligent
designer's involvement. In the absence of any empirical evidence for
an intelligent designer, one can either call the result a 'pattern' or
one can claim that there is no difference between the terms 'pattern'
or 'design'.

You seem to be intentionally evading the question of what you mean by
'pattern' or 'design' and how one can empirically distinguish between
the two. Am I on the right track that you are making the distinction
a matter of whether or not there is evidence of an intelligent
designer? Or are you making another distinction?

Mitchell Coffey

unread,
Jun 18, 2010, 1:55:02 PM6/18/10
to
On Jun 18, 2:35�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2:31�am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]

> SoF and NS was but different symbols for the same idea. SoF like NS
> has no meaning, only the idea represented with the symbols has
> meaning. Darwin referred to Spencer:|".... one of the greatest
> thinkers in the history of mankind...." �Especially Spencer's �part
> about ".... blacks responding to their white masters like tail wagging
> cocker spaniels ....." must have been really intellectually awh
> inspiring back then!
>

You are straight-forwardly lying about Darwin endorsing that alleged
statement by Spencer. I can find no evidence that Spencer said what
you claim he said. I'd like to see if you can produce the source of
the quote. Given that you have been caught numerous times lying about
what people have said, this should be interesting.

But this is just more evidence of your pervasive intellectual
dishonesty. Given your political and religious views, I doubt you can
name many English-speaking intellectuals you admire, living prior to
1900, with more enlightened views of race than Darwin. Try me, I
almost certainly know more of the relevant history than you.

Mitchell Coffey

backspace

unread,
Jun 18, 2010, 5:18:27 PM6/18/10
to
On Jun 18, 8:55 pm, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2:35 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 18, 2:31 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> > SoF and NS was but different symbols for the same idea. SoF like NS
> > has no meaning, only the idea represented with the symbols has
> > meaning. Darwin referred to Spencer:|".... one of the greatest
> > thinkers in the history of mankind...." Especially Spencer's part
> > about ".... blacks responding to their white masters like tail wagging
> > cocker spaniels ....." must have been really intellectually awh
> > inspiring back then!
>
> You are straight-forwardly lying about Darwin endorsing that alleged
> statement by Spencer.

You misread, Darwin wasn't referring to the blacks wagging their tails
for their white masters specifically, he was speaking in general terms
about the formidable insight and intellectual acumen of Spencer who
sold a million books back then. Spencer was a very big deal in 1870,
he was quoted by John Tyndall and back then SoF and NS was used to
refer to the same concept. This concept included whites being more
superior than the tail wagging blacks. That was the context, it might
not be the context today, the same symbols are used but not the same
racial superiority idea necessarily.

> I can find no evidence that Spencer said what
> you claim he said.  I'd like to see if you can produce the source of
> the quote.  

All Spencer's works are on gutenberg press, download and do a text
search for "cocker spaniel" or "tail wagging" , you will find it. I
don't have the reference on me now.


backspace

unread,
Jun 18, 2010, 5:34:18 PM6/18/10
to

gutenberg press, all the works of spencer are there in text format, do
a search using python.

> > > But he also, in his
> > > books, qualified that phrase to include what we now describe as
> > > environmentally caused differential reproductive success (rather than
> > > just survival).

Who is this we person?

> > He never said DRS , I see you at least now concede this point.
>
> He never used the exact words DRS.  However, he clearly, in his
> writings, showed that when he used the phrase "survival of the
> fittest" he meant the broader concept of differential reproductive
> success.

Who has what concept represented with DRS, symbolically?

> ... but the meanings of words in *living* languages like English do
> change over time,

Words have no meaning, only ideas have meaning whether represented
with selectus 2000 years ago or selection today.

> and the understanding of what *natural selection* is

NS is nothing, like quark is nothing, it only represented the idea
with SoF in 1870 by John Tyndall.

> can be and has since been stated in clearer language than the phrase
> "survival of the fittest", which Darwin did not particularly like (for
> exactly the same reasons I think it a flawed definition of NS).

Darwin wrote that "..... SoF is a better expression ......" it was NS
he didn't like preferring Natural preservation as per:
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/EpiCurus


> That
> is why the phrase "survival of the fittest" is no longer used as a
> synonym of "natural selection".  

You are assuming that "natural selection" has some sort of meaning, it
doesn't , it only represented an idea ".... absolute empire of
accident ..." in 1863 Charles Kingsley and SoF 1870 John Tyndall.
Today a different , any idea can be represented . Its main purpose is
used in the *Tautologification* of our thinking.

> So forget the archaic phrase SoF and
> concentrate on the real *meaning* or the *ideas* behind the phrase
> NS.

All that matters was the idea with SoF in 1870 by Tyndall and the
influence he had on our thinking. We can't forget this, it is history,
history which is being rewritten on wikipedia.

>  Or admit that you are an ignoramus trying to define words out of
> context as if that mattered.

Since words have no meaning, I can't therefore define or redefine
them, only refer to the idea they represented in 1870, 1863 and 1812
by Wells the pioneer of NS usage. In 1812 it was used to discuss the
"....skin of white female with negro attributes...."


> > > 'phenotype' has a hereditary component will there be a change in the
> > > frequencies such hereditary features (which we now call 'genes' and
> > > their 'alleles').  That is because the process of selection does not
> > > care if the deer was born without a leg because of exposure to
> > > thalidomide, lost it in a trap, or had a hereditary defect that caused
> > > the defect.
>
> > Is this process a pattern or design or "design subset of pattern"
> > process?

