William Lane Craig on Natural Selection

[backspace]

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9229

''.........Organisms which are not sentient, that is, have no mental
life, display at most Level 1 reactions. Insects, worms, and other
invertebrates react to noxious stimuli but lack the neurological
capacity to feel pain. Their avoidance behavior obviously has a
selective advantage in the struggle for survival and so is built into
them by natural selection ....... ''

rephrase:
Their avoidance behavior obviously has a selective advantage in the
struggle for survival and so is built into them by natural selection .

rephrase:
Their behavior has an *obvious* selective advantage .... and so is
built into them by natural selection ....... ''

rephrase:
Their behavior has an *obvious* preservation(selective) advantage ....
and so is built into them by natural selection ....... ''

rephrase:
Their behavior has an *obvious* advantage .... and so is built into
them by a coo-coo-clock ....... ''

finally:
Their behavior has an *obvious* advantage .... and so is built into
them ....... ''

'has an *obvious* advantage' and 'built into them' allude to the same
fact , saying the same thing twice and thus guarantees the truth of
the proposition, making it a rhetorical tautology. Especially the term
*obvious*, facts such as what happens, happens are obvious, so are the
tautological fact A or not-A. Explanations which are *obvious* aren't
therefore falsifiable theories. Newtons inverse square law isn't
obvious, it isn't a fact, but a falsifiable theory .

[UC]

Try this:

''.........Organisms which are not sentient, that is, have no mental
life, display at most Level 1 reactions. Insects, worms, and other
invertebrates react to noxious stimuli but lack the neurological
capacity to feel pain. Their avoidance behavior obviously has a

selective advantage in the struggle for survival and so it must
have been built into them by natural selection ....... ''

[Grandbank]

Dare we hope that the critical mass of semantic idiocy at the BS/WLC
interface will cause some sort of explosion?

KP

[backspace]

His ontological arguments are very good. Sadly he can't answer the
question:
If natural selection is blind then why isn't it stupid?
(hint google meaningless sentence)

[UC]

On Jan 30, 12:53 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

This is a conclusion, but it was not expressed as such. That the
behaviour has survival value is obvious. What isn't 'obvious' is how
it got there. Given what we know about the world, it stands to reason
that something like this is the product of natural selection.

[backspace]

As an oxymoron or metaphor?

[Burkhard]

Having lots of money is an obvious advantage, yet strangely not build
into me, or anyone else, but something we have ot work for.

Being able to speak and understand several languages has obvious
advantages, yet is strangely enough not build into me, or anyone else,
but something we have to learn.

Not smoking tobacco is an obvious advantage, but strangely enough not
build into me or anyone else, but something we must chose wisely

Being physically strong is an obvious advantage, yet at best only in
parts build into me, or anyone else, as strangely enough, we have also
to train and to chose the right nutrition.

Living in a prosperous and well governed country is an obvious
advantage, yet strangely enough not build into me or anyone else, but
the luck of the draw at birth.

With other words "has an obvious advantage" and "build into them" are
not even co-extensional, let alone synonymous, and hence do not refer
to the same fact at all.

>saying the same thing twice and thus guarantees the truth of
> the proposition,

see above for several possibel falsification of the claim.

Lots of things that are advatageous for us are not "build into
us" (cue "epigenetic", just for starters) and whether or not a trait
is of that nature requires to test thee claim/theory.
.

making it a rhetorical tautology. Especially the term
> *obvious*, facts such as what happens, happens are obvious, so are the
> tautological fact  A or not-A. Explanations which are *obvious* aren't
> therefore falsifiable theories.

Obviously, the bible is older than 20 years.

[Boikat]

> (hint google meaningless sentence)-

Since when does "blind" = "stupid"?

Boikat

[backspace]

http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Kenneth_Miller said ns is blind.
What I want to know is if it is blind then why isn't it stupid?

[backspace]

It was metaphorical, but of course you know this.

> >saying the same thing twice and thus guarantees the truth of
> > the proposition,
>
> see above for several possibel falsification of the claim.
>
> Lots of things that are advatageous for us are not "build into
> us" (cue "epigenetic", just for starters) and whether or not a trait
> is of that nature  requires to test thee claim/theory.
.

