The Evolution of the God Gene - NY Times

8 views
Skip to first unread message

backspace

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 3:08:23 AM12/6/09
to
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html?scp=1&sq=%22natural%20selection%22&st=cse

"..........This and other research is pointing to a new perspective on
religion, one that seeks to explain why religious behavior has
occurred in societies at every stage of development and in every
region of the world. Religion has the hallmarks of an evolved
behavior, meaning that it exists because it was favored by natural
selection. It is universal because it was wired into our neural
circuitry before the ancestral human population dispersed from its
African homeland.............."

=== rephrase ===
"...Religion has the hallmarks of an evolved behavior, meaning that it
exists because it was favored by natural selection...."

=== rephrase ===
"....Whatever has the hallmarks of an evolved behavior, meaning that
it exists because it was favored by natural selection...."

=== rephrase ===
"....Whatever .... exists because it was favored by natural
selection...."

=== rephrase take out NS red herring ===
"....Whatever .... exists because it was favored by Roger rabbit..."

=== Tautology ===
"....Whatever .... exists , exists because it was favored....."
favored and exists alludes to the same fact, NY times guaranteed the
truth of their proposition and then associated it wit the term NS.


Tim DeLaney

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 3:32:04 AM12/6/09
to
On Dec 6, 3:08�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html?scp=1&sq=%...

If you have a cogent point, please make it.

Tim

Burkhard

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 4:26:44 AM12/6/09
to

You cut out the anaphoric: "This and other research" which points you
to the empirical content of the study, with testable reasons why
exactly religion might have conferred an advantage at a specific
point in time.

bpuharic

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 5:22:25 AM12/6/09
to
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 00:08:23 -0800 (PST), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html?scp=1&sq=%22natural%20selection%22&st=cse
>
>"..........This and other research is pointing to a new perspective on
>religion, one that seeks to explain why religious behavior has
>occurred in societies at every stage of development and in every
>region of the world. Religion has the hallmarks of an evolved
>behavior, meaning that it exists because it was favored by natural
>selection. It is universal because it was wired into our neural
>circuitry before the ancestral human population dispersed from its
>African homeland.............."

unfortunately backspace, whose language skills are elementary and
rudimentary, tries to analyse a complex idea through the lens of
simplistic religious fundamentalism


.."
>
>=== Tautology ===
>"....Whatever .... exists , exists because it was favored....."
>favored and exists alludes to the same fact, NY times guaranteed the
>truth of their proposition and then associated it wit the term NS.
>

proof of his lack of language skills is that he calls an idea verified
by experiment (natural selection) a 'tautology' thus demonstrating he
doesn't know what a tautology is. he doesnt know what an experiment
is, either. if natural selection were a tautology, there wouldn't be
other modes of evolution besides natural selection.

oh well....creationism is a dead idea.

Eric Root

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 8:22:07 AM12/6/09
to
On Dec 6, 5:22�am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 00:08:23 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html?scp=1&sq=%...

>
> >"..........This and other research is pointing to a new perspective on
> >religion, one that seeks to explain why religious behavior has
> >occurred in societies at every stage of development and in every
> >region of the world. Religion has the hallmarks of an evolved
> >behavior, meaning that it exists because it was favored by natural
> >selection. It is universal because it was wired into our neural
> >circuitry before the ancestral human population dispersed from its
> >African homeland.............."
>
> unfortunately backspace, whose language skills are elementary and
> rudimentary, tries to analyse a complex idea through the lens of
> simplistic religious fundamentalism
> .."
>
> >=== Tautology ===
> >"....Whatever .... exists , exists because it was favored....."
> >favored and exists alludes to the same fact, NY times guaranteed the
> >truth of their proposition and then associated it wit the term NS.
>
> proof of his lack of language skills is that he calls an idea verified
> by experiment (natural selection) a 'tautology' thus demonstrating he
> doesn't know what a tautology is. �he doesnt know what an experiment
> is, either. if natural selection were a tautology, there wouldn't be
> other modes of evolution besides natural selection.
>
> oh well....creationism is a dead idea.

He also never learns, because all this has been explained to him many
times.

g...@risky-biz.com

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 9:22:44 AM12/6/09
to

\What definition of "rephrase" are you using, and who established it?

backspace

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 10:27:30 AM12/6/09
to
On Dec 6, 4:22�pm, "g...@risky-biz.com" <g...@risky-biz.com> wrote:
> > === Tautology ===
> > "....Whatever .... exists , exists because it was favored....."
> > favored and exists alludes to the same fact, NY times guaranteed the
> > truth of their proposition and then associated it wit the term NS.

The NYtime rephrased Aristotle: "....those constituted weren't
perishable...." which reduces: What happens , happens because the
hapstance happened and thus be somehow favored or it wouldn't have
happened..."

FAct is something happened: Many are religious. The question is why
are they religious? Nothing is explained by saying that because being
religious exists it was "favored", obviously it was "favored" or being
religious wouldn't have existed. This fallacious reasoning has nothing
to do with the term natural selection.

bpuharic

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 10:37:23 AM12/6/09
to

it's a good thing evolution doesn't say this, then, isn't it?

religion, of course, when it's not persecuting homosexuals, says 'god
did it' and pretends this means something

Boikat

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 10:37:42 AM12/6/09
to
On Dec 6, 9:27�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 4:22�pm, "g...@risky-biz.com" <g...@risky-biz.com> wrote:
>
> > > === Tautology ===
> > > "....Whatever .... exists , exists because it was favored....."
> > > favored and exists alludes to the same fact, NY times guaranteed the
> > > truth of their proposition and then associated it wit the term NS.
>
> The NYtime rephrased Aristotle: "....those constituted weren't
> perishable...." which reduces: What happens , happens because the
> hapstance happened and thus be somehow favored or it wouldn't have
> happened..."
>
> FAct is something happened: Many are religious. The question is why
> are they religious?

Because they were raised to be religious.

> Nothing is explained by saying that because being
> religious exists it was "favored", obviously it was "favored" or being
> religious wouldn't have existed. This fallacious reasoning has nothing
> to do with the term natural selection.

No, it doesn't. It's all a matter of what the children are taught at
a young age, and what they decide to accept as they mature.

Boikat

bobsyo...@yahoo.com

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 11:34:20 AM12/6/09
to

"backspace" <steph...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:41b304c0-3a5c-47b1...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...


What is the gene? Has anyone actually found it - or is this just a religious
believers "take" on the issue.

What qualities does religion have to MAKE it favorable in natural selection?
I cannot think of any.

There is valid reason that mankind evolved to a certain level that he was
coming up with questions about life, death, the universe, his own existence.
Lacking the answers (either because there are no answers, or because he did
not have enough knowledge to find a scientific answer), he invented an
answer - there is a god.

The "ignorance" would have been common throughout the world, and god, as an
answer, would have been common.
That does not mean there is a god (to be followed by believers), or that
there is ANY "advantage" to having religion.

It is akin to saying the human attribute of finding things beautiful MUST
have an evolutionary (and genetic) base - because people (now, and in the
past) have it.

Steven L.

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 12:11:27 PM12/6/09
to

You've already had this explained to you a thousand times.

Being favored does NOT *guarantee* success of reproduction. It only
increases the probability of success by some value.

That's why statements like "Baseball teams with strong hitters and
powerful pitchers and capable fielders tend to win the World Series" are
not tautologies. There have been plenty of upsets where the underdog won.

Give it up.

The tautology argument was exploded more than 50 years ago. It makes no
more sense now than it did then.


--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

backspace

unread,
Dec 7, 2009, 12:20:52 AM12/7/09
to
On Dec 6, 6:34�pm, "PepsiFr...@teranews.com" <bobsyoung...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> What is the gene? Has anyone actually found it - or is this just a religious
> believers "take" on the issue.
>
> What qualities does religion have to MAKE it favorable in natural selection?
> I cannot think of any.

Depends what you mean by natural selection. What is a natural
selection?

Richard Smol

unread,
Dec 7, 2009, 3:13:00 AM12/7/09
to

You really refuse to learn anything. Amazing.

RS

Kilmir

unread,
Dec 7, 2009, 5:33:30 AM12/7/09
to
On 6 dec, 17:34, "PepsiFr...@teranews.com" <bobsyoung...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> "backspace" <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:41b304c0-3a5c-47b1...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html?scp=1&sq=%...

Actually there are some. Back when we started to wonder about the
world the first existentialist thoughts would have arisen as well. A
religion explaining all (or at least enough) gave peace of mind and
diverted mental labor from trying to figure out the big problems to
focus more on day to day problems. Religion manifested itself also
into religious leaders who usually kept the wisdom of the tribe
around. "You need to plant your seeds when Odin makes things start to
grow" is an effective way to document planting season and weaves well
into the mythical lore of how the world worked.

That it later on hampered scientific inquiry into the real origins is
just an unfortunate leftover.

