Theory of gradual evolution finally on Wikipedia

3 views
Skip to first unread message

backspace

unread,
Nov 9, 2007, 9:50:10 AM11/9/07
to
We now finally have the Theory of gradual evolution and Theory of
Evolution on Wikipedia. Not the Harshman theory or Provine theory of
Ruse theory or whatever everybody wishes Darwin's theory to be no the
actual theory by Uncle Darwin where he explains to us the non-linear
control algorithms keeping the finch stable in flight. Created by
TongueSpeaker


=== Theory of gradual evolution ===
Darwin used the term '''Theory of gradual evolution''' only once.

''This difficulty, as in the case of unconscious selection by man, is
avoided on
the theory of gradual evolution, through the preservation of a large
number
of individuals, which varied more or less in any favourable direction,
and
of the destruction of a large number which varied in an opposite
manner.
That many species have been evolved in an extremely gradual manner,
there
can hardly be a doubt.''


=== Theory of evolution ===
Darwin used the term '''Theory of evolution''' only once.

''If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have
really started into life at once, the
fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural
selection. For the development by this means of a group of forms, all
of which are descended from some one progenitor, must have been an
extremely slow process; and the progenitors must have lived long
before their modified descendants. But we continually overrate the
perfection of the geological record, and falsely infer, because
certain genera or families have not been found beneath a certain
stage, that they did not exist before that stage. ''

backspace

unread,
Nov 9, 2007, 9:51:59 AM11/9/07
to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_gradual_evolution

We now finally have the Theory of gradual evolution and Theory of
Evolution on Wikipedia. Not the Harshman theory or Provine theory of
Ruse theory or whatever everybody wishes Darwin's theory to be no the

actual theory by Uncle Darwin where he derives for us from first
principles the non-linear control algorithms keeping the finch stable

Phil

unread,
Nov 9, 2007, 9:58:12 AM11/9/07
to
Still, there's not one chance in a thousand that you will now, finally,
stfu, is there?

LloydBrown

unread,
Nov 9, 2007, 10:09:00 AM11/9/07
to

I can only assume you just wrote this yourself. If so, have you even
_read_ wikipedia's guidelines? It doesn't, of course, cite any
references. It doesn't refer the reader to any other entries. It
redefines an already existing definition. You don't even have to read
the content to realize that it's a poor entry and won't stay intact
long.

Kermit

unread,
Nov 9, 2007, 10:06:47 AM11/9/07
to
On Nov 9, 6:50 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> We now finally have the Theory of gradual evolution and Theory of
> Evolution on Wikipedia. Not the Harshman theory or Provine theory of
> Ruse theory or whatever everybody wishes Darwin's theory to be no the
> actual theory by Uncle Darwin where he explains to us the non-linear
> control algorithms keeping the finch stable in flight. Created by
> TongueSpeaker

Science does not consider Wikipedia as the ultimate authority.
Darwin is not the ultimate authority.
Science has continued since Darwin's day; there is more data to
explain, and the theory has changed in significant ways.
You have never addressed the evidence, nor how well the model fits
that evidence.
You have not offered any other testable model that fits the data.

What is your problem with that?

Kermit

chris thompson

unread,
Nov 9, 2007, 10:11:20 AM11/9/07
to
On Nov 9, 9:50 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> We now finally have the Theory of gradual evolution

How nice for you. Have you finally climaxed in your intellectual
Onanism?

Chris

backspace

unread,
Nov 9, 2007, 10:16:42 AM11/9/07
to
On Nov 9, 5:06 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 6:50 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > We now finally have the Theory of gradual evolution and Theory of
> > Evolution on Wikipedia. Not the Harshman theory or Provine theory of
> > Ruse theory or whatever everybody wishes Darwin's theory to be no the
> > actual theory by Uncle Darwin where he explains to us the non-linear
> > control algorithms keeping the finch stable in flight. Created by
> > TongueSpeaker

> Science does not consider Wikipedia as the ultimate authority.

