Natural selection as a non-random selection process - Wikipedia

23 views
Skip to first unread message

backspace

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 7:15:07 AM12/11/07
to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
"...It contrasts with the evolutionary mechanism, natural selection, a
non-random selection process in which the tendency of alleles to
become more or less widespread in a population over time is due to the
alleles' effects on adaptive and reproductive success..."

What would a random selection process look like?

Ron O

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 7:40:31 AM12/11/07
to

Genetic drift. Look up things like founder effects and neutral
theory.

Playing word games when you don't know what you are talking about has
to be pretty degrading for you. What is your definition of a
selection process? Both genetic drift and selection contribute to the
evolution of a population, do you deny that? Playing word games won't
get you anywhere. What you need is an alternative that you can go out
and determine if it even exists.

Just imagine if you had such an alternative, you wouldn't be wasting
your time looking like a boob doing what you are doing? Is it so
hopeless that you have stopped trying to come up with an alternative?
Sean Pitman, and other losers like Pagano have given up or at least
pretend to have stopped trying. If you don't have a viable
alternative what are you arguing about?

Ron Okimoto

Ernest Major

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 7:47:10 AM12/11/07
to
In message
<ebb8eea6-f8d7-47fe...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> writes
Isn't there something in the Bible about drawing lots?

For a contemporary example, a random data stream can be obtained from
the number of decays in a sample of radioactive material. This could be
used to select the winners of a lottery.
--
alias Ernest Major

backspace

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 9:25:47 AM12/11/07
to
On Dec 11, 2:40 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 6:15 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
> > "...It contrasts with the evolutionary mechanism, natural selection, a
> > non-random selection process in which the tendency of alleles to
> > become more or less widespread in a population over time is due to the
> > alleles' effects on adaptive and reproductive success..."
>
> > What would a random selection process look like?
>
> Genetic drift. Look up things like founder effects and neutral
> theory.
>
> Playing word games when you don't know what you are talking about has
> to be pretty degrading for you. What is your definition of a
> selection process? Both genetic drift and selection contribute to the
> evolution of a population, do you deny that? Playing word games won't
> get you anywhere. What you need is an alternative that you can go out
> and determine if it even exists.

I am talking about the word "selection" in the English language which
means a decision. What has
a decision by a human got to do with the words drift and genetic?

Woland

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 9:30:42 AM12/11/07
to

The other posters made good points but here is another way to think
about it.

We know that 'natural selection' is non-random because we can observe
the characteristics that lead to greater reproductive success, which
means that individuals within a population that have this trait will
produce more offspring.

However, if it were a random process we would see no corelation
between traits and reproductive success. It would be a random
distribution.
Savy?

backspace

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 9:41:41 AM12/11/07
to

No, I am talking about the term "Selection process" which in and of
itself has got nothing to do with frogs being a "success". A selection
process implies that it is directed by somebody or that it is non-
random. In fact a selection process in ordinary speech is defined as
being non-random or directed. Which is why I want to know what's up
with the redundancy in the Wikipedia article, why are saying it is non-
random - what is their pragmatics and aphobetics. \

Would would you agree that the synonym or non-random is directed?

backspace

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 9:42:51 AM12/11/07
to
On Dec 11, 4:30 pm, Woland <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:

No, I am talking about the term "Selection process" which in and of


itself has got nothing to do with frogs being a "success". A selection
process implies that it is directed by somebody or that it is non-
random. In fact a selection process in ordinary speech is defined as
being non-random or directed. Which is why I want to know what's up
with the redundancy in the Wikipedia article, why are saying it is non-
random - what is their pragmatics and aphobetics.

Woland would you agree that the synonym for non-random is directed?

Geoff

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 9:54:56 AM12/11/07
to

If genomes were selected for that were *less* fit.


Geoff

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 9:58:50 AM12/11/07
to

Where do you get "a decision by a human"? Artificial selection involves
humans. Natural selection, and for that matter genetic drift, happens
naturally.

The term "natural selection" implies selection by nature, which cannot be a
positive rational decision in the strictest sense of the term "selection".
It is a metaphorical term.


Cheezits

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 10:02:37 AM12/11/07
to
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[etc.]

> What would a random selection process look like?

Like reaching into a bag of Scrabble tiles and pulling out letters without
looking at them.

Sue (with 7 consonants at the moment, argh!)
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green

Woland

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 10:10:50 AM12/11/07
to

No, it doesn't mean decision. You should listen to people whose first
language is English by the way, we have a greater understanding of the
subtleties...well some of us anyway.

