Dawkin's God delusion ungrammatical sentences

[backspace]

p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
the end product
of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....

Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds. His was should be wasn't . In
anycase Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
was the semantic opposite of random. Fun these word games ain't it?

[John Harshman]

The solution to your conundrum is that a normal person is capable of
parsing that sentence quite easily.

[Kermit]

On Jun 27, 12:37 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> the end product
> of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
>
> Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds.

Yes it does.

>   His was should be wasn't .

Not for grammatical reasons. If one want ed to lie, for example, or
deomonstrate ignorance of simple scientific ideas, one might say that.

> In anycase   Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850

Who would, in ordinary conversation?

> where non-random
> was the semantic opposite of random.

The "non-" prefix does not mean "the opposite of", but rather "not".

For example, non-Christian does not mean Satanic, nor atheist. It
could be those, or it could be Hindu, secular, or any number of
unrelated subjects.

> Fun these word games ain't it?

Only if they are clever, true, or funny.

Kermit

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Jun 27, 3:37 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> the end product
> of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
>
> Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds.   His was should be wasn't .

It's difficult to believe that you think your was/wasn't is an
grammatical issue.

> In
> anycase   Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
> was the semantic opposite of random.  Fun these word games ain't it?

There's not reason on Earth why Dawkins should be using a 1850s
dictionary. Had Darwin written in French, Dawkins would have been
obliged to transate and, if necessary, bring the science up to modern
understanding.

And, once again, this is not a grammatrical issue. You do know what
"grammatical" means, don't you?

Mitchell Coffey

[backspace]

Well, then maybe my English is not that good, I don't get it.

This makes more sense:

Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so apparently

designed as a dragonfly's wing ..... wasn't really the end product
of .... non-random but purely natural causes?....

This version Dawkins is saying that before Darwin it was believed that
non-random directed intervention
generated a dragonfly as opposed to random undirected forces.

Where am I misreading him?

[wiki trix]

On Jun 27, 3:37 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> the end product
> of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
>
> Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds.

I parse it with no trouble. Problem must be with the parser.

[UC]

On Jun 27, 3:37 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

It's not particularly good, but then he's American and a scientist.
What can you expect. Oliver Sacks is a much better writer, as are most
medical men.

http://www.oliversacks.com/

[Bruce Stephens]

UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> writes:

> On Jun 27, 3:37 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
>> apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
>> the end product
>> of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
>>
>> Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds.   His was should be wasn't . In
>> anycase   Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
>> was the semantic opposite of random.  Fun these word games ain't it?
>
> It's not particularly good, but then he's American and a scientist.

Dawkins is American? When did that happen?

(I also find the sentence reads fine, but then I'm English so what do I
know about the language?)

[UC]

On Jun 27, 6:22 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

Oh, damn, I was thinking about Sacks when I wrote that. Sorry!

[Slow Vehicle]

On Jun 27, 4:22 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

Given the fact that Dawkins correctly refers to humans as apes, it is
clear that his argument is superior to those of the loonies who would
edit him to their tastes and agenda. Y'all do know that "editing" a
writer's words to disagree with the writer's stated position is
dishonest, right?
Disagree all you want to, but don't presume to speak for Dawkins'
intent.

[chris thompson]

Starting at "W" and ending at "?"

Chris

[John Harshman]

backspace wrote:
> On Jun 27, 9:22 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> backspace wrote:
>>> p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
>>> apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
>>> the end product
>>> of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
>>> Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds. His was should be wasn't . In
>>> anycase Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
>>> was the semantic opposite of random. Fun these word games ain't it?
>> The solution to your conundrum is that a normal person is capable of
>> parsing that sentence quite easily.
>
> Well, then maybe my English is not that good, I don't get it.

Exactly. Now you're getting it.

> This makes more sense:
> Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so apparently
> designed as a dragonfly's wing ..... wasn't really the end product
> of .... non-random but purely natural causes?....
>
> This version Dawkins is saying that before Darwin it was believed that
> non-random directed intervention
> generated a dragonfly as opposed to random undirected forces.
>
> Where am I misreading him?

Everywhere. Evolution isn't random. Evolution is non-random. He's
talking about evolution. In fact he's asking who, before Darwin, could
have supposed that natural selection could produce something that looks
designed. Before Darwin, apparent design was most often attributed to
God, who, though supposed also to be non-random, is assumed not to be a
natural cause.

[John Harshman]

Less than UC, who is the acknowledged world expert on all languages.

[Frank J]

And avoiding the incorrect "Dawkin's."

[chris thompson]

On Jun 27, 5:58 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 27, 3:37 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> > apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> > the end product
> > of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
>
> > Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds.   His was should be wasn't . In
> > anycase   Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
> > was the semantic opposite of random.  Fun these word games ain't it?
>
> It's not particularly good,

Make it better.

Chris

[wiki trix]

On Jun 27, 7:02 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Jun 27, 5:58 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 27, 3:37 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> > > apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> > > the end product
> > > of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
>
> > > Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds.   His was should be wasn't . In
> > > anycase   Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
> > > was the semantic opposite of random.  Fun these word games ain't it?
>
> > It's not particularly good,
>
> Make it better.

I really do not see any problem with it. Grammar checks out. Point is
made clearly. How would one make it better?

[UC]

On Jun 27, 3:37 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

Here's my edit:

Before Darwin, who could have guessed that something so seemingly the
product of design as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
the result of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural
causes?...

[William Hughes]

On Jun 27, 7:22 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

> UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > On Jun 27, 3:37 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> >> apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> >> the end product
> >> of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
>
> >> Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds.   His was should be wasn't . In
> >> anycase   Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
> >> was the semantic opposite of random.  Fun these word games ain't it?
>
> > It's not particularly good, but then he's American and a scientist.
>
> Dawkins is American? When did that happen?

He was actually born in St Louis, but moved to Britain and faked his
birth certificate so he could become a British academic.

[raven1]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:37:52 -0700 (PDT), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

>p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
>apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
>the end product
>of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
>
>Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds.

Sure it does.

> His was should be wasn't . In
>anycase Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
>was the semantic opposite of random. Fun these word games ain't it?

What's the point of this one?

---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight

[nick_keigh...@hotmail.com]

um. except they *were* the end product etc. You can (if you wish) claim Dawkins is wrong but that doesn't give you carte blanche to rewrite his sentances to change the meaning from the intended one.

[Reentrant]

Yes - not because "were" is factually correct but because it should be
the plural form.

"... wing or eye WERE ..." not "... wing or eye WAS ...". So the OP is
right; there is a grammatical error.