> As I pointed out, if your definition of "design" requires the
> intervention of an intelligent 'designer', then *natural* selection is
> not design but *artificial* selection by humans is.  

What naturaled and who did the selecting?


backspace

unread,
Jun 18, 2010, 5:49:39 PM6/18/10
to
On Jun 18, 6:55 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You, apparently, want all languages to be 'dead' languages.  I am
> sorry, but the meanings of words in *living* languages like English do
> change over time, and the understanding of what *natural selection* is
> can be and has since been stated in clearer language than the phrase
> "survival of the fittest", which Darwin did not particularly like (for
> exactly the same reasons I think it a flawed definition of NS).

Saying "....flawed definition of NS ...." is a different way of saying
NS has some sort of meaning: It doesn't mean anything. It is a symbol
an arbitrary concatenation of "natural means of selection" from
Matthews, the term Darwin lifted from his book he had to read on the
Beagle. Because the purpose of the Beagle was to look for naval
timber. Back then NS or SoF was meant as a means of expression British
superiority over the inferior races, giving them a license to
colonize.

What this idea has got to do with biochemistry is remarkable to say
the least: Why then is the same term being used?

The answer is that we aren't dealing with anything getting "naturaled"
but the underlying Epicurianism and Aristotelianism , their ideas
which is the tautologification of society's thinking skills. NS is the
coda to rehash , repackage Aristotle, to hide what we are actually
dealing with: Democritus, Aristotle, Lucretius etc and their world
view.

Bruce Stephens

unread,
Jun 18, 2010, 6:01:37 PM6/18/10
to
backspace <steph...@gmail.com> writes:

[...]

> The answer is that we aren't dealing with anything getting "naturaled"

> [...]

I suggest you stop using the word "naturaled". To me (a native English
speaker) it doesn't mean anything. There are lots of nouns that can be
verbed in such a way that people will understand what you mean, but I
think "natural" isn't one.

("naturalized" means something, but is probably not what you mean.)

(I've nothing against linguistic invention, but in this case it doesn't
seem to be working, IMHO.)

aganunitsi

unread,
Jun 18, 2010, 7:24:24 PM6/18/10
to
On Jun 18, 2:49�pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
<mofos be snippin'>

> Saying "....flawed definition of NS ...." is a different way of saying
> NS has some sort of meaning: It doesn't mean anything. It is a symbol
<not giving a snip>

Saying "flawed definition of NS" is a different way of saying that NS
is being used to represent the wrong idea with the wrong meaning.

Your brain's compiler is the worst.

backspace

unread,
Jun 19, 2010, 2:47:05 AM6/19/10
to

What then is a natural selection? Since NS doesn't mean anything the
question can only be answered in the context of the symbol's usage in
1870 back then: Absolute empire of accident and SoF. Today we are told
that NS is "non-random3" (used in the design is subset of pattern
sense). NS is not nothing, what is meant is that some "non-
random" (pattern or design?) concept is being represented with the
same symbol as used by John Tyndall by an arbitrary user of an
arbitrary symbol.

NS only represented an idea in a historical context, like the symbol
"phlogiston" was an idea.

Wilkins wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2008/05/on_ontology_and_metaphysics_su.php
wrote: ".....Ideas, whether "simple" or "complex" exist solely as
semantic relations between individuals in language communities. They
are originated at some time, evolve over time in response to various
conditions and influences, and eventually will become extinct or
atavistic. They have no ontology other than this. This means that
every idea has a history, and only a history......"

The idea with the symbol NS in 1870 was a very specific SoF idea from
Spencer. Such idea might become extinct , it has no other ontology
than this. This means that the idea in 1870 represented with NS has a
history and only a history. NS the symbol no more means "random" or
"non-random" , it can be used to represent either idea symbolically.
In 1874 it was understood to be the Epicurian "chance" idea.


WHAT IS DARWINISM?
BY
CHARLES HODGE,
PRINCETON, N. J.
1874

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19192/19192-h/19192-h.htm

#FNanchor_14_14 p.107 Towards the end of his volume he says: "We
shall conclude by a general observation. Notwithstanding the numerous
objections we have raised against Mr. Darwin's theory, we do not
declare ourselves hostile to a system of which zo�logists are the only
competent judges. We are neither for nor against the transmu[Pg
107]tation of species, neither for nor against the principle of
natural selection. The only positive conclusion of our debate is this:
no principle hitherto known, neither the action of media, nor habit,
nor natural selection, can account for organic adaptations without the
intervention of the principle of finality.

Natural selection, unguided, submitted to the laws of a pure
mechanism, and exclusively determined by accidents, seems to me, under
another name, the chance proclaimed by Epicurus, equally barren,
equally incomprehensible; on the other hand, natural selection guided
beforehand by a provident will, directed towards a precise end by
intentional laws, might be the means which nature has selected to pass
from one stage of being to another, from one form to another, to bring
to perfection life throughout the universe, and to rise by a
continuous process from the monad to man.

