Darwin never said differential reproductive success

14 views
Skip to first unread message

backspace

unread,
Jan 25, 2010, 1:58:37 PM1/25/10
to
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA500.html
"....."Survival of the fittest" is a poor way to think about
evolution. Darwin himself did not use the phrase in the first edition
of Origin of Species. What Darwin said is that heritable variations
lead to differential reproductive success. This is not circular or
tautologous. It is a prediction that can be, and has been,
experimentally verified (Weiner 1994). .............."


Where did Darwin say "reproductive success" or "differential
reproductive success" - I can 't find in in OoS. ?

Ken Shackleton

unread,
Jan 25, 2010, 2:12:56 PM1/25/10
to

Perhaps he did not use those exact words and Weiner is using a modern
term for Darwin's description of the process.

It is clear that Darwin meant differential reproductive success.

Will in New Haven

unread,
Jan 25, 2010, 2:50:39 PM1/25/10
to

Nothing is clear if you can backspace through it.

--
Will in New Haven

Mitchell Coffey

unread,
Jan 25, 2010, 3:05:27 PM1/25/10
to

I agree that that passage in the T.O. FAQ is ambiguously phrased. I
would recommend the removal of the entire sentence reading "Darwin


himself did not use the phrase in the first edition of Origin of

Species." It serves no purpose and might cause some people to
interprit the sentence that follows as meaning that Darwin literally
wrote in the Origin of Species "heritable variations lead to
differential reproductive success." It might be particularly apt to
confuse people unfamiliar with the practice among English speakers of
not using quotations marks when verbatim quotation is not intended.

Mitchell Coffey

David Hare-Scott

unread,
Jan 25, 2010, 3:13:49 PM1/25/10
to


It doesn't matter unless you are a monomaniac formalist cretin who insists
on treating Charles Darwin as the formulator of some extended mystical
syllogism or the preceptor and prophet of a religion. His literal words have
no intrinsic significance except to historians who are interested in the
development of the ideas of evolution in the context of 19th century writing
and culture. This is the 21st century and the concepts that he formulated
and their successors are what is important. The way the observable world
fits the structure and its predictions is significant, not whether you think
'survival of the fittest' is a tautology.

Tautology Man has returned - the moon must be waxing.

Darwin's words represent one historical formulation of part of the system
and those words do not limit or determine the validity of the theory for
ever and one day. Unless you are a blinkered literalist with no
understanding of the modern system that you imagine that you are attacking.

Try to grow your puling intellect past the 12 year old stage that says "I
found a spelling mistake in your work so all of what you say must be wrong".

David

backspace

unread,
Jan 25, 2010, 4:06:05 PM1/25/10
to
On Jan 25, 10:13�ソスpm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
> backspace wrote:
> >http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA500.html
> > "....."Survival of the fittest" is a poor way to think about
> > evolution. Darwin himself did not use the phrase in the first edition
> > of Origin of Species. What Darwin said is that heritable variations
> > lead to differential reproductive success. This is not circular or
> > tautologous. It is a prediction that can be, and has been,
> > experimentally verified (Weiner 1994). .............."
>
> > Where did Darwin say �ソス"reproductive success" or "differential

> > reproductive success" - I can 't find in in OoS. ?
>
> It doesn't matter unless you are a monomaniac formalist cretin who insists
> on treating Charles Darwin as the formulator of some extended mystical
> syllogism or the preceptor and prophet of a religion.

It matters because like "random mutations" the term surfaced around
1910 in the Journals. Darwin also never said "random mutation" very
few know this.

> His literal words have
> no intrinsic significance except to historians who are interested in the
> development of the ideas of evolution in the context of 19th century writing
> and culture.

His literal words had a profound effect on the direction mankind took
with two world wars, a ongoing culture war in America. But it wasn't
his words, he lifted the ideas from Maltus, Mudie, Lucretius,
Democritus, Epicurus, Aristotle and Empedocles. Henry Osborne
documented how Empedocles was the orginator of the concept of natural
selection. Aristotle reformulated Empedocles.

> �ソスThis is the 21st century and the concepts that he formulated


> and their successors are what is important.

It wasn't his concepts but those of Empedocles as documented by Osborn
in his book "From the Greeks to Darwin"

> �ソスThe way the observable world


> fits the structure and its predictions is significant, not whether you think
> 'survival of the fittest' is a tautology.

Who made what predictions? Only somebody could have made a prediction
- who si this person.

> Darwin's words represent one historical formulation of part of the system
> and those words do not limit or determine the validity of the theory for

> ever and one day. �ソス
What theory?

> Unless you are a blinkered literalist with no
> understanding of the modern system that you imagine that you are attacking.

What is the modern system?

> Try to grow your puling �ソスintellect past the 12 year old stage that says "I


> found a spelling mistake in your work so all of what you say must be wrong".

What has been found is Empedocles reformulated through the ages ,
starting with Aristotle .... his trial and error metaphysics infused
into our collective thinking as noted by Popper in his discussion of
Einstein .

backspace

unread,
Jan 25, 2010, 4:13:37 PM1/25/10
to

Does "differential reproductive success" have a single true fixed
meaning? Where was the concept defined and who defined it. DRS like NS
isn't even a sentence, it can be made to mean whatever you want it to
mean.

g...@risky-biz.com

unread,
Jan 25, 2010, 4:53:17 PM1/25/10
to
On Jan 25, 1:58�pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

My daughter just did a report on the legend of Sisyphus. Kin of yours,
I imagine?

Greg Guarino.

Kermit

unread,
Jan 25, 2010, 5:00:01 PM1/25/10
to

He probably didn't say either. Why are you fixated on Darwin? Do you
think chemistry is confined to the ideas and language of Lavoisier?
Must physicists learn archaic Italian to do physics?

You have most peculiar ideas, lad.

Kermit

Ken Shackleton

unread,
Jan 25, 2010, 5:07:53 PM1/25/10
to

Well.....it means that some organisms are more successful at
reproduction than others of their species. This much should be obvious.

Iain

unread,
Jan 25, 2010, 5:17:34 PM1/25/10
to
On Jan 25, 6:58�pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:


> Where did Darwin say �"reproductive success" or "differential
> reproductive success" - I can 't find in in OoS. ?

So? If he didn't use the phrase, maybe he should have. Do you think
science is done by scrutinising old, immutible texts? Don't you think
you may be projecting, judging science by your own crooked yardstick?

--Iain

haiku jones

unread,
Jan 25, 2010, 5:25:02 PM1/25/10
to
On Jan 25, 11:58�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

And nowhere in _1984_ will you find the phrase
"totalitarianism is bad". But that's what the book
sets out to convince you of.

Similarly with _Origin of Species_ That phrase
in fact does not appear -- but it's what Darwin
spent an entire book aimed at convincing you of.


Haiku Jones

Kermit

unread,
Jan 25, 2010, 5:24:47 PM1/25/10
to
On Jan 25, 1:06�pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 25, 10:13�pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > backspace wrote:
> > >http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA500.html
> > > "....."Survival of the fittest" is a poor way to think about
> > > evolution. Darwin himself did not use the phrase in the first edition
> > > of Origin of Species. What Darwin said is that heritable variations
> > > lead to differential reproductive success. This is not circular or
> > > tautologous. It is a prediction that can be, and has been,
> > > experimentally verified (Weiner 1994). .............."
>
> > > Where did Darwin say �"reproductive success" or "differential

> > > reproductive success" - I can 't find in in OoS. ?
>
> > It doesn't matter unless you are a monomaniac formalist cretin who insists
> > on treating Charles Darwin as the formulator of some extended mystical
> > syllogism or the preceptor and prophet of a religion.
>
> It matters because

No, it *doesn't matter. It doesn't matter who started doing
evolutionary science first, nor when, nor what language he spoke.