> There is valid reason that mankind evolved to a certain level that he was
> coming up with questions about life, death, the universe, his own existence.
> Lacking the answers (either because there are no answers, or because he did
> not have enough knowledge to find a scientific answer), he invented an
> answer - there is a god.

Indeed, explain the unknown with the known; anthropomorphizing nature.
It's no real wonder that most gods have very typical human aspects,
again explaining it's behavior with the only knowledge they had:
themselves.

> The "ignorance" would have been common throughout the world, and god, as an
> answer, would have been common.
> That does not mean there is a god (to be followed by believers), or that
> there is ANY "advantage" to having religion.


I can think of several reasons why religion had an advantage in early
days. All those reasons have been surpassed by science though; there
is no reason *anymore* to keep religion around.

> It is akin to saying the human attribute of finding things beautiful MUST
> have an evolutionary (and genetic) base - because people (now, and in the
> past) have it.

Actually there might be advantages to this as well. A beautiful woman
might be considered beautiful because she looks more healthy which is
a damn good natural selection criterium.
I've read about research into more primitive tribes that fat women
were more desirable and considered more beautiful. The selection
effect being obvious that those women were more proficient in
providing for themselves.
That the "beautiful" perception also considers useless aspects of
random objects could be just a side-effect of the way our brain
designates something as beautiful (symmetry, certain colors, etc).

Burkhard

unread,
Dec 7, 2009, 10:43:57 AM12/7/09
to

Possibly, but I'd say the most obvious advantage of religion was
enabling internal altruism while compensating the individual who suffers
as a result with the spoils from external conquest. Or with other words,
they make better warrior societies.

So it is not so much science, as the secular religions like nationalism
that replaced them.


Desertphile

unread,
Dec 7, 2009, 11:40:15 AM12/7/09
to
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 00:08:23 -0800 (PST), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html?scp=1&sq=%22natural%20selection%22&st=cse

> "... religious behavior has occurred in societies at


> every stage of development and in every region of the

> world.....

That claim, of course, is not known to be true and I am not at all
surprised that the New York Times didn't bother to vet the
article. Also, just how inclusive is the behavior meant by the
phrase "religious behavior?" Member of the America Treason Party
here in the USA (i.e., Republicans) show a frightening cult
behavior no different than religious theofascism; "free energy"
believers also show religious-like devotion to their beliefs.


--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz

Desertphile

unread,
Dec 7, 2009, 11:43:32 AM12/7/09
to
On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 01:26:44 -0800 (PST), Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> On 6 Dec, 08:08, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html?scp=1&sq=%22natural%20selection%22&st=cse

(CUTS)

> You cut out the anaphoric: "This and other research" which points you
> to the empirical content of the study, with testable reasons why
> exactly religion might have conferred an advantage at a specific
> point in time.

Religion is nothing more than culture bigotry; if humans were not
group-identifying bigots, religion would not exist. Religion came
after the trait to consider one's group superior.

bpuharic

unread,
Dec 7, 2009, 6:58:43 PM12/7/09
to


it's been defined ad nauseum. your language skills are compromised by
your religoius beliefs so you can't understand it

Desertphile

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 11:35:57 AM12/8/09
to
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:58:43 -0500, bpuharic <wf...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 21:20:52 -0800 (PST), backspace
> <steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 6, 6:34�pm, "PepsiFr...@teranews.com" <bobsyoung...@yahoo.com>
> >wrote:
> >> What is the gene? Has anyone actually found it - or is this just a religious
> >> believers "take" on the issue.
> >>
> >> What qualities does religion have to MAKE it favorable in natural selection?
> >> I cannot think of any.

> >Depends what you mean by natural selection. What is a natural
> >selection?

Golly, it really is true what they say abouyt Creationists being
learning-impaired.



> it's been defined ad nauseum.

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

> your language skills are compromised by
> your religoius beliefs so you can't understand it

Embracing the occult is detremental to all thought processes.

Kilmir

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 6:25:48 PM12/8/09
to
On 7 dec, 16:43, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Kilmir wrote:
> > On 6 dec, 17:34, "PepsiFr...@teranews.com" <bobsyoung...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >> "backspace" <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:41b304c0-3a5c-47b1...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html?scp=1&sq=%...
> >>> ďż˝"..........This and other research is pointing to a new
> > �grow" is an effective way to document planting season and weaves

> > well into the mythical lore of how the world worked.
>
> > That it later on hampered scientific inquiry into the real origins is
> > �just an unfortunate leftover.

>
> >> There is valid reason that mankind evolved to a certain level that
> >> he was coming up with questions about life, death, the universe,
> >> his own existence. Lacking the answers (either because there are no
> >> answers, or because he did not have enough knowledge to find a
> >> scientific answer), he invented an answer - there is a god.
>
> > Indeed, explain the unknown with the known; anthropomorphizing
> > nature. It's no real wonder that most gods have very typical human
> > aspects, again explaining it's behavior with the only knowledge they
> > had: themselves.
>
> >> The "ignorance" would have been common throughout the world, and
> >> god, as an answer, would have been common. That does not mean there
> >> is a god (to be followed by believers), or that there is ANY
> >> "advantage" to having religion.
>
> > I can think of several reasons why religion had an advantage in early
> > �days. All those reasons have been surpassed by science though; there
> > �is no reason *anymore* to keep religion around.

>
> Possibly, but I'd say the most obvious advantage of religion was
> enabling internal altruism while compensating the individual who suffers
> as a result with the spoils from external conquest. Or with other words,
> they make better warrior societies.

Not so sure. Altruism seems to be more genetic and operate at a more
basic level. It comes with the whole social-animal deal which was in
place long before we developed cognative abilities. Of course
religions hooked into it and eventually claimed it as one of their
main points. Still happens today as you can tell with theists claiming
moral and ethical high ground over atheists for instance. Religions
did enhance internal altruism by providing more hard lines of us vs
them, but it wasn't really necessary and to this day is a source of
strife and hostility.

What I hypothesised above is more focussed on how religions got a
foothold in the first place, why it happened with basically all
separate human cultures and thus what the direct evolutionary
advantage was.
The peace of mind stuff is very directly a result of religions and
it's bases are numerous; from fear of death to origins of the
universe, from universal justice to purpose of being.


> So it is not so much science, as the secular religions �like nationalism
> that replaced them.


Ray Martinez

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 7:23:55 PM12/8/09
to
> truth of their proposition and then associated it with the term NS.

Argument lay-out, and your conclusion, is brilliant.

The way I see it: the claims of natural selection is the evidence of
refutation.

"....Whatever .... exists , exists because it was favored....."

That's all that "survival of the fittest" says. "Whatever exists,
exists because it was fit or is fitter."

How could anyone with a brain think that this simpleton nonsense is
science or scientific? Evolution is pure fraud. Dr. Gene Scott, Ph.D
Stanford Universtiry must be right: acceptance and "success" of
evolution is a punishment from God for denying ID to exist in nature.

Ray

bpuharic

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 7:47:09 PM12/8/09
to
On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 16:23:55 -0800 (PST), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>> "....Whatever .... exists , exists because it was favored....."
>> favored and exists alludes to the same fact, NY times guaranteed the
>> truth of their proposition and then associated it with the term NS.
>
>Argument lay-out, and your conclusion, is brilliant.
>
>The way I see it: the claims of natural selection is the evidence of
>refutation.
>
>"....Whatever .... exists , exists because it was favored....."
>
>That's all that "survival of the fittest" says. "Whatever exists,
>exists because it was fit or is fitter."
>
>How could anyone with a brain think that this simpleton nonsense is
>science or scientific? Evolution is pure fraud. Dr. Gene Scott, Ph.D
>Stanford Universtiry must be right: acceptance and "success" of
>evolution is a punishment from God for denying ID to exist in nature.
>
>Ray

ray thinks only 1 guy in history graduated from stanford.

then he married a hooker

haiku jones

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 8:02:19 PM12/8/09
to

Do you think then that this is incorrect? That, overall, organisms
in fact do *not* have better survival rates because they
are better fitted to their environments?


> Evolution is pure fraud. Dr. Gene Scott, Ph.D
> Stanford Universtiry must be right: acceptance and "success" of
> evolution is a punishment from God for denying ID to exist in nature.


We are talking about the recently deceased Gene Scott, whose
PhD was in "philosophy of education"?


Haiku Jones


>
> Ray


Mike Lyle

unread,
Dec 9, 2009, 12:12:09 PM12/9/09
to
Ray Martinez wrote:
[...]

>
> Dr. Gene Scott, Ph.D
> Stanford Universtiry must be right: acceptance and "success" of
> evolution is a punishment from God for denying ID to exist in nature.
>
You've reported this before, and I didn't get it then. Are you sure you
heard him properly? Do you mean that if you deny ID, God punishes you by
making you deny ID? Or is there some difference between accepting
evolution and denying ID, so that if you deny ID, God punishes you by
making you accept evolution? In either case, why does he do that?