--
Reentrant

[Burkhard]

On Jun 28, 10:37 am, Reentrant <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

My grammar book from school said that "Two singular subjects connected
by either/or or neither/nor require a singular verb" - i did a quick
check for online sources, this one says the same:
http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/subjectVerbAgree.asp

Not being a native speaker, my intuitions are not the best guide, they
would have been with you though.

[Ernest Major]

In message <a52mts...@mid.individual.net>, Reentrant
<nos...@nospam.invalid> writes

The subject is "something ...", which is singular, therefore the
singular form of the verb is correct, and there is no grammatical error.
One might mutter about the length of the subject and object phrases, but
with my tendency to resort to overly parenthesised complex and compound
sentences of sesquipedalian length and abstruse and polysyllabic
vocabulary I wouldn't cast the first stone.
--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

In message
<d52dcb71-ae59-4d6a...@n5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> writes

I agree on the grammar (e.g. "neither YEC nor OEC is factually correct",
but "both YEC and OEC are factually false"), but not on the analysis -
in this case there is only one singular subject - "something ...
dragonfly's wing or eagle's eye".

>
>Not being a native speaker, my intuitions are not the best guide, they
>would have been with you though.
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[nick_keigh...@hotmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 11:22:21 PM UTC+1, Bruce Stephens wrote:
> UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > On Jun 27, 3:37 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> >> apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> >> the end product
> >> of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
> >>
> >> Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds.   His was should be wasn't . In
> >> anycase   Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
> >> was the semantic opposite of random.  Fun these word games ain't it?
> >
> > It's not particularly good, but then he's American and a scientist.
>
> Dawkins is American? When did that happen?

Dawkins like Hawkins is American on the basis that all famous scientists are American.

(Hawkins was famously given as an example of someone who wouldm't be alive today if they'd had to depend on the Britsh National Health Service and its infamous "Death Boards". Death Boards are NICE-ly newspeaked.)

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

A dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye appear
to be designed for their function. Before Darwin,
who could have guessed that such things are really

the end product of a long sequence of non-random
but purely natural causes?

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck for one, I dare say.

[Ernest Major]

In message <643f9d97-003b-4b12...@googlegroups.com>,
nick_keigh...@hotmail.com writes

>On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 11:22:21 PM UTC+1, Bruce Stephens wrote:
>> UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> > On Jun 27, 3:37 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
>> >> apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
>> >> the end product
>> >> of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
>> >>
>> >> Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds.   His was should be wasn't . In
>> >> anycase   Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
>> >> was the semantic opposite of random.  Fun these word games ain't it?
>> >
>> > It's not particularly good, but then he's American and a scientist.
>>
>> Dawkins is American? When did that happen?
>
>Dawkins like Hawkins is American on the basis that all famous
>scientists are American.

s/Hawkins/Hawking/

>
>(Hawkins was famously given as an example of someone who wouldm't be
>alive today if they'd had to depend on the Britsh National Health
>Service and its infamous "Death Boards". Death Boards are NICE-ly
>newspeaked.)
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Klaus Hellnick]

On 6/27/2012 2:37 PM, backspace wrote:
> p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> the end product
> of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
>
> Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds. His was should be wasn't . In
> anycase Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
> was the semantic opposite of random. Fun these word games ain't it?
>

Nope. You have been spending too much time studying Uranus Companion's
goofy word game posts. Darwin was quite clear in his implication that
evolution is NOT RANDOM. People have been trying to teach creatards for
decades that evolution is not based on pure chance, and the idiots keep
coming back with the "tornado in a junkyard" argument. "Selection", as
in "natural selection", is the essentially opposite of random.
Klaus

[backspace]

On Jun 27, 11:22 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce
+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk> wrote:

The sentence doesn't read fine because it equates non-
randomness(directed,volition) with randomness. The non is the prefix
that provides random with a semantic opposite. This is in terms of
Platonic binary contrasts.

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

Actually, the subject is "something". I could
say that "I have, in my pocket, something
as green as a cypress tree, or a freshly
mowed lawn." The something isn't a tree or
a lawn.

Instead of "something", Professor Dawkins
could have written "things" or "such things",
and "were" plural instead of "was".

I'm not sure, but a shift in grammar from
"It is not green, but if it were green, ..."
to, "It is not green, but if it was green, ..."
might apply here. The first nowadays
is correct but showy-offy; the second is
acceptable and normal. I've forgotten what
the first one is called.

[backspace]

On Jun 28, 12:48 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-

Your are should be an aren't from the premise that non-random isn't
the same thing as natural,undirected or random.

Note from the premise, not whether the premise is incorrect or not.

[backspace]

They were the end product of what non-random or random processes? A
random process like tornadoes only represents itself, while a non-
random process represents something other than itself like books,
cars, bridges etc.

[Slow Vehicle]

In that light, the OP's title "should have been", "I admit that I am
an idiot and have no understanding".

[backspace]

On Jun 28, 1:28 pm, Klaus Hellnick <khelSPAMln...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

Do you mean that @not random@ is the synonym of directed? From a
dictionary of 1850 this was the reading. The issue is how did
dictionaries define the terms, not whether they were correct or not.

[backspace]

On Jun 28, 10:37 am, Reentrant <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

Would you rewrite the sentence for me than? Here are the facts:
1) Before Darwin the view was that animals were the product of non-
random directed guidance or creation.
2) During DArwin's time it was the view of blind chance, random. This
was affirmed by Osborn in his NYTimes article around 1921 I think. The
reference is on my http://tautology.wikia.com under the Osborn
entry.

Thus we went from non-random to random and now seemingly back to non-
random as Dawkins and Wikipedia revises history. An additional
problems is that the non-random was the opposite of random during
Darwin's time, it was understood as such. The Newspeak that non-random
no longer is the opposite of random I identified in the Osborn article

[Burkhard]

On Jun 28, 2:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 1:28 pm, Klaus Hellnick <khelSPAMln...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 6/27/2012 2:37 PM, backspace wrote:
>
> > > p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> > > apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> > > the end product
> > > of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
>
> > > Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds.   His was should be wasn't . In
> > > anycase   Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
> > > was the semantic opposite of random.  Fun these word games ain't it?
>
> > Nope. You have been spending too much time studying Uranus Companion's
> > goofy word game posts. Darwin was quite clear in his implication that
> > evolution is NOT RANDOM. People have been trying to teach creatards for
> > decades that evolution is not based on pure chance, and the idiots keep
> > coming back with the "tornado in a junkyard" argument. "Selection", as
> > in "natural selection", is the essentially opposite of random.
> > Klaus
>
> Do you mean that @not random@ is the synonym of directed?