> like "random mutations" the term surfaced around
> 1910 in the Journals. Darwin also never said "random mutation" very
> few know this.

Correct, because nobody cares except pathological magic-obsessed
idiots. The science depends on the evidence and the model, not the
language of, and certainly not on the choice of words, of a long-dead
man.

>
> > His literal words have
> > no intrinsic significance except to historians who are interested in the
> > development of the ideas of evolution in the context of 19th century writing
> > and culture.
>
> His literal words had �a profound effect on the direction mankind took
> with two world wars,

Evidence?

> a ongoing culture war in America. But it wasn't
> his words, he lifted the ideas from Maltus, Mudie, Lucretius,
> Democritus, Epicurus, Aristotle and Empedocles. Henry Osborne

Who? I don't see him anywhere when I Google. I

> documented how Empedocles was the orginator of the concept of natural
> selection. Aristotle reformulated Empedocles.
>

Perhaps so. Nobody starts civilization anew; nobody rebuilds culture
or science from scratch. When folks speak of the music Mozart created
we do not mean that he started from nothing, a blank slate. He added
to a culture awash in music, but contributed enough himself that he is
seen as a great composer.

And he didn't "lift" the words from anybody; he learned much (he went
to school) and then added to the body of collective knowledge that has
been accumulating for a hundred thousand years and more.

> > �This is the 21st century and the concepts that he formulated


> > and their successors are what is important.
>
> It wasn't his concepts but those of Empedocles as documented by Osborn
> in his book "From the Greeks to Darwin"

What's yer point? In which book did Empedocles write about natural
selection acting on a pool of inheritable variation?

>
> > �The way the observable world


> > fits the structure and its predictions is significant, not whether you think
> > 'survival of the fittest' is a tautology.
>
> Who made what predictions? Only somebody could have made a prediction
> - who si this person.

Nearly every research paper published covers predictions and results.
Look up any of the several million papers on evolutionary biology
published in the last 150 years.

>
> > Darwin's words represent one historical formulation of part of the system
> > and those words do not limit or determine the validity of the theory for
> > ever and one day. �
>

> What theory?

You have been pointed to various descriptions of it hundreds of times.
It is not our problem if you have some peculiar pathology which
prevents using or comprehending intelligible language. I do suggest
that you learn to real simple books before attempting to criticize
science, however. If synonyms confound you, you are probably not ready
for more subtle or complex concepts.

>
> > Unless you are a blinkered literalist with no
> > understanding of the modern system that you imagine that you are attacking.
>
> What is the modern system?

Evolutionary biology.

>
> > Try to grow your puling �intellect past the 12 year old stage that says "I


> > found a spelling mistake in your work so all of what you say must be wrong".
>
> What has been found is Empedocles reformulated through the ages ,
> starting with Aristotle .... his trial and error metaphysics infused
> into our collective thinking as noted by Popper in his discussion of
> Einstein .

No, Empedocles did not do biology, nor did he describe the General
Theory of Relativity. He didn't design automobiles or computer chips,
either. See, we (meaning everybody but you) know more than our
ancestors did 1000 or 1,000,000 years ago. This is because the people
who contribute to civilization learn from those who came before them,
then add art or knowledge themselves. They *build on knowledge. In
this way, knowledge accumulates, and those willing to learn know more
than those in the past.

Some of us have to spend much time fighting those who struggle against
knowledge, however.

Kermit

chris thompson

unread,
Jan 25, 2010, 5:34:33 PM1/25/10
to

Why do you think Darwin had to have used those exact words? Are we
limited to Darwin's choice of words in all our writing about
evolution?

Chris

haiku jones

unread,
Jan 25, 2010, 6:04:03 PM1/25/10
to
On Jan 25, 2:06�ソスpm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 10:13�ソスpm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > backspace wrote:
> > >http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA500.html
> > > "....."Survival of the fittest" is a poor way to think about
> > > evolution. Darwin himself did not use the phrase in the first edition
> > > of Origin of Species. What Darwin said is that heritable variations
> > > lead to differential reproductive success. This is not circular or
> > > tautologous. It is a prediction that can be, and has been,
> > > experimentally verified (Weiner 1994). .............."
>
> > > Where did Darwin say �ソス"reproductive success" or "differential
> > > reproductive success" - I can 't find in in OoS. ?
>
> > It doesn't matter unless you are a monomaniac formalist cretin who insists
> > on treating Charles Darwin as the formulator of some extended mystical
> > syllogism or the preceptor and prophet of a religion.
>
> It matters because like "random mutations" the term surfaced around
> 1910 in the Journals. Darwin also never said "random mutation" very
> few know this.
>
> > His literal words have
> > no intrinsic significance except to historians who are interested in the
> > development of the ideas of evolution in the context of 19th century writing
> > and culture.
>
> His literal words had �ソスa profound effect on the direction mankind took

> with two world wars, a ongoing culture war in America. But it wasn't
> his words, he lifted the ideas from Maltus, Mudie, Lucretius,
> Democritus, Epicurus, Aristotle and Empedocles. Henry Osborne
> documented how Empedocles was the orginator of the concept of natural
> selection. Aristotle reformulated Empedocles.
>
> > �ソスThis is the 21st century and the concepts that he formulated
> > and their successors are what is important.
>
> It wasn't his concepts but those of Empedocles as documented by Osborn
> in his book "From the Greeks to Darwin"
>
> > �ソスThe way the observable world
> > fits the structure and its predictions is significant, not whether you think
> > 'survival of the fittest' is a tautology.
>
> Who made what predictions? Only somebody could have made a prediction
> - who si this person.
>
> > Darwin's words represent one historical formulation of part of the system
> > and those words do not limit or determine the validity of the theory for
> > ever and one day. �ソス
>
> What theory?
>
> > Unless you are a blinkered literalist with no
> > understanding of the modern system that you imagine that you are attacking.
>
> What is the modern system?

That would be the system that evaluates the various
contributions of transposons, population
genetics, partial and wholesale genomic captures, frame-
shift mutations, sexual selection, reproductive isolation,
parasite-driven differentation, genetic drift, modification
of transcription factors, monte carlo simulations,
epigenetic factors both in utero and later,
"costly displays", gene duplicaton followed
by mutation, gene, individual, and group level
selection, copy number "errors", lateral
genetic transfer, and dozens of other particulars
which, if Empedocles et. seq. did discuss, have
been sadly lost to the ages.


>
> > Try to grow your puling �ソスintellect past the 12 year old stage that says "I
> > found a spelling mistake in your work so all of what you say must be wrong".
>
> What has been found is Empedocles reformulated through the ages ,
> starting with Aristotle

And Democritus talked about atoms. But good
luck trying to explain cleavage of the dinitrogen
bond with subsequent C-N bond formation as
catalyzed via a halfnium-based organometallic
cyclopentadienyl sandwich using the insights
of Democritus.