--
Mike.


backspace

unread,
Dec 9, 2009, 1:21:29 PM12/9/09
to

My contention is that "natural selection" doesn't claim
anything,Patrick Matthews sucked his thumb and coined "natural means
of selection" after lifting the tautology from Hutton, Aristotle,
lucretius, Mapertius, Wells(1813), NS has no single true meaning but
is generally used by the neo-empedoclians to reformulate Empedocles
for modern man, something my fellow YEC at AIG , Creationism.org etc.
sadly don't comprehend ,causing more damage to Xianity than DAwkins.

> "....Whatever .... exists , exists because it was favored....."
>
> That's all that "survival of the fittest" says. "Whatever exists,
> exists because it was fit or is fitter."

That was the concept as understood by Spencer , which he lifted from
Treviranus as posted elsewhere.


Free Lunch

unread,
Dec 9, 2009, 2:44:16 PM12/9/09
to
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:21:29 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins
backspace <steph...@gmail.com> wrote in
<1af2f109-615f-49b7...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:

Your ignorant YEC yammerings and foolish claims about tautologies would
be every bit as damaging as those of AIG, etc. if anyone bothered to
read your nonsense.

bpuharic

unread,
Dec 9, 2009, 6:44:42 PM12/9/09
to
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:21:29 -0800 (PST), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>> > === rephrase take out NS red herring ===
>> > "....Whatever .... exists because it was favored by Roger rabbit..."
>>
>> > === Tautology ===
>> > "....Whatever .... exists , exists because it was favored....."
>> > favored and exists alludes to the same fact, NY times guaranteed the
>> > truth of their proposition and then associated it with the term NS.
>>
>> Argument lay-out, and your conclusion, is brilliant.
>>
>> The way I see it: the claims of natural selection is the evidence of
>> refutation.
>
>My contention is that "natural selection" doesn't claim
>anything

and since your lanugage skills, conditioned by religious
fundamentalism, are so rudimentary that you think it's 'only a theory'
that you're not identical to your parents, we know how accurate your
assessment of 'natural selection' is

johnetho...@yahoo.com

unread,
Dec 9, 2009, 7:00:44 PM12/9/09
to

But he is very consistent.

backspace

unread,
Dec 11, 2009, 5:18:23 AM12/11/09
to
On Dec 9, 9:44�pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >> > === rephrase take out NS red herring ===
> >> > "....Whatever .... exists because it was favored by Roger rabbit..."

"favored" like selection can be used in the pattern or design sense.
"....Whatever .... exists , exists because it was favored....." is an
open ended tautology by Nytimes, if http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/JohnBurroughs
used it he would mean "...favored by accident or natural selection..",
his concept was accident with NS from his book Last Harvest 1922. If a
Gaia pantheist priest used the sentence it would mean "...favored by
the Jedi nature Force....", thus the sentence is really a "double
tautology". A double tautology is the term I coined for a concept
irrefutable under all and any conditions , patterns or designs. When
ever you read an Empedoclian infused world view article, replace every
instance of "evolution, selection,genotype,phenotype...etc..." with
WHH (what happens happens).

backspace

unread,
Dec 11, 2009, 5:43:41 AM12/11/09
to

One can only assess a concept as articulated by a being, are you
referring to the concept http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/JohnBurroughs
had with NS or more specific the concept he encoded for using the
semantics of NS? NS like cow spanner, watermelon chopper, afgan zipper
isn't even wrong unless we know the individual that used the terms and
what was his concept.

bpuharic

unread,
Dec 11, 2009, 6:30:45 AM12/11/09
to
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 02:43:41 -0800 (PST), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 10, 1:44�am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:21:29 -0800 (PST), backspace
>>
>>

>> and since your lanugage skills, conditioned by religious
>> fundamentalism, are so rudimentary that you think it's 'only a theory'
>> that you're not identical to your parents, we know how accurate your
>> assessment of 'natural selection' is
>
>One can only assess a concept as articulated by a being, are you
>referring to the concept http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/JohnBurroughs
>had with NS or more specific the concept he encoded for using the
>semantics of NS? NS like cow spanner, watermelon chopper, afgan zipper
>isn't even wrong unless we know the individual that used the terms and
>what was his concept.

and you have a problem:

your language skills allow you to assess nothing. being fatally
compromised by religious fundamentalism, you simply can not understand
the concepts of science well enough to criticize them

that's why you 'rephrase' them. you arbitrarily re-process concepts
until they fit into your religious worldview THEN you try to argue
against them

your problem is not unknown. islamists have the same problem

backspace

unread,
Dec 11, 2009, 7:08:26 AM12/11/09
to
On Dec 11, 1:30�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 02:43:41 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
>
>
> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 10, 1:44�am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:21:29 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
> >> and since your lanugage skills, conditioned by religious
> >> fundamentalism, are so rudimentary that you think it's 'only a theory'
> >> that you're not identical to your parents, we know how accurate your
> >> assessment of 'natural selection' is
>
> >One can only assess a concept as articulated by a being, are you
> >referring to the concepthttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/JohnBurroughs

> >had with NS or more specific the concept he encoded for using the
> >semantics of NS? NS like cow spanner, watermelon chopper, afgan zipper
> >isn't even wrong unless we know the individual that used the terms and
> >what was his concept.
>
> and you have a problem:
>
> your language skills allow you to assess nothing. being fatally
> compromised by religious fundamentalism, you simply can not understand
> the concepts of science well enough to criticize them

You still haven't told me what is your concept with ns. What is your
concept?

backspace

unread,
Dec 11, 2009, 9:07:49 AM12/11/09
to
Note the concept below that burroughs had with "selectionists" ,
Wilkins also calls himself a selectionist, were they talking about the
same concept?

natural selection
It is a name for a process of elimination 107088547.pdf
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/18903 IV
A CRITICAL GLANCE INTO DARWIN
It is never safe to question Darwin's facts, but it is always safe to
question any man's theories. It is with Darwin's theories that I am
mainly concerned here. He has already been shorn of his selection
doctrines as completely as Samson was shorn of his locks, but there
are other phases of his life and teachings that invite discussion.

The study of Darwin's works begets such an affection for the man, for
the elements of character displayed on every page, that one is slow in
convincing one's self that anything is wrong with his theories. There
is danger that one's critical judgment will be blinded by one's
partiality for the man.

For the band of brilliant men who surrounded him and championed his
doctrines--Spencer, Huxley, Lyall, Hooker, and others--one feels
nothing more personal than admiration; unless the eloquent and
chivalrous Huxley--the knight in shining armor of the Darwinian
theory--inspires a warmer feeling. Darwin himself almost disarms one
by his amazing candor and his utter self-abnegation. The question
always paramount in his mind is, what is the truth about this matter?
What fact have you got for me, he seems to say, that will upset my
conclusion? If you have one, that is just what I am looking for.

Could we have been permitted to gaze upon the earth in the middle
geologic period, in Jurassic or Triassic times, we should have seen it
teeming with huge, uncouth, gigantic forms of animal life, in the sea,
on the land, and in the air, and with many lesser forms, but with no
sign of man anywhere; ransack the earth from pole to pole and there
was no sign or suggestion, so far as we could have seen, of a human
being.

Come down the stream of time several millions of years--to our own
geologic age--and we find the earth swarming with the human species
like an ant-hill with ants, and with a vast number of forms not found
in the Mesozoic era; and the men are doing to a large part of the
earth what the ants do to a square rod of its surface. Where did they
come from? We cannot, in our day, believe that a hand reached down
from heaven, or up from below, and placed them there. There is no
alternative but to believe that in some way they arose out of the
antecedent animal life of the globe; in other words that man is the
result of the process of evolution, and that all other existing forms
of life, vegetable and animal, are a product of the same movement.

To explain how this came about, what factors and forces entered into
the transformation, is the task that Darwin set himself. It was a
mighty task, and whether or not his solution of the problem stands the
test of time, we must yet bow in reverence before one of the greatest
of natural philosophers; for even to have conceived this problem thus
clearly, and to have placed it in intelligible form before men's
minds, is a great achievement.

Darwin was as far from being as sure of the truth of Darwinism as many
of his disciples were, and still are. He said in 1860, in a letter to
one of his American correspondents, "I have never for a moment doubted
that, though I cannot see my errors, much of my book ["The Origin of
Species"] will be proved erroneous." Again he said, in 1862, "I look
at it as absolutely certain that very much in the 'Origin' will be
proved rubbish; but I expect and hope that the framework will stand."

Its framework is the theory of Evolution, which is very sure to stand.
In its inception his theory is half-miracle and half-fact. He assumes
that in the beginning (as if there ever was or could be a "beginning,"
in that sense) God created a few forms, animal and vegetable, and then
left it to the gods of Evolution, the chief of which is Natural
Selection, to do the rest. While Darwin would not admit any
predetermining factors in Evolution, or that any innate tendency to
progressive development existed, he said he could not look upon the
world of living things as the result of chance. Yet in fortuitous, or
chance, variation he saw one of the chief factors of Evolution.