Now, I ask Mr. Darwin himself, what interest has he in maintaining
that natural selection is not guided�not directed? What interest has
he in substituting accidental causes for every final cause? I cannot
see. Let him admit that in natural, as well as in artificial
selection, there may be a choice and direction; his principle
immediately becomes[Pg 108] much more fruitful than it was before. His
hypothesis, then, whilst having the advantage of exempting science
from the necessity of introducing the personal and miraculous
intervention of God in the creation of each species, yet would be free
from the banishing out of the universe an all-provident thought, and
of submitting everything to blind and brute chance." (pp. 198, 199)
Professor Janet asks far too much of Mr. Darwin. To ask him to give up
his denial of final causes is like asking the Romanists to give up the
Pope. That principle is the life and soul of his system.

backspace

unread,
Jun 19, 2010, 3:02:38 AM6/19/10
to
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19192/19192-h/19192-h.htm#Herbert_Spencers_New_Philosophy

As Natural Selection which works so slowly is a main element in Mr.
Darwin's theory, it is necessary to understand distinctly what he
means by it. On this point he leaves us no room for doubt. On p. 92,
he says: "This preservation of favorable variations, and the
destruction of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection, or, the
Survival of the Fittest." "Owing to the struggle (for life)
variations, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if they
be in any degree profitable to the individuals of a species, in their
infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to their
physical conditions of life, will tend to the preservation of such
individuals, and will generally be inherited by their 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 Natural
Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection.
But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer of the Survival
of the Fit[Pg 32]test, is more accurate, and sometimes is equally
convenient." (p. 72).

"Slow though the progress of selection may be, if feeble man can do so
much by artificial selection, I can see no limit to the amount of
change, to the beauty and infinite complexity of the co-adaptations
between all organic beings, one with another, and with their physical
conditions of life, which may be effected in the long course of time
by nature's power of selection, or the survival of the fittest." (p.
125).

"It may be objected that if organic beings thus tend to rise in the
scale, how is it that throughout the world a multitude of the lowest
forms still exist; and how is it that in each great class some forms
are far more highly developed than others?... On our theory the
continuous existence of lowly forms offers no difficulty; for natural
selection, or the survival of the fittest, does not necessarily
include progressive development, it only takes advantage of such
variations as arise and are beneficial to each creature under its
complex relations of life.... Geology tells us that some of the lowest
forms, the infusoria and rhizopods, have remained for an enormous
period in nearly their present state." (p. 145).

"The fact of little or no modifica[Pg 33]tion having been effected
since the glacial period would be of some avail against those who
believe in an innate and necessary law of development, but is
powerless against the doctrine of natural selection, or the survival
of the fittest, which implies only that variations or individual
differences of a favorable nature occasionally arise in a few species
and are then preserved." (p. 149)

hersheyh

unread,
Jun 19, 2010, 12:28:22 PM6/19/10
to

That would only give me the words of Spencer, which is not your
claim. Nor does it matter whether or not Darwin referred to Spencer
as ".... one of the greatest thinkers in the history of mankind...",
although I would like to know what you are omitting. Your outrageous
claim is that Darwin, who clearly was an abolitionist and anti-slavery
(that being the relevant 'liberal' position at Darwin's time),
"especially" thought the part of Spencer's writing you claimed was
"intellectually awh [sic] inspiring".

> > > > But he also, in his
> > > > books, qualified that phrase to include what we now describe as
> > > > environmentally caused differential reproductive success (rather than
> > > > just survival).
>
> Who is this we person?

The community of scientists. As opposed to your community of ignorant
idiots.


>
> > > He never said DRS , I see you at least now concede this point.
>
> > He never used the exact words DRS.  However, he clearly, in his
> > writings, showed that when he used the phrase "survival of the
> > fittest" he meant the broader concept of differential reproductive
> > success.
>
> Who has what concept represented with DRS, symbolically?

I knew it would only be a short time before you reverted to this
stupidity of demanding "who" rather than dealing with ideas and
meaning.


>
> > ... but the meanings of words in *living* languages like English do
> > change over time,
>
> Words have no meaning, only ideas have meaning whether represented
> with selectus 2000 years ago or selection today.

Words have meaning only when the person using them knows enough to
grasp the ideas they represent. You clearly refuse to do so (but
quite selectively, only doing so when it suits your rhetorical
purposes).


>
> > and the understanding of what *natural selection* is
>
> NS is nothing, like quark is nothing, it only represented the idea
> with SoF in 1870 by John Tyndall.

No. NS is a part of a living language, English, not a dead one. Its
meaning can change, either completely (as 'gift', for example, when it
came to English from 'giftig') or it can become further refined in
meaning or it can have technical meanings that differ from popular
meanings or it can gain new meanings or lose old ones.

> > can be and has since been stated in clearer language than the phrase
> > "survival of the fittest", which Darwin did not particularly like (for
> > exactly the same reasons I think it a flawed definition of NS).
>
> Darwin wrote that "..... SoF is a better expression ......" it was NS
> he didn't like preferring Natural preservation as per:http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/EpiCurus

If true, SFW? I distrust your source, as it has not been vetted by
even the wisdom of a community. The modern meaning (derived from
Darwin's initial idea, but expounded upon by generations of
scientists) of the term is the one you need to argue against.

> > That
> > is why the phrase "survival of the fittest" is no longer used as a
> > synonym of "natural selection".  
>
> You are assuming that "natural selection" has some sort of meaning, it
> doesn't , it only represented an idea ".... absolute empire of
> accident  ..." in 1863 Charles Kingsley and SoF 1870 John Tyndall.
> Today a different , any idea can be represented . Its main purpose is
> used in the *Tautologification* of our thinking.

Bullshit from an sculptor of bullshit. NS has meaning *because* it
refers to a definable (and all definitions, must, to some extent be
tautologies) idea. In fact, it, in principle and often in fact,
refers to an observable and measureable process.