No, "not random" is the synonym of "deterministic", or if you use it
in the epistemic sense, of "predictable"

>From a
> dictionary of 1850 this was the reading. The issue is how did
> dictionaries define the terms, not whether they were correct or not.

For a text written now, the question how a term was defined in the
19th century is pretty much irrelevant.

[Slow Vehicle]

No, "the issue" raised by your post, is whether you have the moral
right to try to change an author's words to make the author seem to
support your sectarian agenda. Dawkins said what he meant, using the
terms he meant to use, to support the point he meant to make. "Non-
chocolate" does NOT mean "vanilla", but any flavor that is not
chocolate, out of the myriad alternatives. "Not random" does NOT mean
"directed", but any process that is not random, out of the myriad
alternatives.

[backspace]

On Jun 27, 10:04�pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 27, 9:22�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > backspace wrote:
> > > p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> > > apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> > > the end product
> > > of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
>
> > > Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds. � His was should be wasn't . In
> > > anycase � Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
> > > was the semantic opposite of random. �Fun these word games ain't it?
>

> > The solution to your conundrum is that a normal person is capable of
> > parsing that sentence quite easily.
>

> Well, then maybe my English is not that good, I don't get it.
>
> This makes more sense:

> Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so apparently

> designed as a dragonfly's wing ..... wasn't �really �the end product
> of .... non-random but purely natural causes?....
>
> This version Dawkins is saying that before Darwin it was believed that
> non-random directed intervention
> generated a dragonfly as opposed to random undirected forces.
>
> Where am I misreading him?

The way this Afrikaner from South-Africa understand English is that
the @but@ gives us a delineation between two choices either random/non-
random or pattern/design or natural/directed. Thus the was must be a
@was not@ or wasn't to indicate a choice between two semantic
opposites.

If Dawkins meant to formulate a sentence with just one choice, not
contrasting to anything else , then he has entered his own type of
Wittgenstein @private language@ that makes no sense. Language only
functions to describe contrasts we understand light as the contrast to
darkness.

His usage of @before@ indicates a difference or contrast between
concepts,the once concept before Darwin and the other concept after
Darwin. Historically this was non-random/random.

[Greg Guarino]

On 6/28/2012 9:48 AM, backspace wrote:
> Thus we went from non-random to random and now seemingly back to non-
> random as Dawkins and Wikipedia revises history.

Nope. Natural Selection never, ever meant "random".

An additional
> problems is that the non-random was the opposite of random during
> Darwin's time, it was understood as such.

Where did Dawkins use the word "random" in the sentence you quote? I
only see the word "natural". Random and non-random are antonyms still;
Natural and non-random are not. Earth's orbit both natural and non-random.

[backspace]

Is there any alternative to the light / darkness contrast established
by Christ himself.

[Slow Vehicle]

"...non-chocolate, but still delicious...", still does not mean,
"vanilla"

[backspace]

On Jun 28, 2:50 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 28, 1:28 pm, Klaus Hellnick <khelSPAMln...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On 6/27/2012 2:37 PM, backspace wrote:
>
> > > > p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> > > > apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> > > > the end product
> > > > of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
>
> > > > Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds.   His was should be wasn't . In
> > > > anycase   Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
> > > > was the semantic opposite of random.  Fun these word games ain't it?
>
> > > Nope. You have been spending too much time studying Uranus Companion's
> > > goofy word game posts. Darwin was quite clear in his implication that
> > > evolution is NOT RANDOM. People have been trying to teach creatards for
> > > decades that evolution is not based on pure chance, and the idiots keep
> > > coming back with the "tornado in a junkyard" argument. "Selection", as
> > > in "natural selection", is the essentially opposite of random.
> > > Klaus
>
> > Do you mean that @not random@ is the synonym of directed?
>
> No, "not random" is the synonym of "deterministic", or if you use it
> in the epistemic sense, of "predictable"

Are you using epistemic as the dissimilar term for falsifiable?
Deterministic , predictable, random, non-random etc. are either
synonymous or dissimilar terms used to represent a Platonic binary
opposite. Namely a pattern with a purpose or pattern without a
purpose.

>
> >From a
> > dictionary of 1850 this was the reading. The issue is how did
> > dictionaries define the terms, not whether they were correct or not.
>
> For a text written now, the question how a term was defined in the
> 19th century is pretty much irrelevant.

why?

[backspace]

Natural in the context used by Darwin was meant as the contrast to non-
random as indicated by his usage of @before@. He was describing a
situation ***before*** Darwin and after Darwin. Thus Natural should be
the dissimilar term by Dawkins to project this contrast to the concept
conveyed by non-random, namely random. Therefore his was is
incorrect , it should either be wasn't or weren't . With wasn't the
contrasts between a concept before and after is indicated. Thus from
my KJV YEC Creationism Platonic opposites, Dawkins sentence doesn't
parse within my grammatical reference frame: he bastardized syntax.

[Greg Guarino]

Hard to believe the irony above could be unintended.

[UC]

On Jun 27, 3:37 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> the end product
> of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....

Oh, the ancient Greek philosophers, among others...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought#Greeks

[Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org]

You're mixing up Darwin and Dawkins now. But that
isn't the problem.

Darwin's evolution is non-random /and/ natural,
because natural events produce design-like
adaptations to "purpose", which I put into quotes
because I suppose nobody /intended/ that there
should be eagles. There just are.

If I throw a stone, it is random because I can
choose any direction to throw the stone, but it
is non-random because the stone will certainly
fall to the ground, because of the non-random
force of gravity.

A natural genetic variation in an individual
eagle's eye may be random, with some individuals
able to see better, and some not so well, but,
in a process that I personally don't rule out
calling /partly/ random, the individuals with
better sight tend to prosper and successfully
reproduce, and the less well adapted individuals
tend not to prosper, and the next generation
tends to be descended from the better-adapted
birds, and to inherit the better characteristics.

At least, that's what I think Professor Dawkins
meant to say, there.

[Slow Vehicle]

Your Christ intentionally set up a dichotomy: light/darkness. had he
said, "light/non-light", there would not be a dichotomy.

[Matchstick]

In article <ee74fff1-7f24-4022-b6a4-1a43dcf1c091
@m3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, steph...@gmail.com says...

> The sentence doesn't read fine because it equates non-
> randomness(directed,volition) with randomness. The non is the prefix
> that provides random with a semantic opposite. This is in terms of
> Platonic binary contrasts.