The world of Chance into which Darwinism delivers us--what can the
thoughtful mind make of it?

That life with all its myriad forms is the result of chance is,
according to Professor Osborn, a biological dogma. He everywhere uses
the word "chance" as opposed to law, or to the sequence of cause and
effect. This, it seems to me, is a misuse of the term. Is law, in this
sense, ever suspended or annulled? If one chances to fall off his
horse or his house, is it not gravity that pulls him down? Are not the
laws of energy everywhere operative in all movements of matter in the
material world? Chance is not opposed to law, but to design. Anything
that befalls us that was not designed is a matter of chance. The
fortuitous enters largely into all human life. If I carelessly toss a
stone across the road, it is a matter of chance just where it will
fall, but its course is not lawless. Does not gravity act upon it?
does not the resistance of the air act upon it? does not the muscular
force of my arm act upon it? and does not this complex of physical
forces determine the precise spot where the stone shall fall? If, in
its fall, it were to hit a bird or a mouse or a flower, that would be
a matter of chance, so far as my will was concerned. Is not a meteoric
stone falling out of space acted upon by similar forces, which
determine where it shall strike the earth? In this case, we must
substitute for the energy of my arm the cosmic energy that gives the
primal impetus to all heavenly bodies. If the falling aerolite were to
hit a person or a house, we should say it was a matter of chance,
because it was not planned or designed. But when the shells of the
long-range guns hit their invisible target or the bombs from the
airplanes hit their marks, chance plays a part, because all the
factors that enter into the problem are not and cannot be on the
instant accurately measured. The collision of two heavenly bodies in
the depth of space, which does happen, is, from our point of view, a
matter of chance, although governed by inexorable law.

The forms of inanimate objects--rocks, hills, rivers, lakes--are
matters of chance, since they serve no purpose: any other form would
be as fit; but the forms of living things are always purposeful. Is it
possible to believe that the human body, with all its complicated
mechanism, its many wonderful organs of secretion and excretion and
assimilation, is any more matter of chance than a watch or a
phonograph is? Though what agent to substitute for the word "chance,"
I confess I do not know. The short cut to an omnipotent Creator
sitting apart from the thing created will not satisfy the naturalist.
And to make energy itself creative, as Professor Osborn does, is only
to substitute one god for another. I can no more think of the course
of organic evolution as being accidental in the Darwinian sense, than
I can think of the evolution of the printing-press or the aeroplane as
being accidental, although chance has played its part. Can we think of
the first little horse of which we have any record, the eohippus of
three or four millions of years ago, as evolving by accidental
variations into the horse of our time, without presupposing an equine
impulse to development? As well might we trust our ships to the winds
and waves with the expectation that they will reach their several
ports.

Are we to believe that we live in an entirely mechanical and
fortuitous world--a world which has no interior, which is only a maze
of acting, reacting, and interacting of blind physical forces?
According to the chance theory, the struggle of a living body to exist
does not differ from the vicissitudes of, say, water seeking an
equilibrium, or heat a uniform temperature.

Chance has played an important part in human history, and in all life-
history--often, no doubt, the main part--since history began. It was
by chance that Columbus discovered America; he simply blundered upon
it. He had set out on his voyage with something quite different in
view. But his ship, and the crew, and the voyage itself, were not
matters of chance but of purpose.

According to the selectionists' theory, chance gave the bird its
wings, the fish its fins, the porcupine its quills, the skunk its
fetid secretion, the cuttlefish its ink, the swordfish its sword, the
electric eel its powerful battery; it gave the giraffe its long neck,
the camel its hump, the horse its hoof, the ruminants their horns and
double stomach, and so on. According to Weismann, it gave us our eyes,
our ears, our hands with the fingers and opposing thumb, it gave us
all the complicated and wonderful organs of our bodies, and all their
circulation, respiration, digestion, assimilation, secretion,
excretion, reproduction. All we are, or can be, the selectionist
credits to Natural Selection.

Try to think of that wonderful organ, the eye, with all its marvelous
powers and adaptations, as the result of what we call chance or
Natural Selection. Well may Darwin have said that the eye made him
shudder when he tried to account for it by Natural Selection. Why, its
adaptations in one respect alone, minor though they be, are enough to
stagger any number of selectionists. I refer to the rows of peculiar
glands that secrete an oily substance, differing in chemical
composition from any other secretion, a secretion which keeps the
eyelids from sticking together in sleep. "Behavior as lawless as
snowflakes," says Whitman--a phrase which probably stuck to him from
Rousseau; but are snowflakes and raindrops lawless? To us creatures of
purpose, they are so because the order of their falling is haphazard.
They obey their own laws. Again we see chance working inside of law.

When the sower scatters the seed-grains from his hand, he does not and
cannot determine the point of soil upon which any of them shall fall,
but there is design in his being there and in sowing the seed.
Astronomy is an exact science, biology is not. The celestial events
always happen on time. The astronomers can tell us to the fraction of
a second when the eclipses of the sun and moon and the transit of the
inferior planets across the sun's disk will take place. They know and
have measured all the forces that bring them about. Now, if we knew
with the same mathematical precision all the elements that enter into
the complex of forces which shapes our lives, could we forecast the
future with the same accuracy with which the astronomers forecast the
movements of the orbs? or are there incommensurable factors in life?

bpuharic

unread,
Dec 11, 2009, 7:01:08 PM12/11/09
to


i did tell you. i tried to give you an example. i asked you if you
were different than your parents

your immediate response was to say this was only a theory.

so if you dont even know what the word 'parent' means, holding a
discussion on natural selection is pointless.

bpuharic

unread,
Dec 11, 2009, 7:02:19 PM12/11/09
to
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 06:07:49 -0800 (PST), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Note the concept below that burroughs had with "selectionists" ,
>Wilkins also calls himself a selectionist, were they talking about the
>same concept?

this is a guy whose language skills are so hobbled by creationism that
he doesn't even know he's different than his parents. he calls that
idea a 'theory'.

wading through anything he has to say is, therefore, a waste of time

Ray Martinez

unread,
Dec 14, 2009, 1:45:19 PM12/14/09
to
On Dec 9, 10:21�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 9, 2:23�am,RayMartinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Once again, Stephan, your argument is clear, rooted in basic logic,
brilliant.

> > The way I see it: the claims of natural selection is the evidence of
> > refutation.
>
> My contention is that "natural selection" doesn't claim
> anything,

Well....it does. The problem is, that, what it does claim, is so
freaking stuuuuuuupid we just don't get it----we don't "understand."
We keep thinking that Darwinists could not be this dumb as to actually
think that animals fucking mindlessly----that is, the ones that
survive to fuck again, is the backbone of their "scientific mechanism"
that produced most life (including us) on this planet.

Our minds are too grounded in sound logic and commom sense to accept
this bad science fiction non-sense. So we perpetually think that we do
not understand natural selection.

I think a part of you feels sorry for Darwinists----this is how I
explain your comment that natural selection claims nothing. You cannot
believe that they actually believe what I wrote rather graphically.

Anyway, Merry Christmas, Stephan!

Your Friend,

Ray

SNIP....

Kleuskes & Moos

unread,
Dec 14, 2009, 2:34:57 PM12/14/09
to
On 14 dec, 19:45, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>

> > My contention is that "natural selection" doesn't claim
> > anything,
>
> Well....it does. The problem is, that, what it does claim, is so
> freaking stuuuuuuupid we just don't get it----we don't "understand."
> We keep thinking that Darwinists could not be this dumb as to actually
> think that animals fucking mindlessly----that is, the ones that
> survive to fuck again, is the backbone of their "scientific mechanism"
> that produced most life (including us) on this planet.

They don't even have to fuck. Non-fucking cell-division will do for
the simpler forms of life. Like in a petri dish, where you can watch
evolution happen (if your patient).

> Our minds are too grounded in sound logic and commom sense to accept
> this bad science fiction non-sense. So we perpetually think that we do
> not understand natural selection.

So your reasoning is: wow... the mechanism proposed is FAAAR too
simple, hence i cannot be true?

Talk about arguments from incredulity on an epic, nay, biblical scale.

> I think a part of you feels sorry for Darwinists----this is how I
> explain your comment that natural selection claims nothing. You cannot
> believe that they actually believe what I wrote rather graphically.

Well.. If your argument is simply "that's too simple, that can't be
right", you've got ME convinced. I mean, who can argue with that
logic?

backspace

unread,
Dec 18, 2009, 4:42:42 PM12/18/09
to
On Dec 14, 9:34�pm, "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > I think a part of you feels sorry for Darwinists----this is how I
> > explain your comment that natural selection claims nothing. You cannot
> > believe that they actually believe what I wrote rather graphically.