>
> > So forget the archaic phrase SoF and
> > concentrate on the real *meaning* or the *ideas* behind the phrase
> > NS.
>
> All that matters was the idea with SoF  in 1870 by Tyndall and the
> influence he had on our thinking. We can't forget this, it is history,
> history which is being rewritten on wikipedia.

That would only matter to someone studying a dead language. Your
knowledge of language is perhaps even worse than you knowledge of
empirical reality. NS is a phrase that refers to a scientific concept
or idea. Many terms in science become modified or change meaning when
more knowledge is accumulated. Typically, in science, the terms
become more accurate and precise. Such as the term "gene".


>
> >  Or admit that you are an ignoramus trying to define words out of
> > context as if that mattered.
>
> Since words have no meaning, I can't therefore define or redefine
> them, only refer to the idea they represented in 1870, 1863 and 1812
> by Wells the pioneer of NS usage. In 1812 it was used to discuss the
> "....skin of white female with negro attributes...."

Only an ignoramus idiot like you would think that the early usage of
term must be eternally fixed at that time.


>
> > > > 'phenotype' has a hereditary component will there be a change in the
> > > > frequencies such hereditary features (which we now call 'genes' and
> > > > their 'alleles').  That is because the process of selection does not
> > > > care if the deer was born without a leg because of exposure to
> > > > thalidomide, lost it in a trap, or had a hereditary defect that caused
> > > > the defect.
>
> > > Is this process a pattern or design or "design subset of pattern"
> > > process?
> > As I pointed out, if your definition of "design" requires the
> > intervention of an intelligent 'designer', then *natural* selection is
> > not design but *artificial* selection by humans is.  
>
> What naturaled and who did the selecting?

By asking "who", you are intentionally conflating pattern and design
(trying, stupidly, to win by definition, hoping someone will be fooled
into thinking that both require a "who" as if there were no empirical
reality outside people). I note that you continue to refuse to state
whether the distinction you are making between 'pattern' and
'design'. I am assuming that you want it to have something to do with
the presence or absence of an "intelligent designer".

Natural, of course, like many words, in different ways in different
contexts. The meaning depends on the idea behind the use of the
word. It can mean "empirical reality" observable directly or
indirectly via machines. By that definition, both "natural" selection
and "artificial" selection are "natural". Or it can mean uninfluenced
by the action of humans, as in a natural forest as opposed to a tree
farm. It is this last distinction that discriminates between
"natural" selection and "artificial" selection.

hersheyh

unread,
Jun 19, 2010, 12:40:24 PM6/19/10
to
On Jun 18, 5:49 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 6:55 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > You, apparently, want all languages to be 'dead' languages.  I am
> > sorry, but the meanings of words in *living* languages like English do
> > change over time, and the understanding of what *natural selection* is
> > can be and has since been stated in clearer language than the phrase
> > "survival of the fittest", which Darwin did not particularly like (for
> > exactly the same reasons I think it a flawed definition of NS).
>
> Saying "....flawed definition of NS ...." is a different way of saying
> NS has some sort of meaning: It doesn't mean anything.

It has meaning because it represents an idea (a process in this case)
that can, in principle and often in fact, observed in the real world.

>It is a symbol
> an arbitrary concatenation of "natural means of selection" from
> Matthews, the term Darwin lifted from his book he had to read on the
> Beagle. Because the purpose of the Beagle was to look for naval
> timber. Back then NS or SoF was meant as a means of expression British
> superiority over the inferior races, giving them a license to
> colonize.

Bullshit. You are confusing NS or SoF with "the white man's burden".
The phrases have no similarity. Especially that meaning has no
relevance to the way Darwin used it, referring to animals and plants.


>
> What this idea has got to do with biochemistry is remarkable to say
> the least: Why then is the same term being used?

Almost no one of any intelligence (I exclude a few racists; most
modern racists are creationists and use religious claims to justify
their racism), now uses NS or even SoF to refer solely to the "white
man's burden" to justify colonialism and racism. Deal with the phrase
as it is currently used. Or do you throw away presents because they
are "gifts" and that word is derived from a word meaning "poison"?

> The answer is that we aren't dealing with anything getting "naturaled"
> but the underlying Epicurianism  and Aristotelianism , their ideas
> which is the tautologification of society's thinking skills.

The "natural" in natural selection is using the common meaning of "not
directed by humans". Direction by humans is called "artificial"
precisely because of human intervention or manufacture (artifice).

> NS is the
> coda to rehash , repackage Aristotle, to hide what we are actually
> dealing with: Democritus, Aristotle, Lucretius etc and their world
> view.

Pure bullshit. NS's modern meaning is basically "phenotypically
related differential reproductive success" (although, like all
scientific terms, the details sometimes get a bit more complex).


backspace

unread,
Jun 19, 2010, 5:40:47 PM6/19/10
to
On Jun 19, 7:28 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > You are assuming that "natural selection" has some sort of meaning, it
> > doesn't , it only represented an idea ".... absolute empire of
> > accident  ..." in 1863 Charles Kingsley and SoF 1870 John Tyndall.
> > Today a different , any idea can be represented . Its main purpose is
> > used in the *Tautologification* of our thinking.

> Bullshit from an sculptor of bullshit.  NS has meaning *because* it
> refers to a definable (and all definitions, must, to some extent be
> tautologies) idea.  In fact, it, in principle and often in fact,
> refers to an observable and measureable process.