Appeal to Abstract Authority - Mr.Science doesn't exist.

> Darwin is not the ultimate authority.

Says who? Eldredge thinks Uncle Darwin was a genius.

> Science has continued since Darwin's day; there is more data to

Again appeal to abstract authority.


> explain, and the theory has changed in significant ways.

What was the original theory then?

> You have never addressed the evidence, nor how well the model fits
> that evidence.

What evidence, please define for me the evidence.

Of course I wrote the entry in wikipedia using alias TongueSpeaker. It
was an attempt at stating Darwin's theory of evolution as defined by
Darwin. It probably won't last long on Wikipedia though.


tex...@gmail.com

unread,
Nov 9, 2007, 11:41:21 AM11/9/07
to

Ben Standeven

unread,
Nov 9, 2007, 11:53:04 AM11/9/07
to
On Nov 9, 9:16 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 5:06 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 9, 6:50 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > We now finally have the Theory of gradual evolution and Theory of
> > > Evolution on Wikipedia. Not the Harshman theory or Provine theory of
> > > Ruse theory or whatever everybody wishes Darwin's theory to be no the
> > > actual theory by Uncle Darwin where he explains to us the non-linear
> > > control algorithms keeping the finch stable in flight. Created by
> > > TongueSpeaker
[...]

> > Darwin is not the ultimate authority.
>
> Says who? Eldredge thinks Uncle Darwin was a genius.
>

So? Eldredge is not the ultimate authority either.

[...]


> > explain, and the theory has changed in significant ways.
>
> What was the original theory then?

The biggest difference: no population genetics back then.

> > You have never addressed the evidence, nor how well the model fits
> > that evidence.
>
> What evidence, please define for me the evidence.
>

According to Wiktionary:
| evidence (uncountable)
|
| 1) Facts or observations presented in support of an assertion.
| 2) (law) Anything admitted by a court to prove or disprove alleged
| matters of fact in a trial.

> Of course I wrote the entry in wikipedia using alias TongueSpeaker. It
> was an attempt at stating Darwin's theory of evolution as defined by
> Darwin. It probably won't last long on Wikipedia though.

I would suggest stating an actual theory instead of random quotes.

Rich Townsend

unread,
Nov 9, 2007, 12:14:49 PM11/9/07
to

Interestingly, the page is now scheduled for deletion, because it has no cites,
and no purpose.

backspace

unread,
Nov 9, 2007, 1:02:34 PM11/9/07
to
On Nov 9, 7:14 pm, Rich Townsend <r...@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> wrote:
> Interestingly, the page is now scheduled for deletion, because it has no cites,
> and no purpose.

It does cite the source: Origin Species 6th edition. The purpose? Well
the purpose is to give Darwin's actual theory the theory that the
evolution page on Wikipedia refuses to provide. They keep on telling
us about Darwin's theory but then never state the actual theory. But
of course Darwin didn't give a theory he stated a tautology.
"..preservation of a large number of individuals, which varied more or


less in any favourable direction, and of the destruction of a large

number which varied in an opposite manner..."
Or in other words those survived survived because they are not dead
and those that didn't survive didn't because they are dead and
therefore a monkey turned into a human. (Or common ancestor or
whatever you want to call the stupid ape back then!)

Woland

unread,
Nov 9, 2007, 3:21:23 PM11/9/07
to

You have serious mental problems. Seek help.

theSalamander

unread,
Nov 9, 2007, 3:23:12 PM11/9/07
to

"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1194631354.9...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

> On Nov 9, 7:14 pm, Rich Townsend <r...@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> wrote:
>> Interestingly, the page is now scheduled for deletion, because it has no
>> cites,
>> and no purpose.
>
> It does cite the source: Origin Species 6th edition. The purpose? Well
> the purpose is to give Darwin's actual theory the theory that the
> evolution page on Wikipedia refuses to provide. They keep on telling
> us about Darwin's theory but then never state the actual theory. But
> of course Darwin didn't give a theory he stated a tautology.
> "..preservation of a large number of individuals, which varied more or
> less in any favourable direction, and of the destruction of a large
> number which varied in an opposite manner..."
> Or in other words those survived survived because they are not dead

Not really - it's more to do with the fact that their genetic
characteristics made them better adapted to survival in their environment.