The only possible way you could ever interpret the statement that way is
if you believe natural = random, so I suspect you are now just arguing
for arguments sake after you saw your initial post get shot down in
flames.

--
The wages of sin are death... but the hours are good and the perks are
fantastic

[UC]

On Jun 28, 5:19 am, nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 11:22:21 PM UTC+1, Bruce Stephens wrote:

I agree the English is a bit awkward, but clear enough. In any case,
the Greeks already had such a notion.

[Attila]

Reentrant wrote:


>
> Yes - not because "were" is factually correct but because it should be
> the plural form.
>
> "... wing or eye WERE ..." not "... wing or eye WAS ...". So the OP is
> right; there is a grammatical error.
>

The following sentence is grammatical for me:
"John or Matilda is the one who killed Christopher"
The following sentence is ungrammatical for me:
*"John or Matilda are the one who killed Christopher."
The verb shouldn't be plural, at least in my dialect. Let me know if this
is not clear.

[Burkhard]

On Jun 28, 3:24 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2:50 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 28, 2:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 28, 1:28 pm, Klaus Hellnick <khelSPAMln...@sbcglobal.net>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On 6/27/2012 2:37 PM, backspace wrote:
>
> > > > > p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> > > > > apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> > > > > the end product
> > > > > of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
>
> > > > > Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds.   His was should be wasn't . In
> > > > > anycase   Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
> > > > > was the semantic opposite of random.  Fun these word games ain't it?
>
> > > > Nope. You have been spending too much time studying Uranus Companion's
> > > > goofy word game posts. Darwin was quite clear in his implication that
> > > > evolution is NOT RANDOM. People have been trying to teach creatards for
> > > > decades that evolution is not based on pure chance, and the idiots keep
> > > > coming back with the "tornado in a junkyard" argument. "Selection", as
> > > > in "natural selection", is the essentially opposite of random.
> > > > Klaus
>
> > > Do you mean that @not random@ is the synonym of directed?
>
> > No, "not random" is the synonym of "deterministic", or if you use it
> > in the epistemic sense, of "predictable"
>
> Are you using epistemic as the dissimilar term for falsifiable?

No, I use it like everyone else, as a term for "statement about our
knowledge". It is in that sense possible to call certain processes
random, because given our imperfect knowledge, they can only be
described statistically - that does not necessarily mean that they are
non-deterministic, just that I don't have enough information to
predict for each individual instance the outcome with hundred percent
certainty. This is different from "ontological randomness" that we
may or may not find on the level of quantum events.

> Deterministic , predictable, random, non-random etc. are either
> synonymous or dissimilar terms used to represent a Platonic binary
> opposite. Namely a pattern with a purpose or pattern without a
> purpose.
>
>
>
> > >From a
> > > dictionary of 1850 this was the reading. The issue is how did
> > > dictionaries define the terms, not whether they were correct or not.
>
> > For a text written now, the question how a term was defined in the
> > 19th century is pretty much irrelevant.
>
> why?

Why not? When I describe from an outsider perspective what people
believe, I use my own vocabulary. It is perfectly intelligible to say
things like "the ancient Egyptians worshipped the sun" even though the
way we define sun now is very different from what they would have
understood under that term.

[backspace]

On Jun 28, 4:36�pm, Matchstick <matchst...@deadspam.com> wrote:
> In article <ee74fff1-7f24-4022-b6a4-1a43dcf1c091

> @m3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, stephan...@gmail.com says...

>
> > The sentence doesn't read fine because it equates non-
> > randomness(directed,volition) with randomness. The non is the prefix
> > that provides random with a semantic opposite. This is in terms of
> > Platonic binary contrasts.
>
> The only possible way you could ever interpret the statement that way is
> if you believe natural = random, so I suspect you are now just arguing
> for arguments sake after you saw your initial post get shot down in
> flames.
>
> --
> The wages of sin are death... but the hours are good and the perks are
> fantastic

1) A natural event took place as the tornado hit the mountain.
2) A random event took place as the tornado hit the mountain.

In a sentence the majority metaphor for is natural <=> random ,
whether synonymous or dissimilar.
There is no such thing as a literal meaning, only majority and
minority metaphor. Dictionaries document the majority metaphor. When I
use literal I mean the majority dictionary type metaphor.

What was the view before Darwin and what was the view after Darwin?
Dawkins is trying to make this distinction and was fails, it must be

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:37:52 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:

>p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
>apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
>the end product
>of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....

>Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds.

Yes, it does.

> His was should be wasn't .

Only if you wish to reverse the meaning. Which, of course,
is your intent.
--

Bob C.

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

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:58:55 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:

>On Jun 27, 3:37�pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
>> apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
>> the end product
>> of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
>>

>> Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds. � His was should be wasn't . In

>> anycase � Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
>> was the semantic opposite of random. �Fun these word games ain't it?
>

>It's not particularly good

....but it does parse correctly...

>, but then he's American

Really? When did he convert?

[backspace]

On Jun 28, 4:26 pm, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/28/2012 10:35 AM, backspace wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 28, 3:13 pm, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 6/28/2012 9:48 AM, backspace wrote:
>
> >>> Thus we went from non-random to random and now seemingly back to non-
> >>> random as Dawkins and Wikipedia revises history.
>
> >> Nope. Natural Selection never, ever meant "random".
>
> >> An additional
>
> >>> problems is that the non-random was the opposite of random during
> >>> Darwin's time, it was understood as such.
>
> >> Where did Dawkins use the word "random" in the sentence you quote? I
> >> only see the word "natural". Random and non-random are antonyms still;
> >> Natural and non-random are not. Earth's orbit both natural and non-random.
>
> > Natural in the context used by Darwin was meant as the contrast to non-

I mistyped, I meant Dawkins not darwin.

[backspace]

Does ontological randomness represent itself or something other than
itself.

[Slow Vehicle]

...which has noting to do with parsing Dawkins' correct sentence...

[Greg Guarino]

On 6/28/2012 1:17 PM, backspace wrote:
> On Jun 28, 4:26 pm, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/28/2012 10:35 AM, backspace wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 28, 3:13 pm, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 6/28/2012 9:48 AM, backspace wrote:
>>
>>>>> Thus we went from non-random to random and now seemingly back to non-
>>>>> random as Dawkins and Wikipedia revises history.
>>
>>>> Nope. Natural Selection never, ever meant "random".
>>
>>>> An additional
>>
>>>>> problems is that the non-random was the opposite of random during
>>>>> Darwin's time, it was understood as such.
>>
>>>> Where did Dawkins use the word "random" in the sentence you quote? I
>>>> only see the word "natural". Random and non-random are antonyms still;
>>>> Natural and non-random are not. Earth's orbit both natural and non-random.
>>
>>> Natural in the context used by Darwin was meant as the contrast to non-
> I mistyped, I meant Dawkins not darwin.