My contention that natural selection as some sort of abstract
authority just like Mr.Evolution, Mr.Religion (NOMA) and Mr.Science
doesn't say anything is motivated for as follows:

Only a person , a being can say something, Mr.Natural Selection
doesn't exist - he says nothing. The term was coined by
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/PatrickMatthew who probably lifted
the tautological concept Matthews associated with NS , from
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/JamesHutton (1794) and DR. w.c Wells
(1813), because they both were at Edinbourgh University Scotland
(taking wild guess here).

:[[PatrickMatthew]]s 1831- "...Those individuals who possess not the
requisite strength, fall without reproducing, their place being
occupied by the more perfect of their own kind....". This concept was
then arbitrarily associated by Matthews with the term "Natural means
of selection", he could also have associated it with "Watermelon
Spanner" if he had wanted to: The tautology and fallacious underlying
Aristotelian world view remains, meaning all conclusions derived from
such are non-sequiturs.

Which Darwin in turn lifted from Matthew's book on wood production
while on the Beagle because the intent of the Beagle trip was to look
for Naval timber. Darwin took the same concept and defined it at two
places in OoS:
"...This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of
injurious variations, I call Natural Selection...." and
"..I have called this principle, by which each slight variation(a), if
useful, is preserved, by the term of natural selection..."

Both sentences are obvious tautologies with "preservation" and
"favourable" , "rejection" and "injurious" making the argumentation
narrative indisputable or unfalsifiable, it can in principle not even
be tested. But this tautology has nothing to do with the grammatical
gargoyle NS, ..... it was an arbitrary choice of words.

As explained in the thread "Aristotle and his Tautological
influence"(http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/
thread/4828cd8302a35bfa/0040ffe978d4e32c?tvc=1#0040ffe978d4e32c) this
was a reformulation of Aristotle and Empedocles.

Empedocles-(600BC) "...Those animals perished immediately, for they
were not fitted to live, and only those random coalitions of elements
which were fittest to live survived, and continue to survive
today...."
:Aristotle(500BC) - "....Things appropriately constituted were
preserved and things not appropriately constituted perished...."
:Democritus - "...Those in harmony maintained themselves, while the
unfit disappear... "

What the NYtimes did was infuse Empedoclianism , Lucretius,
Epicurianism , Democritus and Aristotelianism into our culture by
saying "......Whatever .... exists , exists because it was
favored....." Which is a double tautology because "favored" in the
context used leaves open for either the pattern or design sense
depending on the [[world view]] of the reader. Thus both a Pantheist
priest and hard core Atheist will agree not realizing that they could
both be committing a logical fallacy and that whatever conclusion they
might come to is a non-sequitur.

Because the modern day Aristotelians must hide the root of the world
view, they reformulated Aristotle in different ways and then
associated his tautologies with the term NS.


Mike Lyle

unread,
Dec 18, 2009, 6:43:24 PM12/18/09
to
backspace wrote:
> On Dec 14, 9:34 pm, "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>> I think a part of you feels sorry for Darwinists----this is how I
>>> explain your comment that natural selection claims nothing. You
>>> cannot believe that they actually believe what I wrote rather
>>> graphically.
>
> My contention that natural selection as some sort of abstract
> authority just like Mr.Evolution, Mr.Religion (NOMA) and Mr.Science
> doesn't say anything is motivated for as follows:
[...]

PLEASE GET THIS INTO YOUR HEAD. PLEASE SAY IT ALOUD SIX TIMES, LISTENING
TO YOURSELF AS YOU DO SO:

"Motivate" does not mean "explain" in standard English. It's a common
Afrikaans-speaker error. It's annoying. I've told you before.

"Motivate" does not mean "explain" in standard English. It's a common
Afrikaans-speaker error. It's annoying. I've told you before.

"Motivate" does not mean "explain" in standard English. It's a common
Afrikaans-speaker error. It's annoying. I've told you before.

"Motivate" does not mean "explain" in standard English. It's a common
Afrikaans-speaker error. It's annoying. I've told you before.

"Motivate" does not mean "explain" in standard English. It's a common
Afrikaans-speaker error. It's annoying. I've told you before.

"Motivate" does not mean "explain" in standard English. It's a common
Afrikaans-speaker error. It's annoying. I've told you before.

In addition, you have already been told, several times, that abstract
entities may informally be said to "say" or "tell" things. To educated
English-speakers, the usage is unambiguous and perfectly acceptable.

OK. Got that? Now please understand that making the same obviously
perverse or irrelevant claims again and again and again over a period of
years makes people think you are mentally deranged. It does not make
people see you as a new "Mr Valiant-for-Truth". I'm sorry about this,
because I'm kind-hearted; but it's a sad fact of a cruel world.

--
Mike.


backspace

unread,
Dec 19, 2009, 1:22:15 AM12/19/09
to
On Dec 19, 1:43�am, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

> In addition, you have already been told, several times, that abstract
> entities may informally be said to "say" or "tell" things. To educated
> English-speakers, the usage is unambiguous and perfectly acceptable.

Phillip Johnson would beg to differ. I lifted the concept from him he
said something along the lines of ".....for the record Science doesn't
say, accord, explain, infer, extrapolate or proclaim anything, only a
person can do this, only somebody with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics......"

NOMA, Mr. Religion and Mr.Science don't have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics


> OK. Got that? Now please understand that making the same obviously
> perverse or irrelevant claims again and again and again over a period of
> years makes people think you are mentally deranged.

It is possible would you then please help me out: Everytime you say
Natural Selection are you referring to the specific passages as used
by DArwin and Matthews, if not what exactly do you mean by natural
selection. Note that even Jerry Fodor asked "....... what then is the
intended meaning of natural selection.....the question is wide open as
of this writing......" in his LRB article. An article where nobody not
even him has an idea of what he was trying to say.


>It does not make
> people see you as a new "Mr Valiant-for-Truth". I'm sorry about this,
> because I'm kind-hearted; but it's a sad fact of a cruel world.

The sad fact is that everybody is using "natural selection" like some
sort of brainwashed KGB trained Zombie trained to respond on que,
simply saying "natural selection" means a person is in a sense insane
because of its oxymoronic nature. IT is destroying our collective
mental health , making it impossible for people to say "Jesus be my
Lord" with the greatest threat coming from the YEC (I am YEC) using
this term as part of their apologetics, which is imagine the Apostle
Paul inserting "coca-doodlie-doo" every 1000 words in his letters. An
abyss of madness is what have plunged into now and the Christian world
is no longer a Christian world but apostates and herretics..

backspace

unread,
Dec 19, 2009, 9:44:31 AM12/19/09
to
On Dec 12, 2:01�am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >You still haven't told me what is your concept with ns. What is your
> >concept?

> i did tell you. �i tried to give you an example. i asked you if you
> were different than your parents

You did define NS here:
http://groups.google.com.mx/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/ac52c73b1fc53deb/5d290643d0d5812d

"...the world's scientific community knows that natural selection is
the process that leads to changes in allele frequencies with time...."

Who in the scientific community knows this because Wilkins and rnorman
have substantial issues with "change in allele frequencies over
time". The change in genes over time is a generalized truism ,
everything in existence changes over time. In a sense the definition
of existing means that something anything (electrons spinning) has to
change.

Darwin didn't know about Genes , what chain of reasoning did the
"scientific community" (who are they? ) follow in going from this:


OoS:
"...This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of
injurious variations, I call Natural Selection...."
and
"..I have called this principle, by which each slight variation(a), if
useful, is preserved, by the term of natural selection..."

to change in gene frequencies.

Burkhard

unread,
Dec 19, 2009, 10:39:08 AM12/19/09
to
On 19 Dec, 14:44, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2:01 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > >You still haven't told me what is your concept with ns. What is your
> > >concept?
> > i did tell you. i tried to give you an example. i asked you if you
> > were different than your parents
>
> You did define NS here:http://groups.google.com.mx/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/a...

>
> "...the world's scientific community knows that natural selection is
> the process that leads to changes in allele frequencies with time...."
>
> Who in the scientific community knows this because Wilkins and rnorman
> have substantial issues with "change in allele frequencies over
> time". The change in genes over time is a generalized truism ,
> everything in existence changes over time.

But not necesarily frequencies, let alone gene frquencies.
This is an emirical statement which could as well have
turned out false, in an environment for instance where selecting
factors change too rapidly to allow a measurable change in frequency
to emerge.


>In a sense the definition

> of existing means that something anything (electrons spinning) has to
> change.
>
> Darwin didn't know about Genes , what chain of reasoning did the
> "scientific community" (who are they? ) follow in going from this:
> OoS:
> "...This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of
> injurious variations, I call Natural Selection...."
> and
> "..I have called this principle, by which each slight variation(a), if
> useful, is preserved, by the term of natural selection..."
>
> to change in gene frequencies.