> and those that didn't survive didn't because they are dead

Or....because their genetic characteristics made them less adapted to
survival in their environment against those with "fitter" traits for
survival.

> and
> therefore a monkey turned into a human. (Or common ancestor or
> whatever you want to call the stupid ape back then!)

Would it be SO much trouble for you to learn something about evolution
before attacking it?

Kermit

unread,
Nov 9, 2007, 4:09:43 PM11/9/07
to
On Nov 9, 7:16 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 5:06 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 9, 6:50 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > We now finally have the Theory of gradual evolution and Theory of
> > > Evolution on Wikipedia. Not the Harshman theory or Provine theory of
> > > Ruse theory or whatever everybody wishes Darwin's theory to be no the
> > > actual theory by Uncle Darwin where he explains to us the non-linear
> > > control algorithms keeping the finch stable in flight. Created by
> > > TongueSpeaker
> > Science does not consider Wikipedia as the ultimate authority.
>
> Appeal to Abstract Authority - Mr.Science doesn't exist.

Correct. Most human beings are capable of abstract thought; I am sorry
you are not. "Science" as a personification is linguistic shorthand
for the society of people who *do science. this has been explained to
you before.

If your atavistic brain does not allow you to keep up with normal word
play, you should still accept that normal human beings communicate
this way. It is dishonest to do otherwise.

>
> > Darwin is not the ultimate authority.
>
> Says who? Eldredge thinks Uncle Darwin was a genius.
>

There are no ultimate authorities in science. That's how it works. Any
testable model which fits the data is true.

> > Science has continued since Darwin's day; there is more data to
>
> Again appeal to abstract authority.

No; normal communication. When you start feeling left out of
conversations?

>
> > explain, and the theory has changed in significant ways.
>
> What was the original theory then?

The biggest change was understanding the quantized nature of genes.
Darwin knew that characteristics were largely inheritable, and
imperfectly so, but he did not know of Mendel's work, contemporary
with his.

>
> > You have never addressed the evidence, nor how well the model fits
> > that evidence.
>
> What evidence, please define for me the evidence.

Better yet, I'll list some:

Fossil evidence sorted by time, corresponding to progression of early,
simple forms to diversity of modern forms, with numerous clear
transitional series.
Fossil evidence showing progression of whole ecosystems, with various
types of fossils associated with only certain other fossils.
Fossil evidence corresponding to plate tectonics, magnetic striping,
and other geological evidence.
Nested hierarchy of morphology.
Nested hierarchy of all the genomes studied so far.
The fact that these two nested hierarchies *match* is evidence in
itself.
Vestigial organs, structures, molecules, and behaviors.
Life is unified by a sharing of fundamental polymers, nucleic acids,
protein catalysts, etc.

>
> Of course I wrote the entry in wikipedia using alias TongueSpeaker. It
> was an attempt at stating Darwin's theory of evolution as defined by
> Darwin. It probably won't last long on Wikipedia though.

No. It's dishonest and illiterate. But it's already clear that you
can't and won't play well with others.

And your babbling, BTW, isn't talking by any stretch of the
imagination. It can be music, however. But Louie Armstrong did it
better in the first known recording of scat singing.

Kermit


Kermit

unread,
Nov 9, 2007, 4:19:21 PM11/9/07
to
On Nov 9, 10:02 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 7:14 pm, Rich Townsend <r...@barVOIDtol.udel.edu> wrote:
>
> > Interestingly, the page is now scheduled for deletion, because it has no cites,
> > and no purpose.
>
> It does cite the source: Origin Species 6th edition. The purpose? Well
> the purpose is to give Darwin's actual theory the theory that the
> evolution page on Wikipedia refuses to provide.