> making it a rhetorical tautology. Especially the term

> > *obvious*, facts such as what happens, happens are obvious, so are the
> > tautological fact  A or not-A. Explanations which are *obvious* aren't
> > therefore falsifiable theories.
>
> Obviously, the bible is older than 20 years.

Ok, let me try again: Physics equations aren't obvious.

[Burkhard]

Nope. Can't see any plausible metaphor in what you said even now that
you claim you used one.

>
> > >saying the same thing twice and thus guarantees the truth of
> > > the proposition,
>
> > see above for several possibel falsification of the claim.
>
> > Lots of things that are advatageous for us are not "build into
> > us" (cue "epigenetic", just for starters) and whether or not a trait
> > is of that nature  requires to test thee claim/theory.
>
>  .
>
> > making it a rhetorical tautology. Especially the term
> > > *obvious*, facts such as what happens, happens are obvious, so are the
> > > tautological fact  A or not-A. Explanations which are *obvious* aren't
> > > therefore falsifiable theories.
>
> > Obviously, the bible is older than 20 years.
>
> Ok, let me try again: Physics equations aren't obvious.

Depends on the equation I'd say.and on the previous knowledge of the
person you are asking. "Obvious" is pretty much a personal judgement
that tells more about your experience than about the object that is
judged
Speed=distance / time or Work=Force X Distance look rather obvious to
me, you might differ.

[Burkhard]

Because, as Boikat says, there is absolutely no reason to believe that
someone or something that is blind is also stupid. What gave you that
strange and quite frankly offensive idea to start with?

[backspace]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_%28biology%29

''.....Function is not the same as purpose in the teleological sense.
Evolution is a blind process which has no 'goal' for the future. For
example, a tree does not grow flowers for any purpose, but does so
simply because it has evolved to do so. To say 'a tree grows flowers
to attract pollinators' would be incorrect if the 'to' implies
purpose. A function describes what something does, not what its
'purpose' is. However, teleological terminology is often used by
biologists as a sort of 'short hand' way of describing function, even
though they know it is technically incorrect. Laypersons may not
understand this distinction, however.......''

If evolution is a blind process then why isn't it stupid? Are Ken
Miller's blind natural selection (which apparently isn't stupid) the
same thing as evolution. If perhaps both evolution and natural
selection are blind but not stupid in what why would the one be the
mechanism while the other not?

We are in other words dealing with http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Meaningless_sentence

[backspace]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_%28biology%29

:...A function is the reason some object or process occurred in a
system that evolved through a process of selection or Natural
selection. Thus, function refers forward from the object or process,
along some chain of causation, to the goal or success.[1] Compare this
to the mechanism of the object or process, which looks backward along
some chain of causation, explaining how the feature
occurred...Function is not the same as purpose in the teleological
sense....... Evolution is a blind process which has no 'goal' for the
future.

Rephrased in English: Functions looks forward and mechanism looks
backward.... Which is meaningless nonsense. Functionality must be
explored under the [[D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson]]'s [[Composite
Integrity]] or [[Irreducible Functionality]], the interplay between
complexity, redundancy and functionality represents a mechanism.

[Boikat]

For one thing, "blind" is being used as a metaphore for
"undirected". Also, NS is not an mental entity, therefore "stupid"
does not apply.

Boikat

[backspace]

Does undirected mean random?

[Burkhard]

Well, you could of cuorse use the term in the same metaphorical way.
Normally, we associate a lack of forward planning and taking short
term profits for long term disadvantages as a sign of "stupidity" -
and that is of course a characteristic of some NS processes.

What is more objectionable in backspace's assertion is the connection
between stupidity and blindness, which is as offensive as it is bereft
of any supporting evidence.

[Steven L.]