By finding out that genetic mutations are the mechanism that is behind
the phenotypical changes Darwin observed.

backspace

unread,
Dec 19, 2009, 11:51:47 AM12/19/09
to
On Dec 19, 5:39�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 19 Dec, 14:44, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 12, 2:01 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > >You still haven't told me what is your concept with ns. What is your
> > > >concept?
> > > i did tell you. �i tried to give you an example. i asked you if you
> > > were different than your parents
>
> > You did define NS here:http://groups.google.com.mx/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/a...
>
> > "...the world's scientific community knows that natural selection is
> > the process that leads to changes in allele frequencies with time...."
>
> > Who in the scientific community knows this because Wilkins and rnorman
> > have substantial issues with "change in allele frequencies over
> > time". �The change in genes over time is a generalized truism ,
> > everything in existence changes over time.
>
> But not necesarily frequencies, let alone gene frquencies.
> This is an emirical statement which could as well have
> �turned out false, in an environment for instance where selecting
> factors change too rapidly to allow a measurable change in frequency
> to emerge.

Are you using "selecting" in the pattern or design sense?

Burkhard

unread,
Dec 19, 2009, 12:06:19 PM12/19/09
to

Don't quote know what you mean by this, but it seems hardly relevant.
The point is that we can easily construct an environment where we
would not observe change in allel frequencies - making this an
empirical issue that requires looking at the world, not at
dictionaries.

bpuharic

unread,
Dec 19, 2009, 12:34:32 PM12/19/09
to
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:42:42 -0800 (PST), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 14, 9:34�pm, "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> > I think a part of you feels sorry for Darwinists----this is how I
>> > explain your comment that natural selection claims nothing. You cannot
>> > believe that they actually believe what I wrote rather graphically.
>
>My contention that natural selection as some sort of abstract
>authority just like Mr.Evolution, Mr.Religion (NOMA) and Mr.Science
>doesn't say anything is motivated for as follows:

your language skills are not up to understanding science.

you don't understand observations.

you dont understand the role of theories in science

you don't understand the role of experiments in science

you're locked in a 13th century mindset and it's basically useless to
discuss science with you.

you keep asking the same questions over and over. the reason you do is
because you can't understand the answers. no one in the 13th century
could have understood the role of empiriricism in testing ideas about
nature.

your repeated questions are proof of that. you're a laboratory example
of a 13th century thinker

bpuharic

unread,
Dec 19, 2009, 12:31:51 PM12/19/09
to
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 06:44:31 -0800 (PST), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 12, 2:01�am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >You still haven't told me what is your concept with ns. What is your
>> >concept?
>
>> i did tell you. �i tried to give you an example. i asked you if you
>> were different than your parents
>
>You did define NS here:
>http://groups.google.com.mx/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/ac52c73b1fc53deb/5d290643d0d5812d
>
>"...the world's scientific community knows that natural selection is
>the process that leads to changes in allele frequencies with time...."
>
>Who in the scientific community knows this because Wilkins and rnorman
>have substantial issues with "change in allele frequencies over
>time". The change in genes over time is a generalized truism ,
>everything in existence changes over time. In a sense the definition
>of existing means that something anything (electrons spinning) has to
>change.

it's useless to explain this to you because your language skills are
rudimentary. i tried to explain you're different than your parents.
your religious fanaticism got you so hysterical that you denied this
simple fact, calling it a 'theory' and asking who invented it.

why should i discuss the scientific concepts of natural selection
with a religious fanatic whose reasoning skills are so poor that he
panics when confronted with the idea that he's different than his
parents? if you can't understand THAT what makes you think you can
BEGIN to understand nature?

and you've given no evidence that either of them disagree with the
definition of evolution related to genes.

you call it a truism. and let me be brutally honest with you here:

the OBSERVATION is that genes frequencies change with time

this OBSERVATION needs to be EXPLAINED. that's how science works:

OBSERVATION>>>>>THEORY>>>>>>TEST>>>>DATA>>>>supported or disproven

see how that works?


>
>Darwin didn't know about Genes , what chain of reasoning did the
>"scientific community" (who are they? ) follow in going from this:
> OoS:
> "...This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of
>injurious variations, I call Natural Selection...."
>and
>"..I have called this principle, by which each slight variation(a), if
>useful, is preserved, by the term of natural selection..."
>
>to change in gene frequencies.

see the above.

now, then, i know it's useless to tell you this. it gives you the
shits just to admit you're not the same as your parents. your language
skills just aren't up to it

bpuharic

unread,
Dec 19, 2009, 12:38:00 PM12/19/09
to
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:22:15 -0800 (PST), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Dec 19, 1:43�am, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> In addition, you have already been told, several times, that abstract
>> entities may informally be said to "say" or "tell" things. To educated
>> English-speakers, the usage is unambiguous and perfectly acceptable.
>
>Phillip Johnson would beg to differ. I lifted the concept from him he
>said something along the lines of ".....for the record Science doesn't
>say, accord, explain, infer, extrapolate or proclaim anything, only a
>person can do this, only somebody with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics......"

phillip johnson has much of the same problem with scientific concepts
you do. but at least he realizes they are real and people use them.
but he insists supernatural entities...ghosts and such...cause events
in nature. but he's never been able to tell us where we can see these

>
>The sad fact is that everybody is using "natural selection" like some
>sort of brainwashed KGB trained Zombie

we understand it.

you don't. the reason you don't is not because of lack of clarity on
our part, but because you are, as daniel diner, prof. of history at
hebrew university, has pointed out, limited in your thinking skills
because of your fundamentalism

in his book 'lost in the sacred, why the muslim world stood still', he
describes how religious fanaticism compromises language by rendering
it unable to integrate scientific concepts.

you're a lab test of his statement.

Mike Lyle

unread,
Dec 19, 2009, 3:03:10 PM12/19/09
to
backspace wrote:
> On Dec 19, 1:43 am, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> In addition, you have already been told, several times, that abstract
>> entities may informally be said to "say" or "tell" things. To
>> educated English-speakers, the usage is unambiguous and perfectly
>> acceptable.
>
> Phillip Johnson would beg to differ. I lifted the concept from him he
> said something along the lines of ".....for the record Science doesn't
> say, accord, explain, infer, extrapolate or proclaim anything, only a
> person can do this, only somebody with
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics......"

It doesn't seem from that brief snippet as though he knows what he's
talking about. The personification of "science" dates from 1742 or
earlier. Perhaps he, as you appear to be doing, is trying to lay down a
smoke screen to distract his less intelligent readers from the central
point.


>
> NOMA, Mr. Religion and Mr.Science don't have
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics
>
>
>> OK. Got that? Now please understand that making the same obviously
>> perverse or irrelevant claims again and again and again over a
>> period of years makes people think you are mentally deranged.

The same applies to repeating perverse questions again and again after
you have repeatedly been given replies. I don't mind sharing my modest
store of knowledge, but I am not prepared to join in your game.
[...]

--
Mike.


backspace

unread,
Dec 20, 2009, 4:30:25 AM12/20/09
to
On Dec 19, 7:06�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 19 Dec, 16:51, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 19, 5:39 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On 19 Dec, 14:44, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 12, 2:01 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > >You still haven't told me what is your concept with ns. What is your
> > > > > >concept?
> > > > > i did tell you. �i tried to give you an example. i asked you if you

> > > > > were different than your parents
>
> > > > You did define NS here:http://groups.google.com.mx/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/a...
>
> > > > "...the world's scientific community knows that natural selection is
> > > > the process that leads to changes in allele frequencies with time...."
>
> > > > Who in the scientific community knows this because Wilkins and rnorman
> > > > have substantial issues with "change in allele frequencies over
> > > > time". �The change in genes over time is a generalized truism ,

> > > > everything in existence changes over time.
>
> > > But not necesarily frequencies, let alone gene frquencies.
> > > This is an emirical statement which could as well have
> > > �turned out false, in an environment for instance where selecting

> > > factors change too rapidly to allow a measurable change in frequency
> > > to emerge.

> > Are you using "selecting" in the pattern or design sense?

> Don't quote know what you mean by this, but it seems hardly relevant.

=== iidb ===
http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=135497&page=48

=== asdf ===
Perry Marshall mp3 audio http://1cosmos.org/ transcribed.

To have information you need matter, energy and will. 12.20
The message is seperate from the media. All information requires
thought.

Can patterns turn into designs. Is dna a pattern or a design?

ATCG letters of the DNA alphabet. It takes 500000 letters to represent
a living organism.
In a human it takes 3billion and there is one of those messages in
every cell. The information storage mechanism of DNA is more
dense than anything we know.