Looking it up on Wikipedia takes you to a decent introductory article
on the subject.

> They keep on telling
> us about Darwin's theory but then never state the actual theory.

You poor, brain-damaged loon. Telling you *about the theory *is
stating the theory.

> But
> of course Darwin didn't give a theory he stated a tautology.
> "..preservation of a large number of individuals, which varied more or
> less in any favourable direction, and of the destruction of a large
> number which varied in an opposite manner..."
> Or in other words those survived survived because they are not dead
> and those that didn't survive didn't because they are dead and
> therefore a monkey turned into a human. (Or common ancestor or
> whatever you want to call the stupid ape back then!)

No, they survived (or more clearly, reproduced more successfully)
because they had traits which were largely inheritable and which
improved their chances of reproducing. The conditions of the
environment shape the species. How is this a tautology?

This is very different from:
Traits are inherited from adaptive behavior of the parents.
Inheritable traits are immutable.
Inheritable traits change randomly.
The traits of a species are the result of hybridization.
Traits were given to the species a few thousand years ago, and have
not significantly changed since.

These have all been proposed, and have been proven wrong.

None of them are tautologies, either.

You really do need help. You are seriously crippled, socially and
cognitively.

Kermit,
who knows that English was not the original language.

LloydBrown

unread,
Nov 9, 2007, 7:11:34 PM11/9/07
to
On Nov 9, 10:16 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:


> Of course I wrote the entry in wikipedia using alias TongueSpeaker. It
> was an attempt at stating Darwin's theory of evolution as defined by
> Darwin. It probably won't last long on Wikipedia though.

I notice you didn't respond to my comments about a lack of cites by
providing cites. You also didn't comply with wikipedia requirements
by linking to at least one other article. You don't intend to make
any of these corrections, do you?

Inez

unread,
Nov 9, 2007, 10:43:20 PM11/9/07
to
On Nov 9, 10:02 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

You're looking at this sideways. The theory of evolution is not a
description of the characteristics of animals who survive. It is a
theory that the differential survival of animals with different
characteristics leads to overall changes in the population of
animals. Do you see the difference?

backspace

unread,
Nov 10, 2007, 5:36:39 AM11/10/07
to
On Nov 10, 5:43 am, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > It does cite the source: Origin Species 6th edition. The purpose? Well
> > the purpose is to give Darwin's actual theory the theory that the
> > evolution page on Wikipedia refuses to provide. They keep on telling
> > us about Darwin's theory but then never state the actual theory. But
> > of course Darwin didn't give a theory he stated a tautology.
> > "..preservation of a large number of individuals, which varied more or
> > less in any favourable direction, and of the destruction of a large
> > number which varied in an opposite manner..."
> > Or in other words those survived survived because they are not dead
> > and those that didn't survive didn't because they are dead and
> > therefore a monkey turned into a human. (Or common ancestor or
> > whatever you want to call the stupid ape back then!)

> You're looking at this sideways. The theory of evolution is not a
> description of the characteristics of animals who survive.

And until you define for me the theory of evolution and who's theory
exactly it is and where did this person publish this theory you are
not even wrong.

> It is a
> theory that the differential survival of animals with different
> characteristics leads to overall changes in the population of
> animals. Do you see the difference?

Lets rephrase:
I an individual using the alias Inez hereby formally propose a
conjecture:
The survival of animals leads to overall changes in the population of
animals.

Thus says Inez why should we bother with your conjecture?

wf3h

unread,
Nov 10, 2007, 5:49:57 AM11/10/07
to
On Nov 10, 4:36 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> And until you define for me the theory of evolution and who's theory
> exactly it is and where did this person publish this theory you are
> not even wrong.

god did it.

clear?