That was the least incomprehensible part

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/28/12 6:04 AM, backspace wrote:
> On Jun 28, 10:14 am, nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com wrote:

>> On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 8:37:52 PM UTC+1, backspace wrote:
>>> p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
>>> apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
>>> the end product
>>> of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
>>
>>> Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds. His was should be wasn't . In
>>> anycase Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
>>> was the semantic opposite of random. Fun these word games ain't it?
>>

>> um. except they *were* the end product etc. You can (if you wish)
>> claim Dawkins is wrong but that doesn't give you carte blanche to
>> rewrite his sentances to change the meaning from the intended one.
>

> They were the end product of what non-random or random processes? A
> random process like tornadoes only represents itself, while a non-
> random process represents something other than itself like books,
> cars, bridges etc.

Tornadoes are not random. If they were random, they would occur about
as often in the winter as in the summer, and they would be about as
common in Oregon, France, and Peru as they are in Oklahoma and Kansas,
and they would not always be circular in cross-section.

Consider this a clue that your understanding of "random process" is many
degrees off course.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Bruce Stephens]

backspace <steph...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Jun 28, 10:14 am, nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 8:37:52 PM UTC+1, backspace wrote:
>> > p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
>> > apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
>> > the end product
>> > of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
>>
>> > Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds.   His was should be wasn't . In
>> > anycase   Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
>> > was the semantic opposite of random.  Fun these word games ain't it?
>>
>> um. except they *were* the end product etc. You can (if you wish) claim Dawkins is wrong but that doesn't give you carte blanche to rewrite his sentances to change the meaning from the intended one.
>
> They were the end product of what non-random or random processes? A
> random process like tornadoes only represents itself, while a non-
> random process represents something other than itself like books,
> cars, bridges etc.

The "non-random but purely natural causes" aren't described further in
the sentence in question. That doesn't change the question of whether
it's grammatical or not. (I think it is.)

[Burkhard]

Do green triangles sleep furiously?

[Tim Norfolk]

And 'random' doesn't mean equally likely, which seems to be the way that most people internalize the phrase.

[Tim Norfolk]

On Thursday, June 28, 2012 7:43:34 AM UTC-4, Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org wrote:
> On Thursday, June 28, 2012 10:47:08 AM UTC+1, Burkhard wrote:
> > On Jun 28, 10:37 am, Reentrant <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > > On 28/06/2012 10:14, nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 8:37:52 PM UTC+1, backspace wrote:
> > >
> > > >> p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> > > >> apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> > > >> the end product
> > > >> of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
> > >
> > > >> Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds.   His was should be wasn't . In
> > > >> anycase   Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
> > > >> was the semantic opposite of random.  Fun these word games ain't it?
> > >
> > > > um. except they *were* the end product etc. You can (if you wish) claim Dawkins is wrong but that doesn't give you carte blanche to rewrite his sentances to change the meaning from the intended one.
> > >

> > > Yes - not because "were" is factually correct but because it should be
> > > the plural form.
> > >
> > > "... wing or eye WERE ..." not "... wing or eye WAS ...". So the OP is
> > > right; there is a grammatical error.
> > >

> > > --
> > > Reentrant
> >
> > My grammar book from school said that "Two singular subjects connected
> > by either/or or neither/nor require a singular verb" - i did a quick
> > check for online sources, this one says the same:
> > http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/subjectVerbAgree.asp
> >
> > Not being a native speaker, my intuitions are not the best guide, they
> > would have been with you though.
>
> Actually, the subject is "something". I could
> say that "I have, in my pocket, something
> as green as a cypress tree, or a freshly
> mowed lawn." The something isn't a tree or
> a lawn.
>
> Instead of "something", Professor Dawkins
> could have written "things" or "such things",
> and "were" plural instead of "was".
>
> I'm not sure, but a shift in grammar from
> "It is not green, but if it were green, ..."
> to, "It is not green, but if it was green, ..."
> might apply here. The first nowadays
> is correct but showy-offy; the second is
> acceptable and normal. I've forgotten what
> the first one is called.

The first is the subjunctive, isn't it?

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Jun 28, 8:56 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 27, 11:22 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce
>
>
>
>
>
> +use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> writes:

> > > On Jun 27, 3:37 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> > >> apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> > >> the end product
> > >> of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
>
> > >> Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds.   His was should be wasn't . In
> > >> anycase   Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
> > >> was the semantic opposite of random.  Fun these word games ain't it?
>

> > > It's not particularly good, but then he's American and a scientist.
>
> > Dawkins is American? When did that happen?
>

> > (I also find the sentence reads fine, but then I'm English so what do I
> > know about the language?)

>
> The sentence doesn't read fine because it equates non-
> randomness(directed,volition) with randomness. The non is the prefix
> that provides random with a semantic opposite. This is in terms of
> Platonic binary contrasts.

"Non-" does not provide semantic opposite; it provides negation. Why
is this hard for you to understand? If you don't understand a basic
principle of English like that, should you really be making arguments
based on manipulation of language, rather than on facts and logic?

Mitchell Coffey

[Klaus Hellnick]

On 6/28/2012 8:42 AM, backspace wrote:
> On Jun 28, 1:28 pm, Klaus Hellnick <khelSPAMln...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:

>> On 6/27/2012 2:37 PM, backspace wrote:
>>
>>> p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
>>> apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
>>> the end product
>>> of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
>>
>>> Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds. His was should be wasn't . In
>>> anycase Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
>>> was the semantic opposite of random. Fun these word games ain't it?
>>

>> Nope. You have been spending too much time studying Uranus Companion's

>> goofy word game posts. Dawkins was quite clear in his implication that

>> evolution is NOT RANDOM. People have been trying to teach creatards for
>> decades that evolution is not based on pure chance, and the idiots keep
>> coming back with the "tornado in a junkyard" argument. "Selection", as
>> in "natural selection", is the essentially opposite of random.
>> Klaus
>

> Do you mean that @not random@ is the synonym of directed? From a

> dictionary of 1850 this was the reading. The issue is how did
> dictionaries define the terms, not whether they were correct or not.
>

No, not random means not random. Not random means that there are
discernable patterns or characteristics that make events somewhat
predictable. Directed is not the antonym of random, nor is it a synonym
of "non random". Deterministic would be the antonym, though there is a
gradient between the two extremes. For example, the exact time of decay
for a single atom of a radioactive isotope can not be predicted, yet the
half life of the isotope can be known with great precision.
klaus

[Steven L.]