You are equivocating between Tautology1 and Tautology3 as per
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Naming_Conventions between a logical
validity and a rhetorical tautology.

backspace

unread,
Jun 19, 2010, 5:44:01 PM6/19/10
to
> as it is currently used. �

One can only deal with ideas not phrases, phrases are the
representation of an idea, not the idea itself. The ideas from
Empedocles till now is exactly the same, there is nothing new under
the sun, the words change yes, but not the original idea.


Or do you throw away presents because they
> are "gifts" and that word is derived from a word meaning "poison"?
>
> > The answer is that we aren't dealing with anything getting "naturaled"
> > but the underlying Epicurianism �and Aristotelianism , their ideas
> > which is the tautologification of society's thinking skills.
>
> The "natural" in natural selection is using the common meaning of "not
> directed by humans". �Direction by humans is called "artificial"
> precisely because of human intervention or manufacture (artifice).
>
> > NS is the
> > coda to rehash , repackage Aristotle, to hide what we are actually
> > dealing with: Democritus, Aristotle, Lucretius etc and their world
> > view.

> NS's modern meaning is basically "phenotypically related differential reproductive success" > (although, like all scientific terms, the details sometimes get a bit more complex).

phenotypic plasticity is another term, but it has no meaning, only the
idea with it has meaning. Who is this person?


Mitchell Coffey

unread,
Jun 19, 2010, 11:10:07 PM6/19/10
to
On Jun 18, 5:18 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 8:55 pm, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 18, 2:35 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 18, 2:31 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > SoF and NS was but different symbols for the same idea. SoF like NS
> > > has no meaning, only the idea represented with the symbols has
> > > meaning. Darwin referred to Spencer:|".... one of the greatest
> > > thinkers in the history of mankind...." Especially Spencer's part
> > > about ".... blacks responding to their white masters like tail wagging
> > > cocker spaniels ....." must have been really intellectually awh
> > > inspiring back then!
>
> > You are straight-forwardly lying about Darwin endorsing that alleged
> > statement by Spencer.
>
> You misread, Darwin wasn't referring to the blacks wagging their tails
> for their white masters specifically, he was speaking in general terms
> about the formidable insight and intellectual acumen of Spencer who
> sold a million books back then. Spencer was a very big deal in 1870,
> he was quoted by John Tyndall and back then SoF and NS was used to
> refer to the same concept. This concept included whites being more
> superior than the tail wagging blacks. That was the context, it might
> not be the context today, the same symbols are used but not the same
> racial superiority idea necessarily.

I repeat, you are straight-forwardly lying about Darwin endorsing that
alleged statement by Spencer. General praise for someone's work does
not mean endorsement of all particulars. Only a moral idiot like
yourself would claim otherwise.

> > I can find no evidence that Spencer said what
> > you claim he said.  I'd like to see if you can produce the source of
> > the quote.  
>
> All Spencer's works are on gutenberg press, download and do a text
> search for "cocker spaniel" or "tail wagging" , you will find it. I
> don't have the reference on me now.

As I pointed out, you've been caught lying numerous times. I already
search on your quote; it doesn't exist. Since you won't provide the
source for the quote the default assumption must be that you invented
it or misrepresented it's content.

Mitchell Coffey

backspace

unread,
Jun 20, 2010, 1:55:54 AM6/20/10
to
On Jun 19, 7:40�pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>�NS's modern meaning is basically "phenotypically

> related differential reproductive success" (although, like all
> scientific terms, the details sometimes get a bit more complex).

In 1874 with Charles Hodge natural selection represented:

"...Natural selection, unguided, submitted to the laws of a pure


mechanism, and exclusively determined by accidents, seems to me, under
another name, the chance proclaimed by Epicurus, equally barren,

equally incomprehensible......"


backspace

unread,
Jun 20, 2010, 3:03:21 AM6/20/10
to
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SRkRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA444&ci=194,1037,704,290&source=bookclip#v=onepage&q&f=false


The Principles of Biology By Herbert Spencer

"....But this survival of the fittest, implies multiplication of the
fittest. Out of the fittest thus multiplied, there will, as before be
an overthrowing of the moving equilibrium wherever it presents the
least opposing force to the new incident force. And by the continual
destruction of the individuals that are the least capable of
maintaining their equilibria in presence of this new incident force,
there must eventuallv be arrived at an altered type completely in
equilibrium with the altered conditions...."

He applied this logic to the blacks and whites, with the whites the
more sophisticated civilized specimen of humanity. They were more
"Fit" or "suitable" than the less "Fitter" blacks.

This was the idea, such historical detail is nowhere to be seen on
wikpedia fitness article.

backspace

unread,
Jun 20, 2010, 5:12:38 AM6/20/10
to
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SRkRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA444&ci=194,1037,704,290&source=bookclip

Spencer wrote:
"....That is to say, it cannot but happen that those individuals whos
functions are most out of equilibrium with the modified aggregate of
external forces, will be those to die; and that those will survive
whos functions happen to be most nearly in equilibrium with the
modified aggregate of external forces...."

=== rephrase ===
...those individuals out of equilibrium ..... will ... die; and that
those will survive who are in equilibrium..."