Though I can, as a person, select things, we often use selection to
apply to processes that do not involve humans.

Geoff

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 10:08:32 AM12/11/07
to
backspace wrote:

> No, I am talking about the term "Selection process" which in and of
> itself has got nothing to do with frogs being a "success". A selection
> process implies that it is directed by somebody or that it is non-
> random. In fact a selection process in ordinary speech is defined as
> being non-random or directed. Which is why I want to know what's up
> with the redundancy in the Wikipedia article, why are saying it is
> non- random -

I guess you can say it is redundant, though this isn't obvious. Thus, its
inclusion, though redundant, is necessary. Furthermore, indicating it is
non-random sets it apart from the underlying mutations and genetic drift
which are decidedly random.

> what is their pragmatics and aphobetics.

No idea what "aphobetics" are though your use of the term "pragmatics" is
sophomoric.

> Would would you agree that the synonym or non-random is directed?

Would you agree that the sentence above is poorly worded?


Mujin

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 10:17:42 AM12/11/07
to
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1faffe29-d566-4514-a696-
404c72...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

No, "selection" does not automatically imply decision by an intelligent
agent. An egg sorting machine selects the correct destination for each egg
based on its size, for example. Selection, particularly in a statistical
sense, simply means that the process is non-random. Here's an analogy that
illustrates the difference between natural selection (a non-random process)
and genetic drift (a random process)

Consider a scenario in which a sheet of hard plastic containing a
triangular hole is placed over a box. Blocks of various shapes are then
dropped onto the sheet. Those blocks that are triangular, and of a
suitable size, can slip through the hole. No other blocks can get through.
In the end, the box will contain only triangular blocks: triangles have
been selected by the process.

Consider a scenario identical to the above, except that instead of hard
plastic with a triangular hole there is a long, soft plastic sheet that
comes off a roll on one side of the box and gets gathered up on another
roll on the other side of the box. Blocks of various shapes are then
dropped onto the sheet. Some blocks will encounter a weak spot in the
plastic, and will rip through to fall into the box. Other blocks will
encounter stronger parts of the plastic, and will bounce away to be
discarded. When the process is done, the box will contain a random mixture
of blocks of various sizes and shapes.

--
Bon nou mujin sei gan dan

Woland

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 10:17:47 AM12/11/07
to

Selection does not have to be non-random or directed silly. Selection
can be completely random (functionally random anyway).

Get a jar of peanuts. Close your eyes and reach into the jar,
selecting a peanut. You have now randomly selected a peanut! Don't
they have bingo where you live? Or the lottery?

> Would would you agree that the synonym or non-random is directed?- Hide quoted text -

No. No I would not.

Woland

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 10:21:06 AM12/11/07
to

Mujin

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 10:23:30 AM12/11/07
to
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:5f90cb71-3e56-4776-b54e-
062e76...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

In the mathematical science of statistics, "selection" is a technical term
for a process that is not necessarily "non-random" so it's necessary to
specify.

>
> Woland would you agree that the synonym for non-random is directed?

I don't know about Woland, but I certainly don't agree. The direction in
which gravity acts is non-random, but it is also not directed.

Bob T.

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 10:32:52 AM12/11/07
to
On Dec 11, 7:02 am, Cheezits <Cheezit...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [etc.]
>
> > What would a random selection process look like?
>
> Like reaching into a bag of Scrabble tiles and pulling out letters without
> looking at them.

If the selection was at the word level instead of the letter level,
random selection would look a lot like a typical backspace post.

- Bob T.

Kermit

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 10:33:58 AM12/11/07
to
On Dec 11, 6:42 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 4:30 pm, Woland <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 11, 7:15 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
> > > "...It contrasts with the evolutionary mechanism, natural selection, a
> > > non-random selection process in which the tendency of alleles to
> > > become more or less widespread in a population over time is due to the
> > > alleles' effects on adaptive and reproductive success..."
>
> > > What would a random selection process look like?
>
> > The other posters made good points but here is another way to think
> > about it.
>
> > We know that 'natural selection' is non-random because we can observe
> > the characteristics that lead to greater reproductive success, which
> > means that individuals within a population that have this trait will
> > produce more offspring.
>
> > However, if it were a random process we would see no corelation
> > between traits and reproductive success. It would be a random
> > distribution.
> > Savy?
>
> No, I am talking about the term "Selection process" which in and of
> itself has got nothing to do with frogs being a "success".

Of course it does. While there is always some random changes - genetic
drift - any phenotype which is not as adapted to the environment as
most of its peers will be selected against, and traits which improve
the frog's reproductive success will be selected for.