On 6/27/2012 3:37 PM, backspace wrote:
> p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> the end product
> of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
>
> Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds. His was should be wasn't . In
> anycase Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
> was the semantic opposite of random. Fun these word games ain't it?

I prefer Scrabble.




-- Steven L.

[Eric Root]

On Jun 28, 2:44 pm, Tim Norfolk <timsn...@aol.com> wrote:

Yes, subjunctive.

[Kleuskes & Moos]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 07:17:51 -0700, Slow Vehicle wrote:

> On Jun 28, 8:00 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 27, 10:04 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 27, 9:22 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > backspace wrote:
>> > > > p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
>> > > > apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
>> > > > the end product
>> > > > of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
>>
>> > > > Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds. His was should be wasn't . In
>> > > > anycase Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
>> > > > was the semantic opposite of random. Fun these word games ain't it?
>>

>> > > The solution to your conundrum is that a normal person is capable of
>> > > parsing that sentence quite easily.
>>
>> > Well, then maybe my English is not that good, I don't get it.
>>
>> > This makes more sense:

>> > Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so apparently

>> > designed as a dragonfly's wing ..... wasn't really the end product
>> > of .... non-random but purely natural causes?....
>>
>> > This version Dawkins is saying that before Darwin it was believed that
>> > non-random directed intervention
>> > generated a dragonfly as opposed to random undirected forces.
>>
>> > Where am I misreading him?
>>
>> The way this Afrikaner from South-Africa understand English is that
>> the @but@ gives us a delineation between two choices either random/non-
>> random  or pattern/design or natural/directed. Thus the was must be a
>> @was not@ or wasn't to indicate a choice between two semantic
>> opposites.
>>
>> If Dawkins meant to formulate a sentence with just one choice, not
>> contrasting to anything else , then he has entered his own type of
>> Wittgenstein @private language@ that makes no sense. Language only
>> functions to describe contrasts we understand light as the contrast to
>> darkness.
>>
>> His usage of @before@ indicates a difference or contrast between
>> concepts,the once concept before Darwin and the other concept after
>> Darwin. Historically this was non-random/random.
>
> "...non-chocolate, but still delicious...", still does not mean,
> "vanilla"

Die Afrikaner sal nie snap nie...

[Kleuskes & Moos]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:27:57 -0700, backspace wrote:

> On Jun 28, 4:36 pm, Matchstick <matchst...@deadspam.com> wrote:
>> In article <ee74fff1-7f24-4022-b6a4-1a43dcf1c091
>> @m3g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, stephan...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> > The sentence doesn't read fine because it equates non-
>> > randomness(directed,volition) with randomness. The non is the prefix
>> > that provides random with a semantic opposite. This is in terms of
>> > Platonic binary contrasts.
>>
>> The only possible way you could ever interpret the statement that way is
>> if you believe natural = random, so I suspect you are now just arguing
>> for arguments sake after you saw your initial post get shot down in
>> flames.
>>
>> --
>> The wages of sin are death... but the hours are good and the perks are
>> fantastic
>
> 1) A natural event took place as the tornado hit the mountain.
> 2) A random event took place as the tornado hit the mountain.
>
> In a sentence the majority metaphor for is natural <=> random ,
> whether synonymous or dissimilar.

What the furk i a "majority metaphor"? Most natural things are non-random,
many random things are man-made.

> There is no such thing as a literal meaning, only majority and
> minority metaphor.

You ar _very_ creative when it comes to language. Sadly linguistic
creativity does not imply any scientific usefulness. let alone veracity.

> Dictionaries document the majority metaphor.

Which? Webster doesn't know the term. It knows a "dead metaphor", a "mixed
metaphor" and a "root metaphor", though.

> When I
> use literal I mean the majority dictionary type metaphor.

The dictionary doesn't know what the f..k you're talking about.

> What was the view before Darwin and what was the view after Darwin?

I suggest you consult a librarian, who will (hopefully) provide some
reading material.

> Dawkins is trying to make this distinction and was fails, it must be
> wasn't or weren't

Your grasp of the english language does not seem very firm.

[UC]

On Jun 27, 3:37 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> the end product
> of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
>
> Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds.   His was should be wasn't . In
> anycase   Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
> was the semantic opposite of random.  Fun these word games ain't it?

The English seems to be 'correct', though that hardly qualifies as
praise.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 10:53:12 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net>:

>On 6/28/12 6:04 AM, backspace wrote:
>> On Jun 28, 10:14 am, nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 8:37:52 PM UTC+1, backspace wrote:
>>>> p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
>>>> apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
>>>> the end product
>>>> of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
>>>
>>>> Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds. His was should be wasn't . In
>>>> anycase Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
>>>> was the semantic opposite of random. Fun these word games ain't it?
>>>
>>> um. except they *were* the end product etc. You can (if you wish)
>>> claim Dawkins is wrong but that doesn't give you carte blanche to
>>> rewrite his sentances to change the meaning from the intended one.
>>
>> They were the end product of what non-random or random processes? A
>> random process like tornadoes only represents itself, while a non-
>> random process represents something other than itself like books,
>> cars, bridges etc.
>
>Tornadoes are not random. If they were random, they would occur about
>as often in the winter as in the summer, and they would be about as
>common in Oregon, France, and Peru as they are in Oklahoma and Kansas,
>and they would not always be circular in cross-section.
>
>Consider this a clue that your understanding of "random process" is many
>degrees off course.

He knows exactly what a random process is: "Any process
which is not directly guided by a deity".

See how easy is when the brain is disengaged?

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:18:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Mitchell Coffey
<mitchel...@gmail.com>:

>On Jun 28, 8:56 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 27, 11:22 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> +use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> > UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> > > On Jun 27, 3:37 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >> p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
>> > >> apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
>> > >> the end product
>> > >> of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
>>
>> > >> Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds.   His was should be wasn't . In
>> > >> anycase   Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
>> > >> was the semantic opposite of random.  Fun these word games ain't it?
>>
>> > > It's not particularly good, but then he's American and a scientist.
>>
>> > Dawkins is American? When did that happen?
>>
>> > (I also find the sentence reads fine, but then I'm English so what do I
>> > know about the language?)
>>
>> The sentence doesn't read fine because it equates non-
>> randomness(directed,volition) with randomness. The non is the prefix
>> that provides random with a semantic opposite. This is in terms of
>> Platonic binary contrasts.
>
>"Non-" does not provide semantic opposite; it provides negation. Why
>is this hard for you to understand?