=== rephrase ===
"...those out of equilibrium die while those in equilibrium will
survive..." which reduces to What happens, happens.

nando_r...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jun 20, 2010, 9:00:10 AM6/20/10
to
Darwin is the central figure in the history of racism. Even for racism
unrelated to Darwin, historians use social darwinism as a reference
explanatory framework of the racism. By reasonable judgement Darwin
was a racist of the most vile sort, and the most vile sort of racist
is the scientific racist. It's one thing to appreciate white skincolor
as more beautiful than black skincolor, althought that can lead to
very superficial unfair judgements. It's quite another thing to assert
that people's values are material and heritable, and natural selection
acts upon them, which is scientific racism.

nando_r...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jun 20, 2010, 9:10:48 AM6/20/10
to
Mitchel Coffey has been lying that Darwin was not a significant racist
for years. I suggest to read Klaus P Fischer book "Nazi Germany, a new
history"

"The rise of pseudo-biological racism is inconceivable without the
intellectual climate of opinion that developed as a result of the
Darwinian revolution"
(Klaus P. Fischer in an email to an evolutionist who was posting on
this forum)

> Mitchell Coffey- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -


Boikat

unread,
Jun 20, 2010, 9:22:47 AM6/20/10
to
On Jun 20, 8:10 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"

<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mitchel Coffey has been lying that Darwin was not a significant racist
> for years. I suggest to read Klaus P Fischer book "Nazi Germany, a new
> history"
>
> "The rise of pseudo-biological racism is inconceivable without the
> intellectual climate of opinion that developed as a result of the
> Darwinian revolution"
> (Klaus P. Fischer in an email to an evolutionist who was posting on
> this forum)
>

You did read the words "pseudo-biological", didn't you? Or are you
just too stupid to know what the words mean?

Boikat

Boikat

unread,
Jun 20, 2010, 9:24:18 AM6/20/10
to
On Jun 20, 8:00 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Darwin is the central figure in the history of racism....

<Snip stupidity>

Since you already know that racism pre-existed Darwin, you are
knowingly making a false claim. You are a liar.

Boikat


nando_r...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jun 20, 2010, 9:41:56 AM6/20/10
to
Pseudo-biological most likely refers to when things that are really
spiritual, such as courage, love, hate etc. are treated as material
and heritable. And this is what Darwin and his fellow Darwinists were
promoting, that these things are also just like arms and legs and
whatever, material heritable attributes.

Boikat

unread,
Jun 20, 2010, 10:15:38 AM6/20/10
to
On Jun 20, 8:41 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"

<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Pseudo-biological most likely refers to when things that are really
> spiritual,

Sorry, you want to asign *your* nterpretation so someone elses words.
The terms speaks for itself, not you and your private definition.

> such as courage, love, hate etc. are treated as material
> and heritable.

You're an idiot.

> And this is what Darwin and his fellow Darwinists were
> promoting, that these things are also just like arms and legs and
> whatever, material heritable attributes.

You really should entertain the notion that you are full of shit. It
may be ther first step in curing your dementia.

Boikat

nando_r...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jun 20, 2010, 10:35:14 AM6/20/10
to
By all means let's email Klaus again, and ask him what he thinks of
Darwinist irate instence that choosing is a way of calculating, in
light of his pronouncement in his book that predetermination is the
most lethal aspect of Nazi ideology.

hersheyh

unread,
Jun 20, 2010, 10:37:28 AM6/20/10
to

Liar! You *refuse* to deal with the ideas behind the phrase. You only
deal with stupid word tricks. I have told you what NS means in current
biology.

> The ideas from
> Empedocles till now is exactly the same, there is nothing new under
> the sun, the words change yes, but not the original idea.

And the ideas that the words represent also can change. You are
claiming that NS, as a phrase, currently means something that it
doesn't. And lying about it repeatedly. That is, you are claiming
that languages are dead and NS can only mean something that is now an
archaic usage. And you do not even try to support such a claim. You
simply toss out a few old philosopher's names without even trying to
connect that with your claims. If you actually believe that there is
literally "nothing new under the sun" with respect to changed or more
precise meanings of phrases or words, then you are a total ignoramus.

> Or do you throw away presents because they
>
> > are "gifts" and that word is derived from a word meaning "poison"?
>
> > > The answer is that we aren't dealing with anything getting "naturaled"
> > > but the underlying Epicurianism and Aristotelianism , their ideas
> > > which is the tautologification of society's thinking skills.
>
> > The "natural" in natural selection is using the common meaning of "not
> > directed by humans". Direction by humans is called "artificial"
> > precisely because of human intervention or manufacture (artifice).
>
> > > NS is the
> > > coda to rehash , repackage Aristotle, to hide what we are actually
> > > dealing with: Democritus, Aristotle, Lucretius etc and their world
> > > view.
> > NS's modern meaning is basically "phenotypically �related differential reproductive success" > (although, like all �scientific terms, the details sometimes get a bit more complex).
>
> phenotypic plasticity is another term, but it has no meaning, only the
> idea with it has meaning.

So deal with the idea, not the phrase. There are plenty of
descriptions, some running for chapters, with multiple examples, that
describe the details of the idea behind the phrase. It is perfectly
obvious that the phrase means different things to different observers
or readers. Some, who have a long history of work in the genetics,
have a highly sophisticated and nuanced understanding of the term.
Others, like most undergraduates that take a required science class,
will have a crude, simple, and unsophisticated understanding of the
term (when they don't wind up getting it wrong). Others, like you,
intentionally remain completely ignorant of the ideas behind the
phrase because learning anything is contrary to your belief system.
Such people wallow in their ignorance, saying stupid things like "What
gets naturaled." or "Who naturalled it."

Who is this person?

Who is what person? See, I was right. You are the last type of
person described. An idiot pseudosavant who thinks he is being
intelligent and witty while merely demonstrating his hillbilly-level
educational status.


nando_r...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jun 20, 2010, 10:45:24 AM6/20/10
to
Computersimulations of natural selection can give the clarity required
that words do not have. The logical operations in the
computersimulation are what natural selection is.