Haiku Jones

bpuharic

unread,
Jan 25, 2010, 6:42:01 PM1/25/10
to
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:06:05 -0800 (PST), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jan 25, 10:13�pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> backspace wrote:
>> >http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA500.html
>> > "....."Survival of the fittest" is a poor way to think about
>> > evolution. Darwin himself did not use the phrase in the first edition
>> > of Origin of Species. What Darwin said is that heritable variations
>> > lead to differential reproductive success. This is not circular or
>> > tautologous. It is a prediction that can be, and has been,
>> > experimentally verified (Weiner 1994). .............."
>>

>> > Where did Darwin say �"reproductive success" or "differential


>> > reproductive success" - I can 't find in in OoS. ?
>>
>> It doesn't matter unless you are a monomaniac formalist cretin who insists
>> on treating Charles Darwin as the formulator of some extended mystical
>> syllogism or the preceptor and prophet of a religion.
>
>It matters because like "random mutations" the term surfaced around
>1910 in the Journals. Darwin also never said "random mutation" very
>few know this.

actually everyone knows this. darwin didn't know about genetics.

you're an idiot

>What has been found is Empedocles reformulated through the ages ,
>starting with Aristotle .... his trial and error metaphysics infused
>into our collective thinking as noted by Popper in his discussion of
>Einstein .

AND he goes on about aristotle.

aristotle's view of science died 400 years ago. as did creationism

bpuharic

unread,
Jan 25, 2010, 6:40:31 PM1/25/10
to


he has a form letter. he just inserts a term from science, says 'what
is its true meaning and who defined it'

he can't even spell his own name without asking who gave it to him

bpuharic

unread,
Jan 25, 2010, 6:39:09 PM1/25/10
to

here we go. another round of linguistic masturbation from a
creationist whose language skills are so poor and twisted by religion
that, when i asked him if he was different than his parents he
shrieked:

"THAT'S ONLY A THEORY!" 'who was the first one to say this?"

if he can't understand he's different than his parents then explaining
reproduction is hopeless

Ron O

unread,
Jan 25, 2010, 6:54:39 PM1/25/10
to

Is backspace really claiming to not have gotten that point?

You can't make this junk up. No matter how stupid something is, an
anti-evolution creationist will have meant it when he says it.

Ron Okimoto

Stuart

unread,
Jan 25, 2010, 7:06:28 PM1/25/10
to

Other than as an historical perspective, who gives a shit
what Darwin said or didn't say and why?

What does that have to do with the current state of TOE and
biological research?

Stuart

Stuart

unread,
Jan 25, 2010, 7:14:59 PM1/25/10
to
On Jan 25, 11:06 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 25, 10:13 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > backspace wrote:
> > >http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA500.html
> > > "....."Survival of the fittest" is a poor way to think about
> > > evolution. Darwin himself did not use the phrase in the first edition
> > > of Origin of Species. What Darwin said is that heritable variations
> > > lead to differential reproductive success. This is not circular or
> > > tautologous. It is a prediction that can be, and has been,
> > > experimentally verified (Weiner 1994). .............."
>
> > > Where did Darwin say "reproductive success" or "differential

> > > reproductive success" - I can 't find in in OoS. ?
>
> > It doesn't matter unless you are a monomaniac formalist cretin who insists
> > on treating Charles Darwin as the formulator of some extended mystical
> > syllogism or the preceptor and prophet of a religion.
>
> It matters because like "random mutations" the term surfaced around
> 1910 in the Journals. Darwin also never said "random mutation" very
> few know this.
>

Darwin didn't know anything about genetics. He didn't know anything
about DNA either.

But Darwin did know about variation and "sports".


> > His literal words have
> > no intrinsic significance except to historians who are interested in the
> > development of the ideas of evolution in the context of 19th century writing
> > and culture.
>
> His literal words had a profound effect on the direction mankind took
> with two world wars, a ongoing culture war in America.

WW1 and 2 started because Europeans couldn't get their collective shit
together. I don't think
the Serb that shot Ferdinand was thinking about Darwinism when he did
that.

Unable to come up with a rational argument against TOE, you do what
most
diseased religious fundamentalists do, seek to blame the worlds
troubles
on TOE or impugn Darwin's good name.

While Darwin was an ardent abolitionist, the SBC was being formed to
keep
the institution of slavery. Those are your forebears and you are their
legacy,
not Darwin's.

You really want to go down this road? I'll make mincemeat out of you.

Stuart

Conan the bacterium

unread,
Jan 25, 2010, 7:46:56 PM1/25/10
to
On Jan 25, 2:06�pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 25, 10:13�pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > backspace wrote:
> > >http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA500.html
> > > "....."Survival of the fittest" is a poor way to think about
> > > evolution. Darwin himself did not use the phrase in the first edition
> > > of Origin of Species. What Darwin said is that heritable variations
> > > lead to differential reproductive success. This is not circular or
> > > tautologous. It is a prediction that can be, and has been,
> > > experimentally verified (Weiner 1994). .............."
>
> > > Where did Darwin say �"reproductive success" or "differential

> > > reproductive success" - I can 't find in in OoS. ?
>
> > It doesn't matter unless you are a monomaniac formalist cretin who insists
> > on treating Charles Darwin as the formulator of some extended mystical
> > syllogism or the preceptor and prophet of a religion.
>


> It matters because like "random mutations" the term surfaced around
> 1910 in the Journals. Darwin also never said "random mutation" very
> few know this.

Huh? Very few whats know this? People who got their
understanding of evolution from a newspaper article?

Pretty much everybody who's read even an overview
of evolutionary theory is well aware of this.

Darwin candidly discussed three major objections that could
be raised to his theory, adding that he could only
hope that future discoveries would somehow answer
these objections, because he himself could not.
The mystery of how beneficial changes could persist
without being diluted out of existance was one of
these big three. So of course Darwin did not
use the phrase "random mutations" -- a phrase
which arose when Mendelian genetics was re-
discovered and expanded.

But Darwin DID postulate novel variations
in inheritable characteristics, even though
he did not use that exact term, nor understand
its present context. But the idea itself ay at the
very heart of his theory.

Conan


>
> > His literal words have
> > no intrinsic significance except to historians who are interested in the
> > development of the ideas of evolution in the context of 19th century writing
> > and culture.
>
> His literal words had �a profound effect on the direction mankind took
> with two world wars, a ongoing culture war in America. But it wasn't
> his words, he lifted the ideas from Maltus, Mudie, Lucretius,
> Democritus, Epicurus, Aristotle and Empedocles. Henry Osborne
> documented how Empedocles was the orginator of the concept of natural
> selection. Aristotle reformulated Empedocles.
>

> > �This is the 21st century and the concepts that he formulated


> > and their successors are what is important.
>
> It wasn't his concepts but those of Empedocles as documented by Osborn
> in his book "From the Greeks to Darwin"
>

> > �The way the observable world


> > fits the structure and its predictions is significant, not whether you think
> > 'survival of the fittest' is a tautology.
>
> Who made what predictions? Only somebody could have made a prediction
> - who si this person.
>
> > Darwin's words represent one historical formulation of part of the system
> > and those words do not limit or determine the validity of the theory for
> > ever and one day. �
>

> What theory?
>
> > Unless you are a blinkered literalist with no
> > understanding of the modern system that you imagine that you are attacking.
>
> What is the modern system?
>

> > Try to grow your puling �intellect past the 12 year old stage that says "I

David Hare-Scott

unread,
Jan 25, 2010, 11:05:52 PM1/25/10
to
backspace wrote:

> On Jan 25, 10:13 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> backspace wrote:
>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA500.html
>>> "....."Survival of the fittest" is a poor way to think about
>>> evolution. Darwin himself did not use the phrase in the first
>>> edition of Origin of Species. What Darwin said is that heritable
>>> variations lead to differential reproductive success. This is not
>>> circular or tautologous. It is a prediction that can be, and has
>>> been, experimentally verified (Weiner 1994). .............."
>>
>>> Where did Darwin say "reproductive success" or "differential

>>> reproductive success" - I can 't find in in OoS. ?
>>
>> It doesn't matter unless you are a monomaniac formalist cretin who
>> insists on treating Charles Darwin as the formulator of some
>> extended mystical syllogism or the preceptor and prophet of a
>> religion.
>
> It matters because like "random mutations" the term surfaced around
> 1910 in the Journals. Darwin also never said "random mutation" very
> few know this.
>

Everybody who has studied biology knows this, clearly you never have.
Saying it surfaced after he published does nothing at all to explain why it
matters, it is a non-sequitur.