I'm getting vague mental echoes of Ray and his similar
idiotic claim regarding the "a-" prefix, as in "a-theistic".

> If you don't understand a basic
>principle of English like that, should you really be making arguments
>based on manipulation of language, rather than on facts and logic?
>
>Mitchell Coffey

[UC]

On Jun 29, 2:20 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:18:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Mitchell Coffey

> <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com>:

Negation and opposition are two different things, though all
opposition is also negation.

[backspace]

Lets generalize Dawkin's sentence on p.117 of The God delusion. As a
generalization the difference between relativity theory and Aether
theory will be formulated using the same grammatical structure from
the Dawkins sentence

1) Dawkins sentence p.117 with the was:

"...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
the end product of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural

causes .... ? "

2) With Dawkins @was@ generalized:
...Who, before Einstein, could have guessed that the bending of light
around a star was really
the result of Aether theory but relativity theory?....

To differentiate between facts before Einstein and after Einstein the
@was@ should be a @was not@ or @were not@.

3) Finally the correct version:
...Who, before Einstein, could have guessed that the bending of light
around stars *were not* really
the result of Aether theory but relativity theory?....

There was a perception before Einstein and after Einstein, there was
a perception before Darwin and after Darwin.
To differentiate between the situations before and after a wasn't is
needed to indicate the *difference* in perception. From the Dawkins
sentence what was the difference in perceptions before and after
Darwin? If I am wrong, where am I making my mistake.

[backspace]

On Jun 27, 11:45 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> backspace wrote:
> > On Jun 27, 9:22 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> >> backspace wrote:
> >>> p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> >>> apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> >>> the end product
> >>> of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
> >>> Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds.   His was should be wasn't . In
> >>> anycase   Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
> >>> was the semantic opposite of random.  Fun these word games ain't it?

> >> The solution to your conundrum is that a normal person is capable of
> >> parsing that sentence quite easily.
>
> > Well, then maybe my English is not that good, I don't get it.
>

> Exactly. Now you're getting it.
>
> > This makes more sense:

> > Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so apparently

> > designed as a dragonfly's wing ..... wasn't  really  the end product
> > of .... non-random but purely natural causes?....
>
> > This version Dawkins is saying that before Darwin it was believed that
> > non-random directed intervention
> > generated a dragonfly as opposed to random undirected forces.
>
> > Where am I misreading him?
>

> Everywhere. Evolution isn't random. Evolution is non-random. He's
> talking about evolution. In fact he's asking who, before Darwin, could
> have supposed that natural selection could produce something that looks
> designed. Before Darwin, apparent design was most often attributed to
> God, who, though supposed also to be non-random, is assumed not to be a
> natural cause.

It is irrelevant what he is talking about, the issue is one of
grammar. The way the sentence reads natural causes and non-random are
the same concept, whatever the concept might be. Because a dictionary
from 1850 defines non-random as random natural unintentional events.

What dictionary are you using?

[backspace]

One more thing I forgot is that you must use a dictionary from 1850 to
reflect how a Victorian reader understood Darwin in their reference
frame where non-random is the semantic opposite of random. Today it
seems the rules of semantics and grammar for some people have changed
in that non-random is insisted as not being the opposite of random.

Some use non-random as the opposite of random, or to reflect a
dichotomy between the two. While others insist that that non-random
and random are the same thing, which makes it difficult to
communicate. It is like holding a conversation with a Falun Gong sect
child , many invented their own dialect of Chinese so that not even
their parents could understand them.

[backspace]

Let me try again:
A dictionary from 1850 defines non-random as intentional, volitional
direct with a purpose , the opposite or random, undirected no purpose.

The the issue is not whether this Platonic contrast was correct or
not, but that this was the view. Dawkins is making an historical
analysis and as such must reflect the historical concept as they
understood it. Not some different concept as he understands using the
same terminology.

Why is this difficult to understand?

[wiki trix]

The word "random" is not defined. In my experience, it has more to do
with how much you understand the process.

[backspace]

We know what randomness isn't we don't know what randomness
constitutes as an essence. Mathematically it can't be defined, most
probably because it doesn't exist. Thus @random@ should be used with
subscripts to designate the metaphysical assumptions that are being
made. Google naming+conventions+evolution

[backspace]

On Jun 30, 7:53 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

Lets generalize with another example:

Dawkins sentence p.117 with the was:
"...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
the end product of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural
causes .... ? "

Using Dawkins grammatical structure:
1) Who, before today could have guessed that light on earth was
really the product of space aliens but the sun?
2a) premise for yesterday: Earthlings believed that space aliens
caused light on earth.
2b) Discovery today: Light is caused by the sun.

Based on 2a) and 2b) sentence 1) is corrected to:
.. Who, before today could have guessed that light on earth wasn't
really the product of space aliens but the sun? ..


Before Darwin they believed something, which Dawkins labels as what?
Because he uses a "was" it is not clear whether he is stating:
3a) They believed in a non-random process before Darwin or after
Darwin ?
3b) They believed in natural causes before or after Darwin ?
3c) They believed that non-random causes and natural causes were the
same thing or that natural was the opposite of non-random because
natural was the synonym for random within the Victorian reader's
reference frame. Whether this was correct or not is irrelevant ,
because Dawkins was supposed to state an historical fact.
3d) Is Dawkins using natural as the Platonic contrast to non-random?
What contrast is he referring to that the Victorian readers believed,
not whether Dawkins thought this was correct or not.

If Dawkins is saying that the Victorian readers with their Platonic
primary contrasts, believed something different before Darwin than
after Darwin, what was this different concept within their world view,
not Dawkins world view? Dawkins does not believe in Platonic primary
contrasts but is using the same type of volitional language to
propagate a different non-Platonic language description. John Wilkins
stated :....Ordinary language isn't suitable for discussing concepts
in biology.... By ordinary he meant Platonic binary contrast
language with its innate volition isn't the correct world view, only
non-Platonic language where Purpose isn't the semantic opposite of non-
Purpose. It is as Nietzsche said' ''.... we shall not be rid of God ,
until we are rid of grammar ....''. By which he meant the grammar of
Platonic contrasts. After Darwin they believed the opposite of before
Darwin, therefore Dawkins 'was' must be a "wasn't" or "weren't" in
terms of Platonic opposites.

[John Harshman]

I'm going to attribute that to your limited understanding of English.
You are wrong. The sentence reads that way only to you. In fact, the
word "but" precludes such an interpretation.