> A selection
> process implies that it is directed by somebody

Unless there is a modifying term which makes it clear - especially
after 150 years of slow and careful explanations - that this is not a
conscious process.

> or that it is non- random.

Of *course it's non-random. "Random" in this context means in respect
to environmental pressures.

> In fact a selection process in ordinary speech is defined as
> being non-random or directed.

Unless there is a modifying term which makes it clear that it is not.

> Which is why I want to know what's up

Nothing is "up" about it. Are you holding your computer over your
head? How can an article be "up"? Our language is largely metaphor. If
you cannot handle your own native tongue, it is not a problem for
evolutionary science.

> with the redundancy in the Wikipedia article, why are saying it is non-
> random

Some people apparently cannot (or pretend that they cannot) understand
plain English, so the article seems careful to explain what they are
talking about. Some folks are normal but young, and have never run
into these ideas before.

> - what is their pragmatics and aphobetics.

Not applicable. Nobody who understands these words would try to apply
them here. Stick with trying to understand compound nouns and
adjectives; you have enough trouble with them.

>
> Woland would you agree that the synonym for non-random is directed?

No. "Directed" is only one of several ways a process might be non-
directed. Often a careful look at a process reveals that it is not
random, but a researcher might spend decades determining why it is
not.

The association between cardiac health and exercise is not random, for
example. We knew that 50 years ago. Researchers are still trying to
tease out all of the causal links and their mechanisms.

Kermit

Mark VandeWettering

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 10:38:19 AM12/11/07
to

Presumably it would select creatures at random, without any measurable
correlation to their phenotypes.

Mark

RAM

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 10:40:12 AM12/11/07
to

This deserves at least an honorable mention for POTM!

RAM

Rolf

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 10:45:08 AM12/11/07
to

"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1faffe29-d566-4514...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
I do not know what replies others may have given to this, but the point is,
and i believe it must be a real problem both for you and all people you talk
to, that you are suca a querulous type.

You are right; 'selection' means a decisison - in the context you are
referring to. But only an idiot will insist that words always have the same
meaning, connotation, regardless of context. Now, be a good boy and try to
learn something about what the context of evolutionary theory may mean in
this context...

Like in this context, the word idiot simply means "Someone without a clue."

If you are incapable of that and will continue inisisting that "selection"
means a "decision by a human", then you might feel more comfortable in
another forum. Why not try a creationist forum?


Rolf

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 10:55:39 AM12/11/07
to

"Cheezits" <Cheez...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A0366278A1F2ch...@130.81.64.196...

> backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [etc.]
> > What would a random selection process look like?
>
> Like reaching into a bag of Scrabble tiles and pulling out letters without
> looking at them.
>

Oh, so we really are into playing word games now, are we?

Random selection doesn't sound good to me, i'd rather say "Selection at
random" i.e. there are two processes; selection, with the element of
randomness added.

I select, but chose to let the result be determined by a random factor by
leaving the outcome to a secondary source outside of my control. The
opposite would of course be selection without that random element, by
looking at the pieces and decide which one to chose. Still, some randomness
may be present, for instance by the bag containing only a random selection
of tiles.

Inez

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 11:06:38 AM12/11/07
to
> a decision by a human got to do with the words drift and genetic?-

What happened to your claim that we have to know "intent" to know what
words mean? Does that only happen when it supports your odd notions?

John Harshman

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 11:15:28 AM12/11/07
to
backspace wrote:

Put a bunch of marbles in a bag. Pick one out without looking at it.
That's a random selection. Or watch them pick the lotto numbers on TV
some time. Same thing.

Now put a bunch of marbles in a bag, some black, some white. Take one
out at random. If it's white, crush it with a hammer. If it's black, put
it back and add another black marble to the bag too. How long before all
the marbles are black?

Greg Guarino

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 11:18:57 AM12/11/07
to
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 06:41:41 -0800 (PST), backspace
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Would would you agree that the synonym or non-random is directed?

No.

Many things, Natural Selection among them, are booth non-random and
non-directed.

Greg Guarino

backspace

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 12:39:23 PM12/11/07
to
On Dec 11, 5:08 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
> backspace wrote:
> > No, I am talking about the term "Selection process" which in and of
> > itself has got nothing to do with frogs being a "success". A selection
> > process implies that it is directed by somebody or that it is non-
> > random. In fact a selection process in ordinary speech is defined as
> > being non-random or directed. Which is why I want to know what's up
> > with the redundancy in the Wikipedia article, why are saying it is
> > non- random -

> I guess you can say it is redundant, though this isn't obvious. Thus, its
> inclusion, though redundant, is necessary. Furthermore, indicating it is
> non-random sets it apart from the underlying mutations and genetic drift
> which are decidedly random.