>

wf3h

unread,
Nov 10, 2007, 5:51:37 AM11/10/07
to


what he actually proposed was differential reproduction as a mechanism
for speciation

not that an islamist/christianist fanatic who believes his scriptures
are literally true understands language at all...

backspace

unread,
Nov 10, 2007, 6:22:20 AM11/10/07
to
On Nov 9, 11:19 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > the purpose is to give Darwin's actual theory the theory that the
> > evolution page on Wikipedia refuses to provide.
>
> Looking it up on Wikipedia takes you to a decent introductory article
> on the subject.

What exactly is the subject? Are you refering to the word "evolution"
or "Theory of Evolution". The word "evolution" has essentially become
undefined. In contrast "Theory of evolution" is very specific - a
theory. I just want to know what Theory of Evolution are you refering
to and who's theory is this?

> > They keep on telling
> > us about Darwin's theory but then never state the actual theory.

> You poor, brain-damaged loon. Telling you *about the theory *is
> stating the theory.

What theory? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution tells us to read
DArwin's book for theory of evolution, so that I have done - posted
Darwin's actual theory. What is wrong with this?


> > But
> > of course Darwin didn't give a theory he stated a tautology.
> > "..preservation of a large number of individuals, which varied more or
> > less in any favourable direction, and of the destruction of a large
> > number which varied in an opposite manner..."
> > Or in other words those survived survived because they are not dead
> > and those that didn't survive didn't because they are dead and
> > therefore a monkey turned into a human. (Or common ancestor or
> > whatever you want to call the stupid ape back then!)

> No, they survived (or more clearly, reproduced more successfully)

Darwin didn't use the word "success", "random" or "random mutation"

> because they had traits which were largely inheritable and which
> improved their chances of reproducing.

All traits are inheritable for if it wasn't inheritable the traits
wouldn't be there in the first place. So lets rephrase:"... because
they had traits which improved their chances of reproducing..." This
is a tautology, obviously good traits will improve the chances of
reproduction, this doesn't explain where they got these traits to
begin with.


> The conditions of the environment shape the species.

No, the conditions don't "shape" anything. The response of an organism
to any particular environmental condition is a pattern not a design -
there is no will or motive. You are confusing patterns in nature with
designs in nature. You are using "shape" in the selection, design
sense - this is your intent. If your intent was in the pattern sense
you would not have used the word "shape". "Shape", "filtered",
"sorted" and "selection" means nothing without intent.

>How is this a tautology?

That depends what you define as a tautology. Evolution, "selection" ,
"design", choice, decision has become undefined as the materialists
make the meaning of language itself undefined.

backspace

unread,
Nov 10, 2007, 6:30:27 AM11/10/07
to
On Nov 9, 10:23 pm, "theSalamander"

<notarealem...@nospamthanks.co.nospam> wrote:
> > and
> > therefore a monkey turned into a human. (Or common ancestor or
> > whatever you want to call the stupid ape back then!)
>
> Would it be SO much trouble for you to learn something about evolution
> before attacking it?

Which depends on what you define as "evolution" - what is evolution?
Or more specifically what is the difference between Darwin's(note
Darwin not Wilkins or Harshman) Theory of Evolution ?

Let just restate Darwin's conjecture: By slow and gradual steps a
monkey(chimp,bonobo, common ancestor or anything apish that will make
happy) transforms into a human. Is this what you mean by Evolution?
Now what it is the intent with calling this process "evolution" - why
do we use the word "evolution"?
What are we really trying to say here. Are we trying to say that
mankind is more "advanced" than an ape and that this species
transformation moves towards some higher goal. Because one meaning of
the word evolution is progress, so if it is progress to go from a an
ape to a human - according to whom
is this progress.