>> His literal words have
>> no intrinsic significance except to historians who are interested in
>> the development of the ideas of evolution in the context of 19th
>> century writing and culture.
> His literal words had a profound effect on the direction mankind took
> with two world wars, a ongoing culture war in America.

Bullshit. You ascribe to the rest of the world your insanity.

But it wasn't
> his words, he lifted the ideas from Maltus, Mudie, Lucretius,
> Democritus, Epicurus, Aristotle and Empedocles. Henry Osborne
> documented how Empedocles was the orginator of the concept of natural
> selection. Aristotle reformulated Empedocles.
>

Well if that was the case then humanity had long time (in some cases two
millenia) to respond to those ideas and the impact of Darwin repeating them
on the culture would have been minimal or zero. You have obviously declared
war on your own feet.

The idea that science is mostly the steady accumulation of knowledge has
escaped you. Do you recall anybody famous saying "If I have seen further
than others it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants". Should
Charlie's shade drop in for a word or two I am pretty sure he would not
claim to have created every idea he wrote down from his own navel fluff but
that he benefitted greatly from those who went before and those who
corresponded with him during his life.

>> This is the 21st century and the concepts that he formulated
>> and their successors are what is important.
>
> It wasn't his concepts but those of Empedocles as documented by Osborn
> in his book "From the Greeks to Darwin"
>

So if Darwin didn't do the dirty deed all your posts about him are empty are
they not. That's the second toe you have blown away. You are going fall on
your arse at this rate.

>> The way the observable world
>> fits the structure and its predictions is significant, not whether
>> you think 'survival of the fittest' is a tautology.
> Who made what predictions? Only somebody could have made a prediction
> - who si this person.
>

All the scientists who work in the field and in fields that provide
supporting evidence made the predictions.

>> Darwin's words represent one historical formulation of part of the
>> system and those words do not limit or determine the validity of the
>> theory for ever and one day.

> What theory?
>

Now you want to play more word games. I have been here before. Let's call
it the modern synthesis. The point is what you call it doesn't matter.


>> Unless you are a blinkered literalist with no
>> understanding of the modern system that you imagine that you are
>> attacking.
>
> What is the modern system?

The one expounded in all those biology books that you haven't read.

>
>> Try to grow your puling intellect past the 12 year old stage that


>> says "I found a spelling mistake in your work so all of what you say
>> must be wrong".
>
> What has been found is Empedocles reformulated through the ages ,
> starting with Aristotle .... his trial and error metaphysics infused
> into our collective thinking as noted by Popper in his discussion of
> Einstein .

Well get in your time machine and turn that gun on Empedocles instead of
your feet 'cause he obviously causes you to lose sleep which makes you post
the same monomaniac drivel every few weeks and we could do without that.

David

backspace

unread,
Jan 26, 2010, 12:07:07 AM1/26/10
to

But if a cow was meant to produce beer instead of milk would it still
be a success? For who is what a success, who is this person.

backspace

unread,
Jan 26, 2010, 12:22:09 AM1/26/10
to
On Jan 26, 12:24�am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > It wasn't his concepts but those of Empedocles as documented by Osborn
> > in his book "From the Greeks to Darwin"

> What's yer point? In which book did Empedocles write about natural
> selection acting on a pool of inheritable variation?

Are you using "acting" in the pattern or design sense. This is
something I picked up in OoS where Darwin says ".....NS acts...." but
he was using "acts" in the pattern sense, no will or volition was
involved. In English we have much ambiguity, it is a quirk of the
language itself leading to profound confusion.


> Nearly every research paper published covers predictions and results.
> Look up any of the several million papers on evolutionary biology
> published in the last 150 years.

Which one of them defined what Life is? or what is the transition
matrix that maps polypeptide space in Human space.

> > What has been found is Empedocles reformulated through the ages ,
> > starting with Aristotle .... his trial and error metaphysics infused
> > into our collective thinking as noted by Popper in his discussion of
> > Einstein .

> No, Empedocles did not do biology, nor did he describe the General
> Theory of Relativity. He didn't design automobiles or computer chips,
> either. See, we (meaning everybody but you) know more than our
> ancestors did 1000 or 1,000,000 years ago. This is because the people
> who contribute to civilization learn from those who came before them,
> then add art or knowledge themselves. They *build on knowledge. In
> this way, knowledge accumulates, and those willing to learn know more
> than those in the past.

Empedocles and Aristotle made society think in tautological terms,
this has for example made it impossible for people to understand
bacterial resistance as a cause effect phenomena.

backspace

unread,
Jan 26, 2010, 12:30:25 AM1/26/10
to
On Jan 26, 1:04�am, haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That would be the system that evaluates the various
> contributions of transposons, �population
> genetics, partial and wholesale genomic captures, frame-
> shift mutations, sexual selection, reproductive isolation,
> parasite-driven differentation, genetic drift, modification
> of transcription factors, monte carlo simulations,
> epigenetic factors both in utero and later,
> "costly displays", gene duplicaton followed
> by mutation, gene, individual, and group level
> selection, copy number "errors", lateral
> genetic transfer, and dozens of other particulars

Taking all those insights into something you cannot define: Life,
explain how the egg of a chicken transmits the inverted pendulum
control algorithm to a full grown chicken.

backspace

unread,
Jan 26, 2010, 12:35:53 AM1/26/10
to
On Jan 26, 2:14�am, Stuart <bigdak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Unable to come up with a rational argument against TOE, you do what
> most
> diseased religious fundamentalists do, seek to blame the worlds
> troubles
> on TOE or impugn Darwin's good name.

What theory? What is the theory, spell it out in concrete terms define
it like darwin did. He defined the ToE only once in OoS ".....
theory of gradual evolution....." take the term an look it up on
gutenberg.

John Wilkins

unread,
Jan 26, 2010, 12:35:22 AM1/26/10
to
In article <hjlpnc$695$1...@news.albasani.net>, David Hare-Scott
<sec...@nospam.com> wrote:

> backspace wrote:
> > On Jan 25, 10:13 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> backspace wrote:

...


> > But it wasn't
> > his words, he lifted the ideas from Maltus, Mudie, Lucretius,
> > Democritus, Epicurus, Aristotle and Empedocles. Henry Osborne
> > documented how Empedocles was the orginator of the concept of natural
> > selection. Aristotle reformulated Empedocles.

Osborn's book (no "e") is the worst kind of whig history. Empedocles
said nothing that could reasonably be interpreted as natural selection
to which we have access. Here's what Aristotle reports Empedocles as
saying:

"Here sprang up many faces without necks, arms wandered without
shoulders, unattached, and eyes strayed alone, in need of foreheads (B
57)."