The problem is your making English undefined. I don't know what it is
that materialists are trying
to say with "selection" other than merely pointing out that given your
premises the word is not available to you as Dernavich explained on
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2001/dernavich1.html


> > Would would you agree that the synonym or non-random is directed?

> Would you agree that the sentence above is poorly worded?

Yes, I would agree let me try again:
Woland, would you agree that the synonym for non-random is directed?

backspace

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 12:46:08 PM12/11/07
to

A selection is a decision, you have still made a conscious decision
to select for a peanut, any peanut - your example is a red herring.


> > Would would you agree that the synonym or non-random is directed?- Hide quoted text -
>
> No. No I would not.

But it is and you are wrong, you live in a seperate language universe
than I do.

backspace

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 12:58:32 PM12/11/07
to
On Dec 11, 6:18 pm, Greg Guarino <g...@risky-biz.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 06:41:41 -0800 (PST), backspace
>
> <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Would would you agree that the synonym or non-random is directed?
>
> No.
>
> Many things, Natural Selection among them, are booth non-random and
> non-directed.
>
> Greg Guarino

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2064038
"...However, a critical flaw of diffusive models is that they fail to
take into account the non-random, directed forces that act on the DNA,
which are typically on the scale of piconewtons (pN), arising from
both pressure in the phage head and in the cell cytoplasm..."

Gred are you saying the author of this paper is confused ?

--
fnording

Guido

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 1:01:46 PM12/11/07
to
What difference does it make? If "Natural Selection" would have been
called "Process 1307" the theory would have been the same.

Woland

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 1:08:28 PM12/11/07
to

1) You don't know what 'red herring' means
2) I made a decision to select for a peanut, but the particular peanut
was chosen at random.

> > > Would would you agree that the synonym or non-random is directed?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > No. No I would not.
>

> But it is and you are wrong, you live in a separate language universe

No, I am right. You live in a language universe with a population of
1.
> than I do.

backspace

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 1:14:31 PM12/11/07
to
On Dec 11, 5:38 pm, Mark VandeWettering <wetter...@attbi.com> wrote:

And as the Wikipedia page on phenotype has pointed out there are no
citations: Nobody can tell Wikipedia who says so or who has defined or
established what is a phenotypte. It seems to be just
another rubbish word like the term "reproductive success", just word
filler to give the illusion of explaining something. So tell me then
who has established what is a phenotype, how was it defined, what are
we really trying to say with this word. What is the purpose behind
it.

michael

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 1:18:27 PM12/11/07
to
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:58:32 -0800 (PST), backspace
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Dec 11, 6:18 pm, Greg Guarino <g...@risky-biz.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 06:41:41 -0800 (PST), backspace
>>
>> <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> >Would would you agree that the synonym for non-random is directed?


>>
>> No.
>>
>> Many things, Natural Selection among them, are booth non-random and
>> non-directed.
>>
>> Greg Guarino
>
>http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2064038
>"...However, a critical flaw of diffusive models is that they fail to
>take into account the non-random, directed forces that act on the DNA,
>which are typically on the scale of piconewtons (pN), arising from
>both pressure in the phage head and in the cell cytoplasm..."
>
>Gred are you saying the author of this paper is confused ?

Now I AM confused.

Are you saying that what appears to be random, is
in reality directed?

Like the lottery, someone has to direct the drawing
of the numbers ....

Woland

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 1:31:06 PM12/11/07
to

Here are the references wikipedia uses for the phenotype article:

# Churchill F.B. 1974. William Johannsen and the genotype concept. J
History of Biology 7, 5-30.
# ^ Johannsen W. 1911. The genotype conception of heredity. American
Naturalist 45, 129-159
# ^ Sydney Brenner and Jeffrey H. Miller. 2002. Encyclopedia of
Genetics San Diego: Academic Press.

Here is a definition:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/phenotype

Why do you refuse to learn?

Ken Denny

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 1:32:04 PM12/11/07
to
On Dec 11, 11:15 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
wrote:

Woland

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 1:31:27 PM12/11/07
to

He doesn't know what he's saying.