"backspace" <steph...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:27fecb6f-18ec-4341...@j14g2000vba.googlegroups.com:

> http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9229
>
> ''.........Organisms which are not sentient, that is, have no mental
> life, display at most Level 1 reactions. Insects, worms, and other
> invertebrates react to noxious stimuli but lack the neurological
> capacity to feel pain. Their avoidance behavior obviously has a
> selective advantage in the struggle for survival and so is built into
> them by natural selection ....... ''
>
> rephrase:
> Their avoidance behavior obviously has a selective advantage in the
> struggle for survival and so is built into them by natural selection .
>
> rephrase:
> Their behavior has an *obvious* selective advantage .... and so is
> built into them by natural selection ....... ''

You can stop right there. You're incorrect.

"Obviously has X" is not the same meaning as "having an obvious X."

(Try, for example, substituting "vagina" for "X".)

You're changing the meaning of the original sentence, not just
rephrasing it.



-- Steven L.

[backspace]

On Jan 31, 3:08 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "backspace" <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote in message

What do think about the fact that D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson described
IC in such detail under the rubric Composite Integrity , that it makes
one wonder why nobody seemingly noticed it.

[Burkhard]

On Jan 31, 3:08 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> "backspace" <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote in message

As his "rephrases" always do this, are you surprised?

[Boikat]

> Does undirected mean random?-

It could. But since you are into playing inane word games, it depends
on the context. In the context of NS, it means there is no planned
goal.

Boikat

[David Canzi]

Backspace is playing a solitaire version of "telephone", then
trying to pass off criticism of the end result as criticism of
the original.

--
David Canzi | "I put a dollar in a change machine. Nothing changed."
| -- George Carlin

[backspace]

Which begs the question: What is a natural selection?

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:41:02 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:

>On Jan 31, 3:37 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>> On Jan 31, 8:12 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > On Jan 31, 1:49 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>> > > On Jan 30, 2:14 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > > > On Jan 30, 7:40 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

<snip>

>> > > > > Since when does "blind" = "stupid"?

>> > > >http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Kenneth_Miller said ns is blind.
>> > > > What I want to know is if it is blind then why isn't it stupid?

>> > > For one thing, "blind" is being used as a metaphore for
>> > > "undirected".   Also, NS is not an mental entity, therefore "stupid"
>> > > does not apply.

>> > Does undirected mean random?-

>> It could. But since you are into playing inane word games, it depends
>> on the context.  In the context of NS, it means there is no planned
>> goal.

>Which begs the question: What is a natural selection?

He told you; it's a selective process, carried out without
direction, with no planned goal.

Pay attention.
--

Bob C.

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

[Ray Martinez]

Since you accept conceptual existence, why don't you tell us?

You spend all of your time exposing the perverted logic used by
selectionists, then negate these fine refutations by accepting
conceptual existence.

Ray

[Rolf]

You are not capable of learning what such a simple but powerful mechanism
like natural selection is and without such knowledge, your opinion is on a
par with a cat's opinion on the subject.

[AGWFacts]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:53:14 -0800 (PST), backspace
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:

> William Lane Craig on Natural Selection

David Duke on Black History Month


--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- cato...@sympatico.ca

[John S. Wilkins]

AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:53:14 -0800 (PST), backspace
> <steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > William Lane Craig on Natural Selection
>
> David Duke on Black History Month
>

Josef Goebbels on Jewish Identity
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[Rolf]

If you pick a pair of socks from a drawer, would you find it inappropriate
to define those socks as having been selected?

If a portion of a population, or even entire portions of biotopes become
separated from the main, would it be wrong to define them as having been
selected, i.e. sorted out from a larger assembly?

What's so special about the word selection that it makes you loose sleep
over it? You have to admit that if your absurd rejection of selection fails,
you will have failed in the project of your life. Do you have any fallback
option?

Rolf, selectionist. (Among a lot of other smart things.)

> Ray

[Steven L.]

"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:fe680f4b-b1c8-448e...@hb4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:

Rephrase:
I'm not surprised when he always rephrases.



-- Steven L.

[pnyikos]

I found this talk.origins thread by sheer accident. I hope some
people in t.o. are still aware of it. I've added two philosophy
newsgroups, the better of which is almost extinct.