I means lets presume there were no humans and a donkey turned into a
wombat - would the wombat no consider itself and "improvement"?

backspace

unread,
Nov 10, 2007, 6:35:53 AM11/10/07
to
On Nov 10, 12:51 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > It does cite the source: Origin Species 6th edition. The purpose? Well
> > the purpose is to give Darwin's actual theory the theory that the
> > evolution page on Wikipedia refuses to provide. They keep on telling
> > us about Darwin's theory but then never state the actual theory. But
> > of course Darwin didn't give a theory he stated a tautology.
> > "..preservation of a large number of individuals, which varied more or
> > less in any favourable direction, and of the destruction of a large
> > number which varied in an opposite manner..."
> > Or in other words those survived survived because they are not dead
> > and those that didn't survive didn't because they are dead and
> > therefore a monkey turned into a human. (Or common ancestor or
> > whatever you want to call the stupid ape back then!)

> what he actually proposed was differential reproduction as a mechanism
> for speciation

Uncle Darwin our higher algebra clueless dimwit whom Eldredge thinks
was a genius never used the word "differential". Differential means
non-similar , what is your intent with it and what passages can you
quote from Origin that will clarify your intent if Darwin had the same
intent you have with "differential".

William Wingstedt

unread,
Nov 10, 2007, 6:53:05 AM11/10/07
to

Now you've got it inside out. Overall changes in the population of
animals leads to their survival. Perhaps you have your shoes on the
wrong feet?

backspace

unread,
Nov 10, 2007, 7:09:04 AM11/10/07
to
On Nov 9, 11:09 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Appeal to Abstract Authority - Mr.Science doesn't exist.
>
> Correct. Most human beings are capable of abstract thought; I am sorry
> you are not. "Science" as a personification is linguistic shorthand
> for the society of people who *do science. this has been explained to
> you before.

Dr.Gitt is a YEC are you saying that he and Dr.Humphreys from .icr.org
aren't scientists? What do we define as science. I simply refer to
"theories that are at the very least well reasoned".


> > What was the original theory then?

> The biggest change was understanding the quantized nature of genes.
> Darwin knew that characteristics were largely inheritable, and
> imperfectly so, but he did not know of Mendel's work, contemporary
> with his.

The reply is a red herring. Darwin didn't know about genes. I want to
know what was Darwin's theory of evolution since we are told the whole
time about "random mutations" in genes and told in peer reviewed
journals how Darwin managed to figure this out. But Darwin never said
this it was an author in 1910, why don't we credit this author? Well
why not ? What is this about Darwin the whole time. Oh, I forgot it is
about materialism not Darwinism and Darwin is become a bit of an
embarrasment to the materialist religious movement. Materialism is the
first general religious movement that actually thinks it can redefine
the meaning of language itself. (yes, yes I know this
appeal to abstract authority, but we all know my intent is the
materialists. Kermit's intent on the other hand is that if you don't
believe in his religion of materialism then you can't provide well
reasoned descriptions)

> > What evidence, please define for me the evidence.
>
> Better yet, I'll list some:

> Fossil evidence sorted by time, corresponding to progression of early,
> simple forms to diversity of modern forms, with numerous clear
> transitional series.

It is the "fossil record" not evidence. You are refering to the first
common ancestor which is begging the question. First we are told there
was a first living cell or CA and then we are told that because there
was a first living CA , therefore the species diverged.

richardal...@googlemail.com

unread,
Nov 10, 2007, 9:03:21 AM11/10/07
to
On Nov 10, 11:35 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 12:51 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > It does cite the source: Origin Species 6th edition. The purpose? Well
> > > the purpose is to give Darwin's actual theory the theory that the
> > > evolution page on Wikipedia refuses to provide. They keep on telling
> > > us about Darwin's theory but then never state the actual theory. But
> > > of course Darwin didn't give a theory he stated a tautology.
> > > "..preservation of a large number of individuals, which varied more or
> > > less in any favourable direction, and of the destruction of a large
> > > number which varied in an opposite manner..."
> > > Or in other words those survived survived because they are not dead
> > > and those that didn't survive didn't because they are dead and
> > > therefore a monkey turned into a human. (Or common ancestor or
> > > whatever you want to call the stupid ape back then!)
> > what he actually proposed was differential reproduction as a mechanism
> > for speciation
>
> Uncle Darwin our higher algebra clueless dimwit

Why on earth should Darwin's self-confessed lack of knowledge of
algebra be of any relevance at all to his contributions to science as
a biologist? He was a first-rate scientist whose contribution would be
widely recognised even if had not formulated his theory of evolution
by natural selection.