Ernest Major

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 1:30:38 PM12/11/07
to
In message
<a7e7389d-80ba-4e62...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> writes
No, you are - that paper is not about natural selection. You're
pragmatically incompetent - otherwise you would know that you can't
support your position by googling for a few words, and ignoring the
context in which they appear.
--
alias Ernest Major

James Goetz

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 1:39:10 PM12/11/07
to
On Dec 11, 7:15 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
> "...It contrasts with the evolutionary mechanism, natural selection, a
> non-random selection process in which the tendency of alleles to
> become more or less widespread in a population over time is due to the
> alleles' effects on adaptive and reproductive success..."
>
> What would a random selection process look like?

That does not exist. But I think you mean a random process of fixation
and extinction, which is "genetic drift".

John Harshman

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 2:02:14 PM12/11/07
to
Ken Denny wrote:

Sure, that's easy for you to say.

Greg Guarino

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 2:03:45 PM12/11/07
to

OK, now you've got me curious. Exactly how did you come up with this
particular quote, and what made you think it had anything to do with
the discussion at hand? I'm guessing (although I haven't tried it)
that you looked up some combination of "non-random", "directed" and
"DNA" and then copied the resultant paragraph into your post without
reading the rest of the article.

A quick perusal (by a non-biologist, me) shows the article to be about
phages, and the method(s) by which they may infect bacteria. Is that
what you got from the article? If so, how is that relevant? If not,
what did YOU think the article was about?

Greg Guarino

michael

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 2:22:09 PM12/11/07
to
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:02:37 GMT, Cheezits <Cheez...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>[etc.]


>> What would a random selection process look like?
>

>Like reaching into a bag of Scrabble tiles and pulling out letters without
>looking at them.
>

>Sue (with 7 consonants at the moment, argh!)

No, you are confused - that is not about natural selection. You're
pragmatically incompetent ...

--

Ernest Majors ...

Sam

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 2:38:14 PM12/11/07
to
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a7e7389d-80ba-4e62...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

The statment makes perfect sense.

Your inability to understand what is said is not the fault of the author or
the language.


Sam

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 2:35:31 PM12/11/07
to
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e16aba92-3180-40c7...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

Your games are getting old. Learn English.

- A star peterbs the orbit of passing matter, larger objects get pulled in,
medium objects end up in orbit, smaller objects skim by. Did the star
intellegently select the medium objects?
- Water washes away smaller rocks but leaves behind larger ones. Did the
water intellegently select which ones?
- Two cell colonies exist with the ability to metabollize different types
of carbohydrates exist in an enviroment where one carbo is abundent and the
other rare. One cell thrives and the other dies off. Did the carbohydrate
intelligently select which cell colony should survive?
- An earthquake alters the path of a river a deprives a forest of a
different species to become extinct, while a new forest grows elsewhere and
is habitat to other species. Did the earthquake intelligently select which
to destroy and which to sustain?

Selection does not implicitly denote intellegence.

Greg Guarino

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 2:37:59 PM12/11/07
to
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:02:37 GMT, Cheezits <Cheez...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>[etc.]


>> What would a random selection process look like?
>

>Like reaching into a bag of Scrabble tiles and pulling out letters without
>looking at them.
>
>Sue (with 7 consonants at the moment, argh!)

I've really got to start reading more slowly. I thought that said
"with 7 *cosmonauts* at the moment, argh!". Argh, indeed.

7 vowels is much worse, by the way, IMO.

Greg Guarino

backspace

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 2:42:28 PM12/11/07
to
On Dec 11, 6:15 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
wrote:

> backspace wrote:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
> > "...It contrasts with the evolutionary mechanism, natural selection, a
> > non-random selection process in which the tendency of alleles to
> > become more or less widespread in a population over time is due to the
> > alleles' effects on adaptive and reproductive success..."

Elsewhere you said that NS is non-random but that by this you didn't
mean it is directed.
Yet ProfMoriarty begs to differ:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=600&start=0
"...The creationist scenario really has no counter for this fact
within evolutionary theory, as the arguments against evolution tend to
be based on the assumption that Darwinian evolution is a random and
undirected process which, if that were true, cannot be expected to
produce complex lifeforms. The fact that it is non-random and it is
directed by natural selection undermines this assumption
completely..."

He says that evolution is non-random and is directed.

backspace

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 2:47:37 PM12/11/07
to

No, genetic drift is unfalsifiable. I read the definition on Wikipedia
and it is clear that no matter what happens somebody can always claim
"drift". I am not talking about stuff floating, drifting or going
extinct I am talking about the word "selection" which always means a
goal directed decision as a concept in language itself. Materialists
are making language undefined.