"Many creatures were born with faces and breasts on both sides,
man-faced ox-progeny, while others again sprang forth as ox-headed
offspring of man, creatures compounded partly of male, partly of the
nature of female, and fitted with shadowy parts. (B 61)"

From Aristotle, Phys. II 8, 198b29

and

"Come now, hear how fire as it was separated raised up the nocturnal
shoots of men and pitiable women: it is no erring nor ignorant tale.
Whole-nature shapes first sprang up from the earth, having a portion of
both water and heat. These fire sent up, wishing to come to its like:
they did not yet display the desirable form of limbs nor voice, which
is the part proper to men. (B 62)"

This is nothing like natural selection, and if the parts join (because
of "Love") and are successful, they remain like that thereafter. Here's
a good introduction to Empedoclean thought, assuming against all
evidence that you are concerned about the truth rather than rhetorical
ploys:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/empedocles/
...

backspace

unread,
Jan 26, 2010, 12:44:16 AM1/26/10
to
On Jan 26, 2:46�am, Conan the bacterium

<deinococcus0radiodur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Darwin candidly discussed three major objections that could
> be raised to his theory, adding that he could only
> hope that future discoveries would somehow answer
> these objections, because he himself could not.
> The mystery of how beneficial changes could persist
> without being diluted out of existance was one of
> these big three.

Beneficial , "without being diluted out" and "persist" makes the
sentence a "truthiness-tautology" . Not exactly tautological but
somewhere between a truism and tautology.

rephrase:
".. The mystery of how ... changes could persist without being
diluted out ..."
The fact that they "persist" implies they aren't being diluted out,
making diluted out redundant:
rephrase:
".. The mystery of how ... changes could persist ..."

Now we see your sentence is a disguised truism lets rephrase again:
"..Changes do persist ..." and therefore my world view is correct. ,
which is a non-sequitur.

The stile of writing we get from the neo-empedoclians is formulating
truisms as tautologies , banal truths and "truthiness-tautologies" in
such a way that the overarching thrust can't be disputed .

backspace

unread,
Jan 26, 2010, 1:03:02 AM1/26/10
to
On Jan 26, 2:06�am, Stuart <bigdak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What does that have to do with the current state of TOE and
> biological research?

Where is the current theory that explains how Life is transmitted ?

backspace

unread,
Jan 26, 2010, 2:14:01 AM1/26/10
to
On Jan 26, 7:35�am, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> "Come now, hear how fire as it was separated raised up the nocturnal
> shoots of men and pitiable women: it is no erring nor ignorant tale.
> Whole-nature shapes first sprang up from the earth, having a portion of
> both water and heat. These fire sent up, wishing to come to its like:
> they did not yet display the desirable form of limbs nor voice, which
> is the part proper to men. (B 62)"

> This is nothing like natural selection, and if the parts join (because
> of "Love") and are successful, they remain like that thereafter. Here's
> a good introduction to Empedoclean thought, assuming against all
> evidence that you are concerned about the truth rather than rhetorical
> ploys:

Depends what you define as a Natural Selection. Osborn meant
"...survival of the fittest...." with natural selection. NS isn't a
concept, tautology or a process: It isn't even a sentence, but a term
that could be used as a proxy for any concept. The concept understood
by John Tyndall 1874 in his famous address was SoF , which is a
sentence and this sentence was meant with the term NS back then. What
is meant today with NS could be anything one wishes to: It has no
single true meaning. See http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/JohnTyndall

Osborn actually translated a German work into English, he like many
other people were interpreting other authors. He at least acknowledged
his sources but also made unique contributions. IN 1898 his views on
Evolution were "chance" but Waagen influenced him into "non-chance",
directed or non-random by the time of his NYtimes article in 1924 as
described here:

"...the idea of the 'Survival of the Fittest' must actually be traced
back to Empedocles, six centuries before Christ....", p.117 'From the
Greeks to Darwin by Osborn , available at Gutenberg press.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Fairfield_Osborn
=== darwin greek connection ===
http://www.amazon.com/Darwin-question-form-connection-Metaphysics/dp/B000X4EJUA/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258653107&sr=1-12

=== p.246 ===
The idea of Evolution, rooted in the cosmic evo- lution and ' movement
' of Heraclitus and Aristotle, has passed to the progressive
development and succession of life seen in Empedocles, Aristotle,
Bruno, Descartes, Goethe, and in the more concrete mutability of
species ' of Bacon, Leibnitz, Buffon, Lamarck, and St. Hilaire.


The direct transition from the inorganic to the
organic is seen to have had a host of friends, nearly
to the present time, including, besides all the Greeks,
Lucretius, Augustine, Maillet, Buffon, Erasmus
Darwin, Lamarck, Treviranus, Oken, and Chambers-
Then we have seen the difficulty of ' origin ' removed
one step back by the ' pre-existent germs ' of Anaxa-
goras, revived by Maillet, Robinet, Diderot, and
Bonnet. Again, the rudiments of the monistic idea
of the psychic properties of all matter, foreshadowed
by Empedocles, are seen revived by Maupertuis and
Diderot. The difficulty of origin has been avoided
by the assumption of primordial minute masses,
which we have seen developed from the ' soft germ '
of Aristotle, to the 'vesicles' and 'filaments' of
Buffon, Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck, Oken, and
finally into our primordial protoplasm.

To the inquiry : Where did life first appear ? we
find the answer, ' in the sea,' given by Thales,
Anaximander, and Maillet; 'between sea and land,'
is the answer of Anaximenes, Diogenes, Democritus,
and Oken; 'from the earth,' is the solitary reply of
Lucretius. Now we are too wise to answer it. For
the succession of life we have followed the ' ascend-
ing scale ' of Aristotle, Bruno, Leibnitz, and others,
until Buffon realized its inadequacy, and Lamarck
substituted the simile of the branching tree. Of
man as the summit of the scale, and still in process

of becoming more perfect in his endowments, we
learn from Empedocles, Aristotle, Robinet, Diderot,
Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck, and Treviranus.


=== p.249 ===
Anatomy and Embryology, as pursued by Buffon,
Kant, Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck, Goethe, Trevi-
ranus, St. Hilaire, and Serres. The significance of
' degeneration ' and of * vestigial structures ' mean-
while grew clear in the interpretations of Sylvius,
Buffon, Kant, Goethe, and Lamarck.


=== p.245 ===
Remarkable as this parallelism 1 is, it is not com- plete. The line of
argument is the same, but the point d'appui is different. Darwin
dwells upon variations in single characters, as taken hold of by
Selection ; Wallace mentions variations, but dwells upon full-formed
varieties, as favourably or unfavour- ably adapted. It is perfectly
clear that with Darwin the struggle is so intense that the chance of
sur-
vival of each individual turns upon a single and even slight
variation. With Wallace, Varieties are already presupposed by causes
which he does not discuss, a change in the environment occurs, and
those varieties which happen to be adapted to it survive. There is
really a wide gap between these two statements and applications of the
theory.


=== p.242 ===
Sixth edition of the Origin of Species (1880, p. 424). In the
modification of species he refers as causes, successively to his own,
to Lamarck's, and to Buffon's factor in the following clear language:
"This has been effected chiefly through the natural selection of
numerous, successive, slight, favourable variations; aided in an
important manner by the inherited effects of the use and disuse of
parts....."


=== p.234 ===
Darwin soon saw the force of Selection as the secret of man's success
in forming useful races of animals and plants; and in October, 1838,
while reading Mal- thus on population, the idea of Selection in a
state of Nature first occurred to him as the result of the struggle
for existence, or rather for life, between different individuals and
species.