> whom Eldredge thinks
> was a genius never used the word "differential".

So fucking what?

> Differential means
> non-similar , what is your intent with it and what passages can you
> quote from Origin that will clarify your intent if Darwin had the same
> intent you have with "differential".

Darwin made his "intent" perfectly clear to anyone not blindly
determined not to understand. Generations of evolutionary scientists
have made their "intent" perfectly clear to anyone not blindly
determined not to understand.

Why do you think that boasting about your lack of ability to read for
comprehension is any sort of argument?

Silly little man.

RF

Inez

unread,
Nov 10, 2007, 9:48:02 AM11/10/07
to
On Nov 10, 2:36 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 5:43 am, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > It does cite the source: Origin Species 6th edition. The purpose? Well
> > > the purpose is to give Darwin's actual theory the theory that the
> > > evolution page on Wikipedia refuses to provide. They keep on telling
> > > us about Darwin's theory but then never state the actual theory. But
> > > of course Darwin didn't give a theory he stated a tautology.
> > > "..preservation of a large number of individuals, which varied more or
> > > less in any favourable direction, and of the destruction of a large
> > > number which varied in an opposite manner..."
> > > Or in other words those survived survived because they are not dead
> > > and those that didn't survive didn't because they are dead and
> > > therefore a monkey turned into a human. (Or common ancestor or
> > > whatever you want to call the stupid ape back then!)
> > You're looking at this sideways. The theory of evolution is not a
> > description of the characteristics of animals who survive.
>
> And until you define for me the theory of evolution and who's theory
> exactly it is and where did this person publish this theory you are
> not even wrong.

Your insistence that the theory of evolution is not defined is
chidlish and stupid, and fools no one, not even you. Get over it.

> > It is a
> > theory that the differential survival of animals with different
> > characteristics leads to overall changes in the population of
> > animals. Do you see the difference?
>
> Lets rephrase:
> I an individual using the alias Inez hereby formally propose a
> conjecture:
> The survival of animals leads to overall changes in the population of
> animals.

Let's rephrase- Backspace is afraid of evolution, since it proves his
bizare theory of divinity incorrect. He therefore insists on sticking
his fingers in his ears and saying "lalalalalanotlistening."

> Thus says Inez why should we bother with your conjecture?

Grow up.

Inez

unread,
Nov 10, 2007, 9:56:37 AM11/10/07
to

> And until you define for me the theory of evolution and who's theory
> exactly it is and where did this person publish this theory you are
> not even wrong.
>
> > It is a
> > theory that the differential survival of animals with different
> > characteristics leads to overall changes in the population of
> > animals. Do you see the difference?
>
> Lets rephrase:
> I an individual using the alias Inez hereby formally propose a
> conjecture:
> The survival of animals leads to overall changes in the population of
> animals.
>
> Thus says Inez why should we bother with your conjecture?

Note also that you say that first say the ToE is undefined and demand
a definition, and then when given one claim that such a definition is
meaningless because I gave it to you, and I am not an authority. The
third leg in your stool of stupidity, which isn't evidenced here but
appears in other posts, is when someone gives you a scientific
definition from an authority, is you claim that the "intent" cannot be
known. There is no penetrating your clue proof shield. Any possible
information is rejected from your so-called brain.