--
fnord

backspace

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 2:54:28 PM12/11/07
to
On Dec 11, 4:58 pm, "Geoff" <geb...@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
> backspace wrote:
> > On Dec 11, 2:40 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:

> >> On Dec 11, 6:15 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
> >>> "...It contrasts with the evolutionary mechanism, natural
> >>> selection, a non-random selection process in which the tendency of
> >>> alleles to become more or less widespread in a population over time
> >>> is due to the alleles' effects on adaptive and reproductive
> >>> success..."
>
> >>> What would a random selection process look like?
>
> >> Genetic drift. Look up things like founder effects and neutral
> >> theory.
>
> >> Playing word games when you don't know what you are talking about has
> >> to be pretty degrading for you. What is your definition of a
> >> selection process? Both genetic drift and selection contribute to
> >> the evolution of a population, do you deny that? Playing word games
> >> won't get you anywhere. What you need is an alternative that you
> >> can go out and determine if it even exists.
>
> > I am talking about the word "selection" in the English language which
> > means a decision. What has
> > a decision by a human got to do with the words drift and genetic?
>
> Where do you get "a decision by a human"? Artificial selection involves
> humans.

There is no such thing as an "artificial" selection - it is a semantic
impossibility coined by
Darwin in 1859. He only used the term once and Wikipedia is refusing
to quote the passage in OoS on the AS page because it is so
embarrassing for metarialists. Saying something is so doesn't make it
so. If Darwin had said the planet Zog contains frogs, it doens't mean
it is so, one needs to motivate for your terms and Darwin motivation
is absurd.

Passage that Wikipedia refuses to quote:
"....Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do
much by artificial selection, I can see no limit to the amount of
change, to the beauty and complexity of the coadaptations between all
organic beings, one with another and with their physical conditions of
life, which may have been effected in the long course of time through
nature's power of selection, that is by the survival of the
fittest....."

--
Fnord
Falsify my Glossolalia - http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TongueSpeaker

treu...@yahoo.com

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 2:59:26 PM12/11/07
to

backspace wrote:
> I am not talking about stuff floating, drifting or going
> extinct I am talking about the word "selection" which always means a
> goal directed decision as a concept in language itself.

The word "selection" is a borderline misnomer because it (almost)
suggests a programmatic quality control process is happening.

James Goetz

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 3:01:42 PM12/11/07
to

Sorry, but biology has branches of science called "population
genetics" and "molecular evolution", and these biological sciences
have statistical tests that verify and falsify both natural selection
and genetic drift.

backspace

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 3:03:44 PM12/11/07
to
On Dec 11, 5:17 pm, Mujin <umwin...@seesee.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
> backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1faffe29-d566-4514-a696-
> 404c72b6e...@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

>
>
>
> > On Dec 11, 2:40 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Dec 11, 6:15 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
> >> > "...It contrasts with the evolutionary mechanism, natural selection, a
> >> > non-random selection process in which the tendency of alleles to
> >> > become more or less widespread in a population over time is due to the
> >> > alleles' effects on adaptive and reproductive success..."
>
> >> > What would a random selection process look like?
>
> >> Genetic drift. Look up things like founder effects and neutral
> >> theory.
>
> >> Playing word games when you don't know what you are talking about has
> >> to be pretty degrading for you. What is your definition of a
> >> selection process? Both genetic drift and selection contribute to the
> >> evolution of a population, do you deny that? Playing word games won't
> >> get you anywhere. What you need is an alternative that you can go out
> >> and determine if it even exists.
>
> > I am talking about the word "selection" in the English language which
> > means a decision. What has
> > a decision by a human got to do with the words drift and genetic?
>
> No, "selection" does not automatically imply decision by an intelligent
> agent. An egg sorting machine selects the correct destination for each egg
> based on its size, for example. Selection, particularly in a statistical
> sense, simply means that the process is non-random. Here's an analogy that
> illustrates the difference between natural selection (a non-random process)
> and genetic drift (a random process)

You are confusing patterns with designs, we have been through this.
See http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com "Selection" implies will and
motive, it is a word we use when we try to say that there was any sort
of motive or will to make or allow something to happen.

The waves "sorting" the sand is a pattern not a design and thus our
intent with "sorting" is clear in the context that we use it.
"Selection" though has a more strong will, motive intent than
"sorting" which is why the word is not available to you given your
premises. As linguist list said "You can't deny your cake and then
proceed to eat it too!"

--
fnord

backspace

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 3:16:19 PM12/11/07
to
On Dec 11, 9:35 pm, "Sam" <s...@nospam.com> wrote:
> - An earthquake alters the path of a river a deprives a forest of a
> different species to become extinct, while a new forest grows elsewhere and
> is habitat to other species. Did the earthquake intelligently select which
> to destroy and which to sustain?