> educational status.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

hersheyh

unread,
Jun 20, 2010, 10:51:23 AM6/20/10
to

And the relevance of this is....? I give you the modern meaning and
you reply with a quote of a person from 1874. And that person was NOT
a biologist, but a Calvinist theologian! One who supported slavery in
the 1830's (although he condemned their mistreatment like most Slavery
supporters of the time, not realizing that the institution itself was
mistreatment). Darwin, of course, was an abolitionist anti-slavery
advocate. And Hodges also *opposed* 'Darwinism' as essentially
'atheism'. So why should we accept his amateur ignorant claims about
what the phrase "natural selection" means as an idea? That would be
as stupid as accepting your ideas or Billy Bob Joe televangelist's
claims.


hersheyh

unread,
Jun 20, 2010, 11:03:26 AM6/20/10
to
On Jun 20, 3:03�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SRkRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA444&ci=194,1037,...

>
> The Principles of Biology By Herbert Spencer
>
> "....But this survival of the fittest, implies multiplication of the
> fittest. Out of the fittest thus multiplied, there will, as before be
> an overthrowing of the moving equilibrium wherever it presents the
> least opposing force to the new incident force. And by the continual
> destruction of the individuals that are the least capable of
> maintaining their equilibria in presence of this new incident force,
> there must eventuallv be arrived at an altered type completely in
> equilibrium with the altered conditions...."

That is the quote.


>
> He applied this logic to the blacks and whites, with the whites the
> more sophisticated civilized specimen of humanity. They were more
> "Fit" or "suitable" than the less "Fitter" blacks.

This is the unsubstantiated claim. You need to find the appropriate
quote here as well. I have no doubt that, for a person of his time
and place, he would regard blacks as "less fit" than whites based on
his view that civilization and 'perceived' ideas about intelligence
and 'cultural backwardness' and 'primitiveness' were universal goods
and goals. And scientists certainly are part of their culture. The
above is why people thought that the hominid lineage evolved head-
first (increasing intelligence) rather than feet-first (bipedalism).
The process of science does, eventually, lead to correction of such
erroneous thought. And, in anthropology, that has led to viewing
'primitive' cultures in a more realistic light and not assuming that
it had a basis in human differences. It also led to an understanding
of how little 'racial' differences there are in the human species, a
fact that was not obvious to *any* 19th or even most 20th century
thinkers. Certainly *most* even anti-slavery individuals (including
Abraham Lincoln) held what we would now rightly observe as 'racist'
ideas.

hersheyh

unread,
Jun 20, 2010, 11:10:23 AM6/20/10
to
On Jun 20, 9:00 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"

<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Darwin is the central figure in the history of racism.

Bullshit. Darwin was an abolitionist and anti-slavery. Unlike most
of the religious thinkers of the time whether they be Muslim,
Christian, Hindi, or Buddhist. You have read the interchange that
occurred between Captain FitzRoy (a fervent Christian) and Darwin on
the issue. If Darwin was a racist, it was no worse than the racism of
Abraham Lincoln.

> Even for racism
> unrelated to Darwin, historians use social darwinism as a reference
> explanatory framework of the racism.

Darwin is not responsible for social darwinism. Herbert Spencer is.

>By reasonable judgement Darwin
> was a racist of the most vile sort, and the most vile sort of racist
> is the scientific racist.

>It's one thing to appreciate white skincolor
> as more beautiful than black skincolor, althought that can lead to
> very superficial unfair judgements.

Here you accuse Darwin of being a racist, while expressing racism
yourself.

> It's quite another thing to assert
> that people's values are material and heritable, and natural selection
> acts upon them, which is scientific racism.

Which 'values' are you talking about?

Boikat

unread,
Jun 20, 2010, 11:22:05 AM6/20/10
to
On Jun 20, 9:35 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"

<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> By all means let's email Klaus again, and ask him what he thinks of
> Darwinist irate instence that choosing is a way of calculating, in
> light of his pronouncement in his book that predetermination is the
> most lethal aspect of Nazi ideology.
>
By all means, do. Ask him to explain to you what "pseudo" means,
'tard-boy. Also, ask him if the distortion and misuse of a theory
invalidates the theory, jerk-wad.

Boikat

nando_r...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jun 20, 2010, 12:02:00 PM6/20/10
to
The idea that all human beings are the same is just a lie which
Darwinists invented in order to facilliate the evolutionary psychology
research program. After the holocaust it became politically
unacceptable to have a research program about heritable intelligence
based on human differences. So they simply asserted all human beings
are the same, based on very little evidence. Scientific racism is
flourishing now in China with help from many Western countries. For
example a company in France was commisioned to put the DNA of the
entire population of China in a database. China has begun killing
heritably diseased foetuses as a matter of national policy at the end
of 90's.

> > wikpedia fitness article.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

nando_r...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jun 20, 2010, 12:11:16 PM6/20/10
to
If your heart decides in freedom that you appreciate white skincolor
as more beautiful than black skincolor, then that's perfectly alright,
there is nothing wrong with that. Having emotions is not a crime.