=== p.230 ===
Osborn quotes Kingsley out of context:
As Canon Kingsley wrote to Maurice : " Darwin is conquering
everywhere, and rushing in like a flood by the mere force of truth
and fact." Osborn left out "...absolute empire of accident..." -
[[CharlesKingsley]], because Osborn didn't believe evolution happened
by chance.

=== p.221 ===
http://www.archive.org/stream/fromgreekstodarw00osborich/fromgreekstodarw00osborich_djvu.txt
THE SELECTIONISTS:

The modern theory of Natural Selection was ex-
pressed first by DR. W. C. WELLS, in 1813, then by
St. Hilaire the elder, then by Matthew, in 1831, and
finally, with considerably less clearness, if at all, by
Naudin, in 1852. Darwin gives us references to
the two English writers. That of Wells is the first
statement of the theory of the survival, not simply
of fittest organisms, as understood by previous
writers, such as Buffon and Treviranus, but of or-
ganisms surviving because of their possession of
favourable variations in single characters. Wells'
paper, read before the Royal Society in 1813, was
entitled, " An Account of a White Female, part of
whose Skin resembles that of a Negro " ; it was not
published until iSiS. 1 He here recognizes the prin-
ciple of Natural Selection, as applied to the races

1 See his Two Essays upon the Dew and Single Vision.

222 DARWIN.

of men, and to the explanation of the origin of sin-
gle characters.

=== Henry Fairfield Osborn ===
{{{
On Nov 7, 8:08 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> === rephrased ===
> ".... The weak and insufficiently endowed among all forms tend to drop
> out.....The strongest.... win. .... The naturally weak fall by the
> wayside............."

And then follow the non-sequitur by John Burroughs
>Species have come to be what they are through this process..

The same theme is carried forth in the book "From the Greeks to
Darwin" by Henry Fairfield Osborn
http://www.archive.org/stream/fromgreekstodarw00osborich/fromgreekstodarw00osborich_djvu.txt

p.117
:''".... It is rather a form of the Survival of the Fittest theory
applied, not to entire organisms,
but to the particles of which it is composed. Blind and ceaseless
trials, such as those imagined by Em- pedocles, Democritus, and
Lucretius, are made by these particles, impelled by their rude
sensibility. As a sequel of many failures, finally a favourable
combination is formed, which persists until a recom- bination is
rendered necessary....."''

Now this was essentially the interpretation of Burroughs of Darwin,
but note how Osborn and Burroughs differed over the term natural
selection.

:''...Morley (not knowing of Empedocles' hypothesis) speaks of as an
anticipation of a famous modern theory, referring of course to *
Natural Selection.' This is especially valuable because it affords
another conclusive proof that the idea of the ' Survival of the
Fittest ' must
actually be traced back to Empedocles, six centuries before Christ. It
is contained in an imaginary dialogue upon the teleological view of
Nature
between ' Saunderson ' and the ' Professor ' : " ... all the faulty
combinations of matter disappeared, and that those individuals only
survived whose mechanism implied no important misadaptation
(contradiction), and who had the power of supporting and per-
petuating themselves....." ''

=== Tautological essence ===
: " ... all the faulty ...disappeared, and that those that
survived.... had the power of .....perpetuating themselves....." ''

Stuart

unread,
Jan 26, 2010, 2:21:13 AM1/26/10
to

If I need to explain that to you, you are in deeper kim chee than I
thought.

Stuart

Ken Shackleton

unread,
Jan 26, 2010, 2:32:58 AM1/26/10
to

Most creationists seem to be stupid on purpose....it's a wall that
they throw up to protect their faith.

Ken Shackleton

unread,
Jan 26, 2010, 2:34:28 AM1/26/10
to

Reproduction by cows would entail the production of calves....not milk
or beer.

C'mon....are you really this stupid?

backspace

unread,
Jan 26, 2010, 2:40:13 AM1/26/10
to
On Jan 26, 9:14�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :''...Morley (not knowing of Empedocles' hypothesis) speaks of as an
> anticipation of a famous modern theory, referring of course to *
> Natural Selection.' This is especially valuable because it affords
> another conclusive proof that the idea of the ' Survival of the
> Fittest ' must
> actually be traced back to Empedocles, six centuries before Christ. It
> is contained in an imaginary dialogue upon the teleological view of
> Nature
> between ' Saunderson ' and the ' Professor ' : " ... all the faulty
> combinations of matter disappeared, and that those individuals only
> survived whose mechanism implied no important misadaptation
> (contradiction), and who had the power of supporting and per-
> petuating themselves....." ''

Who was Morley and Saunderson, because their paragraph was
reformulated verbatim by Darwin and he labeled it Theory of Evolution
as per OoS:
"......This difficulty, as in the case of unconscious selection by
man, is avoided on the theory of gradual evolution, through the
preservation of a large number of individuals, which varied more or
less in any favourable direction, and of the destruction of a large
number which varied in an opposite manner. hat many species have been
evolved in an extremely gradual manner, there can hardly be a
doubt......"

Burkhard

unread,
Jan 26, 2010, 3:06:51 AM1/26/10
to

It would be a success if it increased its reproductive fitness, i.e.
have more viable offspring than the milk producing one. If for
instance beer producing cows would attract the attention of a certain
bipedal parasite that drinks the beer, and in turn feeds the cow and
protects it from predators, this could be a differential advantage
that results in more offspring than that of milk producing cows. It
leaves the problem how to feed that offspring, but if the parasite
takes care of this it could work.

Burkhard

unread,
Jan 26, 2010, 3:09:30 AM1/26/10
to

It is commonly called sex education, and we teach it in secondary
school. It involves mummy and daddy who like each other very much. Ask
your father about it.

backspace

unread,
Jan 26, 2010, 5:12:46 AM1/26/10
to
On Jan 26, 10:06�am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > But if a cow was meant to produce beer instead of milk would it still
> > be a success? For who is what a success, who is this person.
>
> It would be a success if it increased its reproductive fitness, i.e.
> have more viable offspring than the milk producing one. If for
> instance beer producing cows would attract the attention of a certain
> bipedal parasite that drinks the beer, and in turn feeds the cow and
> protects it from predators, this could be a differential advantage
> that results in more offspring than that of milk producing cows. It
> leaves the problem how to feed that offspring, but if the parasite
> takes care of this it could work.

A success is something you achieve on reaching a goal. Do cows have
goals? If cowbat had evolved instead of cow from which perspective
would this be either a success or failure. Lets presumed nothing
evolved ,no animals no humans just blissful unconsciousness , from
which perspective would this be a success or failure.

bpuharic

unread,
Jan 26, 2010, 6:12:29 AM1/26/10
to
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 02:12:46 -0800 (PST), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jan 26, 10:06�am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> > But if a cow was meant to produce beer instead of milk would it still
>> > be a success? For who is what a success, who is this person.
>>
>> It would be a success if it increased its reproductive fitness, i.e.
>> have more viable offspring than the milk producing one. If for
>> instance beer producing cows would attract the attention of a certain
>> bipedal parasite that drinks the beer, and in turn feeds the cow and
>> protects it from predators, this could be a differential advantage
>> that results in more offspring than that of milk producing cows. It
>> leaves the problem how to feed that offspring, but if the parasite
>> takes care of this it could work.
>
>A success is something you achieve on reaching a goal

let me do a pre emptive strike and be backspace, with his linguistic
leukemia:

'who determines this 'success'? and goals are chosen. who 'chooses'
this goal'?