I can't read http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com for you, you will have
to do it yourself. Perry Marshall goes through great effort explaining
the difference between patterns and designs.
The earthquake "altering" the path of a river wasn't a design but an
occurence, an event took place - a pattern. And thus the intent with
"altering" clear. What you can't do though is use the word 'selection'
in biology since your premise is that there is no motive or outside
will directing the whole process, hence nobody did any selectings.

> Selection does not implicitly denote intellegence.

Yes, it does because it implies will and motive which leads to
designs. Our intent determines the definition of words. We must agree
on the meaning or semantics of words or we can't communicate our
intent. What for example is your intent with "selection" in biology
since in ordinary speech it
implies will and motive.

--
fnord

backspace

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 3:22:31 PM12/11/07
to
On Dec 11, 8:30 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <a7e7389d-80ba-4e62-b936-4b5e9f8ed...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> writes

The context is the English language, wether in biology or physics, we
all use the same English language. What the materialists are doing is
invent their own language reality because their
minds are in some sort of intimate cartoonish universe, a fantasy
world where they can make language mean whatever they want to make it
mean.

Ernest Major

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 3:25:37 PM12/11/07
to
In message <npotl3p25d3abdec8...@4ax.com>, michael
<yos...@hotmail.com> writes

Please do not engage in froggery (signing your post with an
approximation of my handle).

And if you think the above was a reasonable response in the context you
are confused.
--
alias Ernest Major

backspace

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 3:28:03 PM12/11/07
to

The article as far as I am concerned could have been about Yak herders
in out Mongolia contemplating the meaning of life. The issue we are
discussing is language period. Everything is subject unto Language -
physics,colloquial conversation and life/biology itself which as
Prof.Cleland has pointed out is not defined. Biology is just a synonym
for life in a sense because there can't be any "biology" without
life.

Non-random and directed must have consistent meanings in all spheres
of human endevour, materialists though have hijacked biology(whatever
biology is supposed to mean) and implemented their delusion that they


can make language mean whatever they want to make it mean.

--
Fnord

richardal...@googlemail.com

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 3:37:02 PM12/11/07
to

Why?
We don't require that of any other words in the English language.

What do you think your need to make such ludicrous arguments tells us
about the validity of your case?

RF

Kermit

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 3:49:19 PM12/11/07
to
On Dec 11, 7:33 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 6:42 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 11, 4:30 pm, Woland <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > > On Dec 11, 7:15 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
> > > > "...It contrasts with the evolutionary mechanism, natural selection, a
> > > > non-random selection process in which the tendency of alleles to
> > > > become more or less widespread in a population over time is due to the
> > > > alleles' effects on adaptive and reproductive success..."
>
> > > > What would a random selection process look like?
>
> > > The other posters made good points but here is another way to think
> > > about it.
>
> > > We know that 'natural selection' is non-random because we can observe
> > > the characteristics that lead to greater reproductive success, which
> > > means that individuals within a population that have this trait will
> > > produce more offspring.
>
> > > However, if it were a random process we would see no corelation
> > > between traits and reproductive success. It would be a random
> > > distribution.
> > > Savy?
>
> > No, I am talking about the term "Selection process" which in and of
> > itself has got nothing to do with frogs being a "success".
>
> Of course it does. While there is always some random changes - genetic
> drift - any phenotype which is not as adapted to the environment as
> most of its peers will be selected against, and traits which improve
> the frog's reproductive success will be selected for.

>
> > A selection
> > process implies that it is directed by somebody
>
> Unless there is a modifying term which makes it clear - especially
> after 150 years of slow and careful explanations - that this is not a
> conscious process.

>
> > or that it is non- random.
>
> Of *course it's non-random. "Random" in this context means in respect
> to environmental pressures.

>
> > In fact a selection process in ordinary speech is defined as
> > being non-random or directed.
>
> Unless there is a modifying term which makes it clear that it is not.

>
> > Which is why I want to know what's up
>
> Nothing is "up" about it. Are you holding your computer over your
> head? How can an article be "up"? Our language is largely metaphor. If
> you cannot handle your own native tongue, it is not a problem for
> evolutionary science.

>
> > with the redundancy in the Wikipedia article, why are saying it is non-
> > random
>
> Some people apparently cannot (or pretend that they cannot) understand
> plain English, so the article seems careful to explain what they are
> talking about. Some folks are normal but young, and have never run
> into these ideas before.