> > > Mitchell Coffey- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

hersheyh

unread,
Jun 20, 2010, 12:30:01 PM6/20/10
to
On Jun 20, 9:10 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"

<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mitchel Coffey has been lying that Darwin was not a significant racist
> for years. I suggest to read Klaus P Fischer book "Nazi Germany, a new
> history"
>
> "The rise of pseudo-biological racism is inconceivable without the
> intellectual climate of opinion that developed as a result of the
> Darwinian revolution"
> (Klaus P. Fischer in an email to an evolutionist who was posting on
> this forum)

That is probably true. The rise of *pseudoscientific* racism probably
did require the discovery of the mechanisms of natural selection. But
Darwin cannot be blamed for *pseudoscientific* misuse of his ideas.
You keep forgetting that *most* racism, especially in the U.S., has
been based in religion and not science. Specificallly, scientific
racism in the U.S. has more in common with the scientific ideas of the
last great creationist scientist, Louis Agassiz. Namely the idea that
blacks were a different *species* of man created by God that was
intentionally made to be inferior and fit for slavery.

The other, even bigger contributor to *pseudoscientific* racism was
the discovery of particulate genetics by Mendel. That led to a huge
amount of simplistic single gene explanations of human differences in
behavior and led much more directly than evolution by *natural*
selection to eugenic ideas (which is clearly *artificial* selection
akin to animal breeding) in the U.S. and later in Germany.
Interestingly enough, those eugenic ideas were often supported by
people who otherwise would be (correctly) regarded as 'liberal' and
'concerned' for the well-being of the deaf (Alexander Graham Bell),
the blind (Dr. Lucian Howe, who also required silver nitrate in
newborns eyes to prevent neonatal blindness), the retarded and
mentally ill (like you), poor women (Margret Sanger) and social
reformers from ministers who advocated public charity while regarding
paupers as being biologically preordained "parasites" (e.g., the Rev.
Oscar McCulloch) to radicals like George Bernard Shaw. They were
confronted by massive problems of poverty and misery (think Dickens'
London) with essentially nothing but "charity" level funding to deal
with it. They were, needless to say, joined by *racist* apologists,
and the wealthy (for whom, the idea of personal superiority -- think
Tony Hayward -- was pleasing, and who thought eugenics might prevent
the need for such socialist ideas as poverty being counteracted by
public policies like welfare).

There is absolutely no question that they were joined by *some*, but
by no means all, biological scientists of the time. E.g., David Starr
Jordan for one, but not Thomas Hunt Morgan. But here, too, the new
Mendelian genetics rather than evolution, per se, appears to be the
major motivating change in the biological sciences that directly led
to eugenics. That is not surprising, because genetics is much more
closely related to *artificial* breeding programs and eugenics than
the natural selection of evolution. Eugenics is nothing if not animal
breeding and *artificial* selection. Eugenics as practiced in America
(where all the Nazi programs except direct extermination -- forced
sterilization, racial identity codes (esp. in VA*), effective
extermination of Southeastern Indians by labelling them 'Negros',
worthless pseudoscientific programs, and intentionally discriminatory
immigration quotas designed to keep Slavs, Jews, and Southern European
riff-raff out# got their start).

*The head of Virginia's Bureau of Vital Statistics in the 1920s,
Walter Plecker, undertook the determination of the race of Virginians,
using the rule that *any* drop of 'Negro blood' made one a Negro. The
goal was the prevention of "mongrelization" of the white race.
#Worth keeping in mind that America's immigration laws have
historically been *designed* to keep certain immigrants out or in an
illegal status, because, it was claimed, they could never be "real"
Americans. From the time of the Know-Nothings on.

hersheyh

unread,
Jun 20, 2010, 12:52:01 PM6/20/10
to
> You are equivocating between Tautology1 and Tautology3 as perhttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Naming_Conventionsbetween a logical

> validity and a rhetorical tautology.

I am not equivocating at all. You are simply too ignorant of the
meaning of tautology of any kind to have a voice. Referring to what
appears to be a vanity press page on a scratchpad service is not
meaningful.

hersheyh

unread,
Jun 20, 2010, 12:51:22 PM6/20/10
to
On Jun 20, 9:41 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"

<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Pseudo-biological most likely refers to when things that are really
> spiritual, such as courage, love, hate etc. are treated as material
> and heritable.

No. It refers to things that appear to be biological science but
aren't.

WRT "courage", "love", "hate", it is difficult to tell what those
concepts mean outside a particular human context. Even different
human cultures mean different things by those terms. For example, in
some societies, ambushing and killing an opponent in the back would
not be considered "courage" while it would be expected in others and
considered "courage". Is a mother deer defending her fawn exhibiting
"love" for the fawn or "courage" in the face of a foe, whereas a doe
without a fawn running away rather than helping the mother is
exhibiting what? What does "love" mean for insects as opposed to
reproduction? Why do different mammals exhibit different degrees of
*paternal* involvement in parenting?

nando_r...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jun 20, 2010, 12:53:48 PM6/20/10
to
Distinghuising groups of people according to a slight heritable
difference, where one of them goes extinct, just makes people think up
genocidal racist ideas.

The main motor behind racism is that you don't look at the spirit of a
person, but only to their material attributes. And 0 Darwinists here
acknowledge the spiritual. All their racism is now covered with
political correctness, but really they are still essentially the same
as before.

> > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

nando_r...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jun 20, 2010, 1:02:16 PM6/20/10
to
Yes idiot, courage, and love, and such are known subjectively, like
all spiritual things. So when Darwinists such as yourself are
asserting the heritability of these things they are engaging in pseudo-
biological science. Asserting it is biological and a matter of
objective scientific fact, while it is spritual and a matter of
subjective judgement.

> > > Boikat- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

TomS

unread,
Jun 20, 2010, 1:19:30 PM6/20/10