On Jan 30, 2:04 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jan 30, 12:53 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9229
>
> > ''.........Organisms which are not sentient, that is, have no mental
> > life, display at most Level 1 reactions. Insects, worms, and other
> > invertebrates react to noxious stimuli but lack the neurological
> > capacity to feel pain. Their avoidance behavior obviously has a
> > selective advantage in the struggle for survival and so is built into
> > them by natural selection ....... ''
>
> > rephrase:
> > Their avoidance behavior obviously has a selective advantage in the
> > struggle for survival and so is built into them by natural selection .
>
> > rephrase:
> > Their behavior has an *obvious* selective advantage .... and so is
> > built into them by natural selection ....... ''
>
> > rephrase:

> > Their behavior has an *obvious* preservation(selective) advantage ....

> > and so is built into them by natural selection ....... ''
>

> > rephrase:

> > Their behavior has an  *obvious* advantage .... and so is built into
> > them by a coo-coo-clock ....... ''
>
> > finally:
> > Their behavior has an  *obvious* advantage .... and so is built into
> > them  ....... ''
>
> > 'has an *obvious* advantage' and 'built into them'  allude to the same
> > fact , saying the same thing twice and thus guarantees the truth of
> > the proposition, making it a rhetorical tautology. Especially the term
> > *obvious*, facts such as what happens, happens are obvious, so are the
> > tautological fact  A or not-A. Explanations which are *obvious* aren't
> > therefore falsifiable theories. Newtons inverse square law isn't
> > obvious, it isn't a fact, but a falsifiable theory .
>

> Try this:

>
> ''.........Organisms which are not sentient, that is, have no mental
> life, display at most Level 1 reactions. Insects, worms, and other
> invertebrates react to noxious stimuli but lack the neurological
> capacity to feel pain. Their avoidance behavior obviously has a

> selective advantage in the struggle for survival and so it must
> have been built into them by natural selection ....... ''

But now for the incredible leap that you and everyone else on this
thread seems to be avoiding: how did pain get to correspond to
noxious stimuli that need to be avoided, if pain is a purely passive
sensation and has no effect on avoidance?

In other words, what stops all organisms from having natural selection
build in avoidance of harmful stimuli that produce pleasurable
sensations, and build in attraction to beneficial stimuli that produce
unpleasant sensations?

[Yes, we humans do experience such strange reverses, but fortunately
they are comparatively rare.]

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu

[Richard Norman]

I have eliminated the other two newsgroups from this response.

Why in the world would you want to resurrect what backspace says about
a creationist disucssion of anything?

It is very clear that organisms with nervous systems respond to
exceptionally strong stimuli, usually stimuli capable of causing harm,
by withdrawal or avoidance. It is also very clear that organisms with
nervous systems respond positively to some stimuli and aversely to
others and that those stimuli are closely related to feeding,
reproduction, predator avoidance, and habitat selection in an adaptive
way. Whether other creatures, including you, feel "pain" or
"pleasure" is a very different subject.

Why in the world would you suggest that pain is a purely passive
sensation with no effect on avoidance?

[Arkalen]

Put a different way : what is "pain" and "pleasure" ?
Consider an organism with no consciousness but various built-in
reflexes, some of them to avoid stuff and others to seek stuff out.
Say that organism has descendants that evolve additional brain
structures until it has consciousness, or at least qualia. Those
primitive built-in reflexes, with the associated hormones and
neurotransmitters, will still be there. If they interact at all with the
parts of the brain that generate qualia, and why wouldn't they given how
fundamental they are, what qualia do you think the avoidance reflexes
would result in ? And the reward-seeking reflexes ?

Forget what one could theoretically set up in some kind of artificial
intelligence; consider what the most natural stepwise progression in
brain function would result in.

[Paul J Gans]

I totally agree.

The poster to whom Peter was responding was UC, aka "Uranium
Committee" a well-known troll with a history here in T.O.

Considering that backspace is little better, IIRC, nobody
bothered to respond to the "content" of the posting.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Richard Norman]

UC was a terrible nuisance here but his contribution to Peter's post
was merely to echo the original statement of the creationist, hence
undoing all of backspaces modifications. So the only content was from
the creationist and backspace.

[Paul J Gans]

There was content? I apologize. I missed that part of it...

[Richard Norman]

On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 02:39:23 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans

I wasn't content with it either.