>
> > - what is their pragmatics and aphobetics.
>
> Not applicable. Nobody who understands these words would try to apply
> them here. Stick with trying to understand compound nouns and
> adjectives; you have enough trouble with them.
>
>
>
> > Woland would you agree that the synonym for non-random is directed?
>
> No. "Directed" is only one of several ways a process might be non-
> directed. Often a careful look at a process reveals that it is not
> random, but a researcher might spend decades determining why it is
> not.
>
> The association between cardiac health and exercise is not random, for
> example. We knew that 50 years ago. Researchers are still trying to
> tease out all of the causal links and their mechanisms.
>
> Kermit

Grrr.
"Directed" is only one of several ways a process might be non-
*random*.

Kermit

Woland

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 3:50:44 PM12/11/07
to

You're so crazy that you're not even wrong. Spend some time learning
about syntax.

Kermit

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 3:53:51 PM12/11/07
to
On Dec 11, 9:46 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

>
> But it is and you are wrong, you live in a seperate language universe
> than I do.

This is very close to the truth.

Kermit

Sam

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 3:57:15 PM12/11/07
to
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:98dfb0f6-fe69-455a...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

> On Dec 11, 9:35 pm, "Sam" <s...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> - An earthquake alters the path of a river a deprives a forest of a
>> different species to become extinct, while a new forest grows elsewhere
>> and
>> is habitat to other species. Did the earthquake intelligently select
>> which
>> to destroy and which to sustain?
>
> I can't read http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com for you, you will have
> to do it yourself. Perry Marshall goes through great effort explaining
> the difference between patterns and designs.
> The earthquake "altering" the path of a river wasn't a design but an
> occurence, an event took place - a pattern. And thus the intent with
> "altering" clear. What you can't do though is use the word 'selection'
> in biology since your premise is that there is no motive or outside
> will directing the whole process, hence nobody did any selectings.

Misdirecting the question I see, way to go.

>> Selection does not implicitly denote intellegence.
> Yes, it does because it implies will and motive which leads to
> designs.

Nope, not in this context.

Our intent determines the definition of words. We must agree
> on the meaning or semantics of words or we can't communicate our
> intent.

Yep, it's called language. It's never perfect, but it works pretty good
when you have a common basis of understanding as one might find in a
dictionary.

What for example is your intent with "selection" in biology
> since in ordinary speech it
> implies will and motive.

"any natural or artificial process that results in differential reproduction
among the members of a population so that the inheritable traits of only
certain individuals are passed on, or are passed on in greater proportion,
to succeeding generations." (dictionary.com defintion 4)

If you are able to comprehend the above you may notice no intelligent agent
is being described, hense the emphasis on "natural or artificial" at the
beginning as well as the broad scope of "any".

Maybe you were absent from kindergarten the day they went over the concept
that words can have more than one meaning.

> --
> fnord

Woland

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 3:57:39 PM12/11/07
to

Ahhh, but he is saying that it is directed by what?
Natural selection.
See it's ironic that you're using this as some sort of argument since
you think that 1) Natural selection can't exist, and 2) direction can
only be caused by conscious entities, not natural forces/events

You're just plain hilarious.

Woland

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 3:58:50 PM12/11/07
to
On Dec 11, 2:47 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

'Selection' does not mean what you think it means.

Woland

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 4:01:58 PM12/11/07
to
On Dec 11, 3:16 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 9:35 pm, "Sam" <s...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > - An earthquake alters the path of a river a deprives a forest of a
> > different species to become extinct, while a new forest grows elsewhere and
> > is habitat to other species. Did the earthquake intelligently select which
> > to destroy and which to sustain?
>
> I can't readhttp://www.cosmicfingerprints.comfor you, you will have

> to do it yourself. Perry Marshall goes through great effort explaining
> the difference between patterns and designs.
> The earthquake "altering" the path of a river wasn't a design but an
> occurence, an event took place - a pattern. And thus the intent with
> "altering" clear. What you can't do though is use the word 'selection'
> in biology since your premise is that there is no motive or outside
> will directing the whole process, hence nobody did any selectings.
>
> > Selection does not implicitly denote intellegence.
>
> Yes, it does because it implies will and motive which leads to
> designs. Our intent determines the definition of words. We must agree
> on the meaning or semantics of words or we can't communicate our
> intent. What for example is your intent with "selection" in biology
> since in ordinary speech it
> implies will and motive.

No, common usage determines the definitions of words. The use of the
word 'selection' falls well within common usage.

Kermit

unread,
Dec 11, 2007, 4:07:05 PM12/11/07