It is comparable to english and la
* DNA Language
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleotide, characters.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codons - letters
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome - words
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operon - sentences
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulon - paragraphs
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome - chapters

DNA is encoding decoding mechanism that stores and transmits the
message of the livinng organisminformation. Biologists used linguistic
analysis to decode the human genome. Tools that linguists use to
analyze languages ...... 16.36

* What makes a language? It symbolically represents something other
than itself.
* To have information you must have a transmitter and receiver.
Language has these four characteristics alphabet, grammar, meaning and
intent(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics). Genes, computer
code, feromones between insects, dogs barking and human speech have
these four characteristics.
Nearly all languages have error correction or redundancy. English is
about 50% redundant. If you can hear every other word you can figure
out what is being said.
* Is DNA a pattern or a language? DNA is an encoding, decoding
mechanism.
* DNA represents more than itself, it represents an entire living
organism.
* It has alphabet, syntax, meaning-semantics and pragmatics
* OR alphabet, grammar, meaning and intent. Pragmatics means intent.
* It can be copied and stored in other media without loss of
information.
* Information is distinct and seperate from whatever it is stored
in.
* The pattern in DNA is not like a language, it is a language.
Some disagree stateing that DNA is a molecule. DNA molecule is an
encoding, decoding system. You can change the alphabet and still have
the same message.

All languages contain grammar. If I say the "car is red". Is the car
red - that is syntax.
Semantics would be "Did he steal that car" but by changeing the accent
the semantics changes.
Intent: You have a green light. It could mean you are holding a green
light bulb. Or you have a green light to drive your car. Two
completely different meanings based on intent. Intent changed but
syntax and semantics, grammar didn't change.

Information can be stored transmittered by matter such as a book or
energy such as sound. But information itself is neither matter nor
energy. If you only have alphabet or syntax but have no meaning or
intent you have a meaningless sentence. In other words there has to be
other sentences so you can understand what I mean by you have a green
light. 25:32

The core issue for materialism is: Matter and energy all by themselves
can't produce information. Cybernetics is the study of the interaction
between man and machine.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norbert_Weiner said: '''"Information
is information, neither energy nor matter, any materialism that fails
to take account of this will not survive oneday.'''" 26:51

Perry draws a three dimensional axis. Matter on x-axis. Energy on the
y-axis. But the z-axis is will. Information can't be created without
intent. There are no examples of information created without intent.
All encoding, decoding systems come from a mind.

The problem with an Atheist belief is there is no way to explain where
the DNA language came from.
* Because all encoding, decoding systems come from a mind.
* The element that is common to both Paley's watch and life is
language.
Life is preceded by DNA and a watch is preceded by a blueprint or at
least an idea in somebody's mind that preceded the building of a
watch. 29.00 David Hume and Paley 30:35
* The essential distinction between patterns and designs is
language.
* Patterns don't have language - designs do.
* The fundamental property of all designs is that an idea precedes
the implementation of the idea.
The idea exists in symbolic form before it is physically built. For an
idea to exist it must be represented by a language. Ideas allways
precedes implementation, all languages come from a mind - no
exceptions.
* Therefore a mind designed DNA, therefore God exists.
* Show me a language that doesn't come from a mind.
</pre>

The opening sentence on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution -
"...evolution is the change in a population's inherited traits from
generation to generation" - has Syntax, Grammar and Semantics. But
without the fourth element Pragmatics it is meaningless as I have now
repeatedly pointed out using Perry Marshall's http://1cosmos.org/ "You
have a green light" example.

=== Information is neither matter nor energy ===
A.E. Wilder-Smith had a lot to say about this in his book, �The
Natural Sciences Know Nothing Of Evolution�. In the book, he points
out how materialists often confuse the fact that while things in
biology may *bear* information, they don�t *constitute* information.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/george-gilder-in-the-jerusalem-post/#comment-127221


=== Links ===
http://celestialmechanic.com/iidb.htm

http://celestialmechanic.com/prairiecrossing/index.htm

* http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/
* http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis2.htm
* http://cosmicfingerprints.com/information_dna_1.pdf
* http://cosmicfingerprints.com/intelligent_evolution.pdf
* http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=135497&page=11 statistics,
syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics.
* http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i2/information.asp Werner
Gitt information theory

> The point is that we can easily construct an environment where we
> would not observe change in allel frequencies -

=== rephrase ===
We can construct an environment where we would not observe change in
anything we wish to not see change.

> making this an empirical issue that requires looking at the world, not at dictionaries.

Making it a generalized truism.


Burkhard

unread,
Dec 20, 2009, 5:10:01 AM12/20/09
to
On 20 Dec, 09:30, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 19, 7:06�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 19 Dec, 16:51, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 19, 5:39 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > On 19 Dec, 14:44, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 12, 2:01 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > >You still haven't told me what is your concept with ns. What is your
> > > > > > >concept?
> > > > > > i did tell you. �i tried to give you an example. i asked you if you
> > > > > > were different than your parents
>
> > > > > You did define NS here:http://groups.google.com.mx/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/a...
>
> > > > > "...the world's scientific community knows that natural selection is
> > > > > the process that leads to changes in allele frequencies with time...."
>
> > > > > Who in the scientific community knows this because Wilkins and rnorman
> > > > > have substantial issues with "change in allele frequencies over
> > > > > time". �The change in genes over time is a generalized truism ,
> > > > > everything in existence changes over time.
>
> > > > But not necesarily frequencies, let alone gene frquencies.
> > > > This is an emirical statement which could as well have
> > > > �turned out false, in an environment for instance where selecting
> > > > factors change too rapidly to allow a measurable change in frequency
> > > > to emerge.
> > > Are you using "selecting" in the pattern or design sense?
> > Don't quote know what you mean by this, but it seems hardly relevant.
>
> === iidb ===http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=135497&page=48

>
> === asdf ===
> Perry Marshall mp3 audiohttp://1cosmos.org/transcribed.
>
> To have information you need matter, energy and will. 12.20
> The message is seperate from the media. All information requires
> thought.
>
> Can patterns turn into designs. Is dna a pattern or a design?
>
> ATCG letters of the DNA alphabet. It takes 500000 letters to represent
> a living organism.
> In a human it takes 3billion and there is one of those messages in
> every cell. The information storage mechanism of DNA is more
> dense than anything we know.
>
> It is comparable to english and la
> �* DNA � � � � � Language
> �*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleotide, �characters.
> �*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codons- letters
> �*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome- words
> �*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operon- sentences
> �*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulon- paragraphs
> �*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome- chapters

>
> DNA is encoding decoding mechanism that stores and transmits the
> message of the livinng organisminformation. Biologists used linguistic
> analysis to decode the human genome. Tools that linguists use to
> analyze languages ...... 16.36
>
> �* What makes a language? It symbolically represents something other
> than itself.
> �* To have information you must have a transmitter and receiver.

> Language has these four characteristics alphabet, grammar, meaning and
> intent(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics). �Genes, computer

> code, feromones between insects, dogs barking and human speech have
> these four characteristics.

I doubt it. Genes don't have intent and very possibly no meaning, dogs
have if at all only limited grammar


> Nearly all languages have error correction or redundancy. English is
> about 50% redundant. If you can hear every other word you can figure
> out what is being said.

> �* Is DNA a pattern or a language? DNA is an encoding, decoding
> mechanism.
> �* DNA represents more than itself, it represents an entire living
> organism.
> �* It has alphabet, syntax, meaning-semantics and pragmatics
> �* OR alphabet, grammar, meaning and intent. Pragmatics means intent.
> �* It can be copied and stored in other media without loss of
> information.
> �* Information is distinct and seperate from whatever it is stored
> in.
> �* The pattern in DNA is not like a language, it is a language.


> Some disagree stateing that DNA is a molecule. DNA molecule is an
> encoding, decoding system. You can change the alphabet and still have
> the same message.
>
> All languages contain grammar. If I say the "car is red". Is the car
> red - that is syntax.
> Semantics would be "Did he steal that car" but by changeing the accent
> the semantics changes.

No, the pragmatics You perform a different speech act

> Intent: You have a green light. It could mean you are holding a green
> light bulb. Or you have a green light to drive your car. Two
> completely different meanings based on intent. Intent changed but
> syntax and semantics, grammar didn't change.
>

Context rather than intent, you have incomplete information to decide
which of the two interpretations is appropriate. No problem really,
since normally langauge has lots of inbuild redundancies, and if in
doubt, just ask.


> Information can be stored transmittered by matter such as a �book or


> energy such as sound. But information itself is neither matter nor
> energy. If you only have alphabet or syntax but have no meaning or
> intent you have a meaningless sentence. In other words there has to be
> other sentences so you can understand what I mean by you have a green
> light. 25:32
>
> The core issue for materialism is: Matter and energy all by themselves
> can't produce information. Cybernetics is the study of the interaction
> between man and machine.

> �*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norbert_Weinersaid: '''"Information


> is information, neither energy nor matter, any materialism that fails
> to take account of this will not survive oneday.'''" 26:51
>

> Perry draws a three dimensional axis. �Matter on x-axis. Energy on the


> y-axis. But the z-axis is will. Information can't be created without
> intent. There are no examples of information created without intent.
> All encoding, decoding systems come from a mind.
>
> The problem with an Atheist belief is there is no way to explain where
> the DNA language came from.