yadda yadda

bpuharic

unread,
Jan 26, 2010, 6:11:23 AM1/26/10
to

and he grows more hair on the palms of his hands, asking questions he
can't begin to understand

bpuharic

unread,
Jan 26, 2010, 6:13:46 AM1/26/10
to
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:22:09 -0800 (PST), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jan 26, 12:24�am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > It wasn't his concepts but those of Empedocles as documented by Osborn
>> > in his book "From the Greeks to Darwin"
>
>> What's yer point? In which book did Empedocles write about natural
>> selection acting on a pool of inheritable variation?
>
>Are you using "acting" in the pattern or design sense. This is
>something I picked up in OoS where Darwin says ".....NS acts...." but
>he was using "acts" in the pattern sense, no will or volition was
>involved. In English we have much ambiguity, it is a quirk of the
>language itself leading to profound confusion.
>

the collapse of meaningfull language is a characteristic of
creationism. thus we have creationists admitting evolution happens
while calling it something else; and we have this guy who thinks the
fact he is different than his parent is a 'theory' and wants to know
who invented that idea.

creationism kills language

bpuharic

unread,
Jan 26, 2010, 6:16:40 AM1/26/10
to
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:44:16 -0800 (PST), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jan 26, 2:46�am, Conan the bacterium
><deinococcus0radiodur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Darwin candidly discussed three major objections that could
>> be raised to his theory, adding that he could only
>> hope that future discoveries would somehow answer
>> these objections, because he himself could not.
>> The mystery of how beneficial changes could persist
>> without being diluted out of existance was one of
>> these big three.
>
>Beneficial , "without being diluted out" and "persist" makes the
>sentence a "truthiness-tautology" . Not exactly tautological but
>somewhere between a truism and tautology.
>
>rephrase:

and his assault on language continues. creationists think in a 3rd
century mindset, before science was invented

so his 'rephrase' is an attempt to recast science in the language of a
pre-scientific culture

dan diner, in his book 'lost in the sacred; why the muslim world stood
still' discussed how, among islamist fundamentalists, language could
not change because it encapsulated sacred ideas

creationism is the same. creationists have their medieval view of the
world. he 'rephrases' scientific concepts in ways that someone from
the 14th century would recognize, but modern science does not

and it's because of his religion

Iain

unread,
Jan 26, 2010, 6:24:36 AM1/26/10
to

Burkhard

unread,
Jan 26, 2010, 6:33:34 AM1/26/10
to
On Jan 26, 10:12�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 26, 10:06�am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > But if a cow was meant to produce beer instead of milk would it still
> > > be a success? For who is what a success, who is this person.
>
> > It would be a success if it increased its reproductive fitness, i.e.
> > have more viable offspring than the milk producing one. If for
> > instance beer producing cows would attract the attention of a certain
> > bipedal parasite that drinks the beer, and in turn feeds the cow and
> > protects it from predators, this could be a differential advantage
> > that results in more offspring than that of milk producing cows. It
> > leaves the problem how to feed that offspring, but if the parasite
> > takes care of this it could work.
>
> A success is something you achieve on reaching a goal. Do cows have
> goals?

Says who? The example I gave you explicated how "success" in
"differential reproductive success" is understood, goals are not
mentioned. You could say that this uses the word partly in an
analogous way (but then, success as "achieving a goal is a relatively
recent meaning too - originally, it just mean: "to follow" ) but every
competent speaker of Englis who reads a standard textbook in biology
should get the meaning.


If cowbat had evolved instead of cow from which perspective
> would this be either a success or failure.

As far as the ToE is involved, neither. Just a thing that happened

Burkhard

unread,
Jan 26, 2010, 6:36:14 AM1/26/10
to
On Jan 26, 5:44�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 26, 2:46�am, Conan the bacterium
>
> <deinococcus0radiodur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Darwin candidly discussed three major objections that could
> > be raised to his theory, adding that he could only
> > hope that future discoveries would somehow answer
> > these objections, because he himself could not.
> > The mystery of how beneficial changes could persist
> > without being diluted out of existance was one of
> > these big three.
>
> Beneficial , "without being diluted out" and "persist" makes the
> sentence a "truthiness-tautology" . Not exactly tautological but
> somewhere between a truism and tautology.
>
> rephrase:

aka: falsify


> ".. The mystery of how ... changes could persist �without being
> diluted out ..."
> The fact that they "persist" implies they aren't being diluted out,
> making diluted out redundant:
> rephrase:

aka: forge

> ".. The mystery of how ... changes could persist ..."
>
> Now we see your sentence is a disguised truism lets rephrase again:

aka: let's dishonestly put words in your mouth you did not use.

Mitchell Coffey

unread,
Jan 26, 2010, 9:31:46 AM1/26/10
to

First place, you should look up the word "verbatim," it doesn't mean
what you think it means. Secondly, even a simpleton should understand
that ideas and facts are true regardless who thought of it, in your
satisfaction, first. Third and significantly, since Morley was about
21 when the OoS was published and Saunderson wasn't born until about
fourteen years after Darwin's death, there are serious issue regarding
your claim that they anticipated Darwin's ideas.

Mitchell Coffey

g...@risky-biz.com

unread,
Jan 26, 2010, 9:38:09 AM1/26/10
to
On Jan 25, 4:13�pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 9:12�pm, Ken Shackleton <ken.shackle...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 25, 11:58�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA500.html
> > > "....."Survival of the fittest" is a poor way to think about
> > > evolution. Darwin himself did not use the phrase in the first edition
> > > of Origin of Species. What Darwin said is that heritable variations
> > > lead to differential reproductive success. This is not circular or
> > > tautologous. It is a prediction that can be, and has been,
> > > experimentally verified (Weiner 1994). .............."
>
> > > Where did Darwin say �"reproductive success" or "differential
> > > reproductive success" - I can 't find in in OoS. ?
>
> > Perhaps he did not use those exact words and Weiner is using a modern
> > term for Darwin's description of the process.
>
> > It is clear that Darwin meant differential reproductive success.
>
> Does "differential reproductive success" have a single true fixed
> meaning? Where was the concept defined and who defined it.

Choose any word in your paragraph above. Tell me who defined it and
when.

> DRS like NS
> isn't even a sentence,

Luckily scientists do use sentences, paragraphs and indeed whole books
to explain their ideas clearly. It's you, and only you, who dissects
language into tiny bits in a desperate attempt to feign confusion.
Sad.

Greg Guarino

Mitchell Coffey

unread,
Jan 26, 2010, 10:30:47 AM1/26/10
to

At least you've evolved yourself, at bit; last year you insisted that
in the OoS Darwin never defined the theory of evolution. It doesn't
of course matter what Darwin wrote in 1859, neither is there any sane
reason to define it in 2010 as Darwin did, but this is the first time
I've ever seen you acknowledge that facts exist.

Mitchell Coffey

hersheyh

unread,
Jan 26, 2010, 11:30:41 AM1/26/10
to

To say that a cow was "meant" to produce x is meaningless gibberish
unless you can point to a sentient mechanism that led to that result.
The mechanism that did lead to the production of milk rather than beer
was natural selection, in which the dumb, non-sentient environment led
to the result by natural selection. The dumb non-sentient environment
did not *mean* to produce milk. It is simply the result to which cows
were constrained and that led to their successful reproduction.

> For who is what a success, who is this person.