> Because a dictionary
> from 1850 defines non-random as random natural unintentional events.

Nobody cares what a dictionary from 1850 says. Why should they?

> What dictionary are you using?
>

I use a dictionary that doesn't say much about grammar. If you're
talking about grammar here, dictionaries have nothing to do with it.

[John Harshman]

Why, because that isn't the issue. Dawkins is using the current meanings
of words. It's possible to use modern language to discuss past events.
You don't have to discuss Candide in French either.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:01:36 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:

>Negation and opposition are two different things, though all
>opposition is also negation.

Correct. Now try telling that to Ray and backspace.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 00:34:24 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:

Whether anything physical is truly random or not is
irrelevant; it has a precise mathematical (statistics)
definition.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 23:53:26 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:

>On Jun 29, 5:22 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 27, 3:37 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
>> > apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
>> > the end product
>> > of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
>>
>> > Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds.   His was should be wasn't . In
>> > anycase   Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
>> > was the semantic opposite of random.  Fun these word games ain't it?
>>
>> The English seems to be 'correct', though that hardly qualifies as
>> praise.
>
>
>Lets generalize Dawkin's sentence

Let's don't; the sentence as constructed is perfectly clear
and doesn't require your "spin".

[UC]

On Jun 30, 2:04 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 23:53:26 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace

> <stephan...@gmail.com>:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jun 29, 5:22 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Jun 27, 3:37 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> >> > apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> >> > the end product
> >> > of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
>
> >> > Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds.   His was should be wasn't . In
> >> > anycase   Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
> >> > was the semantic opposite of random.  Fun these word games ain't it?
>
> >> The English seems to be 'correct', though that hardly qualifies as
> >> praise.
>
> >Lets generalize Dawkin's sentence
>
> Let's don't; the sentence as constructed is perfectly clear
> and doesn't require your "spin".
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>                           - McNameless

I agree that it is correct but could be expressed better.

[Slow Vehicle]

Then do so, in _your own_ book, and stop presuming to "improve" works
that do not need you pissing in them so that they will taste like
you...
The sentence, as written, says precisely what Dawkins wanted to say.

[Vend]

On 28 Giu, 02:14, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 27, 7:22 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:

>
> > UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > > On Jun 27, 3:37 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> > >> apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> > >> the end product
> > >> of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
>
> > >> Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds.   His was should be wasn't . In
> > >> anycase   Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
> > >> was the semantic opposite of random.  Fun these word games ain't it?
>

> > > It's not particularly good, but then he's American and a scientist.
>
> > Dawkins is American? When did that happen?
>

> He was actually born in St Louis, but moved to Britain and faked his
> birth certificate so he could become a British academic.

According to Wikipedia: "Dawkins was born in Nairobi, Kenya."
LoL!

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 20:03:29 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:

>On Jun 30, 2:04 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 23:53:26 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
>> <stephan...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jun 29, 5:22 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On Jun 27, 3:37 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
>> >> > apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
>> >> > the end product
>> >> > of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
>>
>> >> > Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds.   His was should be wasn't . In
>> >> > anycase   Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
>> >> > was the semantic opposite of random.  Fun these word games ain't it?
>>
>> >> The English seems to be 'correct', though that hardly qualifies as
>> >> praise.
>>
>> >Lets generalize Dawkin's sentence
>>
>> Let's don't; the sentence as constructed is perfectly clear
>> and doesn't require your "spin".

>I agree that it is correct but could be expressed better.

Most things could, which is irrelevant to my point.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 10:41:15 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 00:34:24 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
><steph...@gmail.com>:

>>We know what randomness isn't we don't know what randomness
>>constitutes as an essence. Mathematically it can't be defined, most
>>probably because it doesn't exist.

>Whether anything physical is truly random or not is
>irrelevant; it has a precise mathematical (statistics)
>definition.

No response...

Refuted, backspace runs away again.

[UC]

Well most scientists are not good writers. it's not necessary in their
work.

[UC]

On Jun 30, 11:40 pm, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, but he could have expressed it better. Darwin would have.

[Slow Vehicle]

You are, as always, welcome to your opinion.

[UC]

I didn't say it was bad, but that it could have been better.

[Slow Vehicle]

I didn't say you said it was bad: I said (and you can see it, right up
there): "You are, as always, welcome to your opinion."

[backspace]

Would you then express the sentence to indicate what was the
difference before Darwin and after Darwin? You know just as well as I
the sentence makes no sense, which is why you have not reformuulated
it, even though it will only take a minute of your time.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 13:03:35 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace

<steph...@gmail.com>:

<snipped for brevity and clarity>

>Would you then express the sentence to indicate what was the
>difference before Darwin and after Darwin? You know just as well as I
>the sentence makes no sense, which is why you have not reformuulated
>it, even though it will only take a minute of your time.

Reformulating a perfectly good and understandable
sentence...

"Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye
was really the end product of a long sequence of non-random
but purely natural causes?"

....so that it meets with your approval would involve
creating a lie, since you apparently "can't" correctly parse
any sentence of which you disapprove and insist on changing
the meaning of such sentences to suit your beliefs.

[Slow Vehicle]

Sweetie: the sentence, as written makes perfect sense...it just says
something you wish weren't true.

[backspace]

On Jun 27, 9:22�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> backspace wrote:
> > p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so
> > apparently designed as a dragonfly's wing or an eagle's eye was really
> > the end product
> > of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
>
> > Doesn't parse on grammatical grounds. � His was should be wasn't . In
> > anycase � Dawkins isn't using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
> > was the semantic opposite of random. �Fun these word games ain't it?
>

> The solution to your conundrum is that a normal person is capable of
> parsing that sentence quite easily.

Help me out then: Upload a video to youtube demonstrating what is
meant with 'non-random' and 'natural'.

[John Stockwell]

On Wednesday, June 27, 2012 1:37:52 PM UTC-6, backspace wrote:
> p.117 ...Who, before Darwin, could have guessed that something so

> apparently designed as a dragonfly&#39;s wing or an eagle&#39;s eye was really

> the end product
> of a long sequence of non-random but purely natural causes?....
>

> Doesn&#39;t parse on grammatical grounds. His was should be wasn&#39;t . In
> anycase Dawkins isn&#39;t using a dictionary from 1850 where non-random
> was the semantic opposite of random. Fun these word games ain&#39;t it?

This is evidence of your mental illness. The sentence is perfectly grammatically correct, and vastly more relevant than anything that you have ever posted.

-John