A) It is irrelevant for the question, which was about the definition
of evolution as change in allele frequency. that is a scientific issue
that has no bearing on religion or atheism.

B) at best it shows that the understanding of DNA as language is
flawed, a helpful but possibly misleading metaphor, especially if read
by people who haave problems to distinguish metaphors from literal
expressions, like some religious folks. By the way, this also
according to your own definition below, unless you think DNA has
pragmatics.

> �* Because all encoding, decoding systems come from a mind.
> �* �The element that is common to both Paley's watch and life is


> language.
> Life is preceded by DNA and a watch is preceded by a blueprint or at
> least an idea in somebody's mind that preceded the building of a
> watch. 29.00 David Hume and Paley 30:35

> �* The essential distinction between patterns and designs is
> language.
> �* Patterns don't have language - designs do.
> �* The fundamental property of all designs is that an idea precedes


> the implementation of the idea.
> The idea exists in symbolic form before it is physically built. For an
> idea to exist it must be represented by a language. Ideas allways
> precedes implementation, all languages come from a mind - no
> exceptions.

> �* Therefore a mind designed DNA, therefore God exists.
> �* Show me a language that doesn't come from a mind.


> </pre>
>
> The opening sentence onhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution-
> "...evolution is the change in a population's inherited traits from

> generation to generation" - �has Syntax, Grammar and Semantics. But


> without the fourth element Pragmatics it is meaningless as I have now

> repeatedly pointed out using Perry Marshall'shttp://1cosmos.org/"You


> have a green light" example.

and as was pointed out several time to you, you a) misunderstand what
pragmatics is and b) misunderstand the relation between semantics and
pragmatics.

The sentence is perfectly intelligible for a competent speaker of
English. Its pragmatics are determined by its context, here an
encyclopedia. This means that pragmatically, the sentence has
the function of an assertive illocutionary act (in Searle's
classification) - it tells you what the writer things the truth to
be. That distinguishes it from the same use of this sentence e.g as a
password for an online account, which would be a directive use, or
from a use as codephrase for "I will explode the bomb tomorrow" which
would be commissive.

A competent speaker of English is able to identify this pragmatic
aspect easily from the encyclopedia context and can then move on to
understand the sentence as intended by the writer

>
> === Information is neither matter nor energy ===
> A.E. Wilder-Smith had a lot to say about this in his book, �The
> Natural Sciences Know Nothing Of Evolution�. In the book, he points
> out how materialists often confuse the fact that while things in

> biology may *bear* information, they don�t *constitute* information.http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/george-gilder-in-th...
>

relevance for anything?

> === Links ===http://celestialmechanic.com/iidb.htm
>
> http://celestialmechanic.com/prairiecrossing/index.htm
>
> �*http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/
> �*http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ifyoucanreadthis2.htm
> �*http://cosmicfingerprints.com/information_dna_1.pdf
> �*http://cosmicfingerprints.com/intelligent_evolution.pdf
> �*http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=135497&page=11�statistics,


> syntax, semantics, pragmatics and apobetics.

> �*http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v10/i2/information.asp�Werner


> Gitt information theory
>
> > The point is that we can easily construct an environment where we
> > would not observe change in allel frequencies -
>
> === rephrase ===

> We can �construct an environment where we �would not observe change in


> anything we wish to not see change.
>

Which is not a rephrase The distinguishing feature of a rephrase is
that it preserves the meaning of the original. Yours doesn't even get
close, and is not more a rephrase than" Santa Claus rides with his
reindeers" is a rephrase of the New testament.

In fact, your "rephrases" put words into people;s mouth they did not
say - which is essentially dishonest and a form of lying.

What an allel is is defined independently from the ToE What "change in
frequency" is is defined independently from the ToE. Whether or not
allele frequency changes in a population can be determined in
principle by a machine with the right programming. Your claim was that
"change in allele frequency" is a tautology, hence true because of
word meaning alone I gave you a scenario (of rapidly and dramatically
changing environments which prevent fixing frequencies over time)
where we would not observe change in allel frequencies, fo r this
reason alone your claim of tautology falls falt on its face.

> > making this an �empirical issue that requires looking at the world, not at �dictionaries.

backspace

unread,
Dec 20, 2009, 5:06:51 AM12/20/09
to
On Dec 19, 7:38�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> in his book 'lost in the sacred, why the muslim world stood still', he
> describes how religious fanaticism compromises language by rendering
> it unable to integrate scientific concepts.

Here is the link and it is Dan Diner not Daniel, had difficulty
finding via Google because of "daniel".

http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Sacred-Muslim-World-Stood/dp/0691129118/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261302812&sr=1-1

Dangerous is what the political stunt the Democrats pulled before the
Election of 2008. They knew that the average American has an IQ of
room temperature , which means they didn't understand that the dems.
controlled both the congress and senate. Thus by refusing to sign the
tarp bills and stimilus efforts on time without republican support
they nearly collapsed the USA economy which would have plunged us into
the second great depression which unlike the first one would have led
to global war:
1) China would have imploded- we now have 7bil people.
2) South-Africa's ANC with a thinly veneared state sponsored terror
against white farmers would have allowed a full scale civil war to
erupt.
3) Pakistan would have imploded with their nuclear weapons in the
hands of who? If India and Pakistan were to start a nuclear war .....

The world came very close to outright chaos because without the USA
economy there is no world economy, there is no China there is no
nothing. George Bush tried to prevent Fanny and Freddy form going of
hte cliff 5years ago but was prevented by two key Democrats. Bill
Clinton repealed the Glass-Speagel act which would have prevented the
banking crises. The arabs and russians are bribing the democrats to
prevent oil exploration in the USA, driving up the cost of living for
everybody and leading to financial harm such as $145 oil prices, which
led to an economic melt down.


John Wilkins

unread,
Dec 20, 2009, 5:17:33 AM12/20/09
to
In article
<edf17ca6-c5c3-4d34...@b32g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> > �* What makes a language? It symbolically represents something other
> > than itself.
> > �* To have information you must have a transmitter and receiver.


> > Language has these four characteristics alphabet, grammar, meaning and

> > intent(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics). �Genes, computer


> > code, feromones between insects, dogs barking and human speech have
> > these four characteristics.
>
> I doubt it. Genes don't have intent and very possibly no meaning, dogs
> have if at all only limited grammar

Genes also do not represent anything; they are simply molecules with
particular roles in the production of proteins. They do this in a
regular manner, which allows us to talk of a mapping relationship
between gene sequences and the [primary] sequence of the proteins,
which has been called, honorifically, a "code". Nor is the sequence of
triplets that form codons an "alphabet" - they are not signs or parts
of signs, they are the things themselves (as any Peircean ought to
understand, signs and the things signified are different). And there is
no grammar for genes - they do not have sequential structure or syntax,
and they do not show the kind of distribution of "words" that you get
in natural languages according to Zipf's law.

Basically, genes are not informational objects in any meaningful sense.

Burkhard

unread,
Dec 20, 2009, 6:04:05 AM12/20/09
to
On 20 Dec, 10:17, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> In article
> <edf17ca6-c5c3-4d34-8a00-ab075fe31...@b32g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

Yes, that's pretty much how I would see it.

Which only leaves the issue why at least _some_ techniques developed
for analysing languages seem to give interesting results when DNA is
treated as if it were one.

backspace

unread,
Dec 20, 2009, 6:56:09 AM12/20/09
to
On Dec 20, 12:17�pm, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> Genes also do not represent anything; they are simply molecules with
> particular roles in the production of proteins. They do this in a
> regular manner, which allows us to talk of a mapping relationship
> between gene sequences and the [primary] sequence of the proteins,
> which has been called, honorifically, a "code". Nor is the sequence of
> triplets that form codons an "alphabet" - they are not signs or parts
> of signs, they are the things themselves (as any Peircean ought to
> understand, signs and the things signified are different). And there is
> no grammar for genes - they do not have sequential structure or syntax,
> and they do not show the kind of distribution of "words" that you get
> in natural languages according to Zipf's law.
>
> Basically, genes are not informational objects in any meaningful sense.

Pieczenick identified Palindromic sequences in genes which he called
"grammatical" . See Black Mischief by Berlinski first edition. (p.303)
He published it in Journal of Molecular Biology. Palindromes can't be
created by finite state grammar. IF molecular grammars exist they have
to be at least as complex as a pushdown storage automaton. IF the
genetic code is informed by grammatical constraints of a nontrivial
nature , how in turn did they arise if in the first instance they are
necessary to the working of the code?

See Journal of Philosophy article by Berlinski on this issue.

backspace

unread,
Dec 20, 2009, 7:04:30 AM12/20/09