Biological success is empirically defined by biologists as that
phenotypic variation that has the greatest reproductive outcome
relative to its competitor phenotypes in a species. There are a
number of ways to measure this relative reproductive success. That
success is always conditional on the current environment. Being a
relative "success" in a disappearing environment favorable for your
species doesn't prevent extinction. It just means that you (or,
rather, your progeny) are the last of your species to go to that dark
end. Being a relative success in either a stable or growing
environmental niche or in being able to enter a previously unusable
niche means that your particular phenotypes get perpetuated to the
extent that they are genetically determined.

You could, if you were so moved, define biological success as early
death or sterility, all without issue. As a member of a cult that
wishes for a good sin-free death, perhaps that is how you define
"biological success." But few biological organisms would regard that
as "success" as evidenced by the amount of energy and effort put into
the competition for mates and care for offspring.


hersheyh

unread,
Jan 26, 2010, 11:47:41 AM1/26/10
to

Life has *continuously* and *uninterruptedly* been transmitted and
informed by genetic chemicals since life first appeared on this
planet (by whatever means it first appeared) some 3.8 bybp ago. The
exact genetic chemical may have changed since that time (the current
genetic chemical for all but a few viruses is a chemical called DNA;
it may have been RNA or PNA or something else earlier on). The exact
genetic information certainly has during that time, since it has
diverged and changed over all that time to produce the entire present
biota from bacteria to plants to other eucaryotes to metazoan
animals. This chemical generates and is transmitted as an enclosed
self-perpetuating chemical reaction. Once that reaction stops, the
organism is individually called 'dead', but, if fortunate it may have
transmitted the information (perhaps modified) to a new generation.

What is your current theory that explains how Life is transmitted?
Vital force? Protein?

jillery

unread,
Jan 26, 2010, 12:08:06 PM1/26/10
to
On Jan 26, 11:47�am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 26, 1:03�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 26, 2:06 am, Stuart <bigdak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > What does that have to do with the current state of TOE and
> > > biological research?
>
> > Where is the current theory that explains how Life is transmitted ?
>
> Life has *continuously* and *uninterruptedly* been transmitted


IOW common descent.
Just thought I should make this point even more blatantly obvious to
the ID crowd.
Carry on.

haiku jones

unread,
Jan 26, 2010, 12:26:17 PM1/26/10
to
On Jan 25, 10:30�pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 26, 1:04 am, haiku jones <575jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That would be the system that evaluates the various
> > contributions of transposons, population
> > genetics, partial and wholesale genomic captures, frame-
> > shift mutations, sexual selection, reproductive isolation,
> > parasite-driven differentation, genetic drift, modification
> > of transcription factors, monte carlo simulations,
> > epigenetic factors both in utero and later,
> > "costly displays", gene duplicaton followed
> > by mutation, gene, individual, and group level
> > selection, copy number "errors", lateral
> > genetic transfer, and dozens of other particulars
>
> Taking all those insights into something you cannot define: Life,
> explain how the egg of a chicken transmits the inverted pendulum
> control algorithm to a full grown chicken.

Before we continue this discussion, may I
suggest that you might want to invest in one
of these:

http://tinyurl.com/yb94bhc

It will significantly reduce the work
required for you to repeatedly excavate and
relocate the goal posts.


Haiku Jones

Inez

unread,
Jan 26, 2010, 1:25:39 PM1/26/10
to
On Jan 25, 10:58�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA500.html
> "....."Survival of the fittest" is a poor way to think about
> evolution. Darwin himself did not use the phrase in the first edition
> of Origin of Species. What Darwin said is that heritable variations
> lead to differential reproductive success. This is not circular or
> tautologous. It is a prediction that can be, and has been,
> experimentally verified (Weiner 1994). .............."
>
> Where did Darwin say �"reproductive success" or "differential
> reproductive success" - I can 't find in in OoS. ?

I'm curious if you can point to a single person who finds your line of
argument convincing. Creationist, "evolutionst," anyone.

Conan the bacterium

unread,
Jan 26, 2010, 1:33:33 PM1/26/10
to

Hey, I think you could even have left out "convincing"...


Conan

backspace

unread,
Jan 26, 2010, 1:53:51 PM1/26/10
to
On Jan 26, 6:30�pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The mechanism that did lead to the production of milk rather than beer
> was natural selection, in which the dumb, non-sentient environment led
> to the result by natural selection. �The dumb non-sentient environment
> did not *mean* to produce milk. �It is simply the result to which cows
> were constrained and that led to their successful reproduction.

But if the cow had in fact produced beer, you would tell me the same
story(milk replaced with beer) making your narrative unfalsifiable.

> > For who is what a success, who is this person.

> Biological success is empirically defined by biologists as that
> phenotypic variation that has the greatest reproductive outcome

> relative to its competitor phenotypes in a species. �

Who is this biologist and when did he define it?

>There are a
> number of ways to measure this relative reproductive success.

Begging the question here, you are assuming the term is an accepted
agreed apon protocol between signal sender and receiver. As a term DRS
could be used as a proxy for any concept defined by any individual: To
which person are you referring to. Take the term "ninja turtles", in
our cultural context it refers to a pietza eating turtle by the name
of Donatello. In Japan though 200 years ago it would be a Ninja hiding
in a turtle suite.
NT like NS and DRS aren't sentences but terms , used as and encoding
mechanism between signal sender and receiver, an agreed apon protocol
for some agreed apon concept. What is the concept with DRS and who has
this concept because DRS like NS , NT , SoF and "Beer is beer" has no
single true meaning

>�That
> success is always conditional on the current environment. �

Truism, anything in existence depends on its environment.


> Being a
> relative "success" in a disappearing environment favorable for your
> species doesn't prevent extinction.

Truthiness -tautology

> �Being a relative success in either a stable or growing


> environmental niche or in being able to enter a previously unusable
> niche means that your particular phenotypes get perpetuated to the
> extent that they are genetically determined.

TAutology

> You could, if you were so moved, define biological success as early

> death or sterility, all without issue. �
Not moved, who has defined what in the same sense Newton defined the
inverse square law.

David Hare-Scott

unread,
Jan 26, 2010, 4:20:47 PM1/26/10
to

I don't think that facts matter in the Backspace universe. He is like the
marketeer commanded to sell shrink-wrapped turd sandwiches, he hopes that if
he skips around quickly enough and repeats 'all natural straight from the
cow to you' often enough somebody will buy it.

David

Stuart

unread,
Jan 26, 2010, 4:52:40 PM1/26/10
to
On Jan 26, 8:53 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 26, 6:30 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The mechanism that did lead to the production of milk rather than beer
> > was natural selection, in which the dumb, non-sentient environment led
> > to the result by natural selection. The dumb non-sentient environment
> > did not *mean* to produce milk. It is simply the result to which cows
> > were constrained and that led to their successful reproduction.
>
> But if the cow had in fact produced beer, you would tell me the same
> story(milk replaced with beer) making your narrative unfalsifiable.

His narrative, you microencephalopath, is independent of whatever it
is a cow
produces. The what is irrelevant, the how is via differential
reproductive success.

>
> > > For who is what a success, who is this person.
> > Biological success is empirically defined by biologists as that
> > phenotypic variation that has the greatest reproductive outcome
> > relative to its competitor phenotypes in a species.
>
> Who is this biologist and when did he define it?

Any number of biologists use this definition.

Your preoccupation with who said what, when.. is ridiculous and quite
besides the point.

>
> >There are a
> > number of ways to measure this relative reproductive success.
>
> Begging the question here, you are assuming the term is an accepted
> agreed apon protocol between signal sender and receiver.

Who said anything about signal and sender?

Where did that come from?

Stuart

Mitchell Coffey

unread,
Jan 26, 2010, 5:13:45 PM1/26/10