All this amounts to is a refusal to have a conversation, which would
be fine by me but it's puzzling why you're here. No one is going to
be convinced by you arguing that the ToE doesn't exist. Even the
other creationists on this site agree that the ToE is an actual theory
that exists and is understandable. Why are you so much denser than
everyone else?

backspace

unread,
Nov 10, 2007, 12:39:48 PM11/10/07
to
On Nov 10, 4:56 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Lets rephrase:
> > I an individual using the alias Inez hereby formally propose a
> > conjecture:
> > The survival of animals leads to overall changes in the population of
> > animals.

> > Thus says Inez why should we bother with your conjecture?

> Note also that you say that first say the ToE is undefined and demand
> a definition, and then when given one claim that such a definition is
> meaningless because I gave it to you, and I am not an authority.

And neither am I but when we say that "..the pull between two objects
are proportional to their distances squared..." everybody knows who we
are quoting. And when you tell me about this much vaunted ToE you need
to tell me where did you get your theory from? We need to give credit
to this author and how this author derived his theory from first
principles...."

Berlinski asks for example that the concept of "fitness" be derived
from first principles in Black Mischief
p.277
'..In general, trouble arises simply because the connection between
biological traits and fitness is never derived from first principles.
If the pig were to be born with wheels mounted on ball bearings
instead of trotters, would it be better off on some scale of porcine
fitness? No one knows, although some guesses are possible..."

p.294
I have spoken ...now of a specific protein. If any protein will do,
the odds improve. In a uniform
probability space , it is certain that one among the possible events
will occur. The British biologist Peter Medawar has seized upon this
point...and went in the wrong direction with it.
<quoting medaware>
In the games of whist or bridge any one particular hand is just as
unlikely to turn up as any other. If I pick up and inspect a certain
hand and then declare myself utterly amazed that such a hand should
have been dealt to me , considering the odds against it, I should be
told by those who have steeped themselves in mathmatical reasoning
that its prob. cannot be measured retrospectively, but only against a
prior expectation. For much the
same reason it seems to me profitless to speak of natural selection's
'generating improbability"...it is silly to be thunderstruck by the
evolution of organ A if we should have been just as thunderstruck by a
turn of events that had led to the evolution of B or C instead.
<End quoting medaware>

Berlinski says:"... Medawar is roughly right about probability. The
fallacy he refers to is retrospective specification and consists
precisely in reading back into an original sample space information
revealed only on the realization of the actual event. In poker , a
deal distributes n hands of equal probability: 1 in 2598160 as it
happens. This sample space is specified retrospectively if one hand in
particular is contrasted with 2598159 hands that remain; and
probabilities assigned to the partition so created. What appears
initially as one among equiprobable events becomes under RS an
improbable event in a sample space of only two points. It is
embarrassing for an author to point out such things...."


Here are the broad fallacies committed:
1) Retrospective specification
2) Confusing the cause with the effect. Harshman on NS says it is an
effect and then it is a cause. Chris Colby that NS is an effect but
what then is the cause? And Colby stating that SoF is "misleading" is
not exactly helping him out on NS because Darwin said SoF is a better
expression.
3) Tautologies - http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TheoryOfGradualEvolution
4) Circular reasoning ... First common ancestor
5) Terms that nobody has defined are used - "differential reproductive
success" Who says so?
6) Semantic impossibilities "Triangular circles" and "natural
selection".
7) Confusing (patterns,detection) with (designs,selection) finches,
bacterial resistance, peppered moth, sexual selection stories are
patterns not designs. Even the creationists fail to see an obvious
pattern since their language with NS is confused as well.
8) Refusal to communicate intent in sentences that are grammatically
correct.
9) Words are undefined - evolution. See http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/SapolskyPragmatics
10) Unfalsifiable stories. The white moths get eaten - natural
selection. But if it was the black moths we would have been told the
same story.
11) Appeal to abstract authority... Mr.Sciense says so and he doesn't
exist.
12) Argument from authority. A materialist overlord and priest Miller
simply decrees that NS is "blind". But why is NS never "stupid"?


Mujin

unread,
Nov 10, 2007, 1:27:36 PM11/10/07
to
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1194690999.1...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:

> On Nov 10, 5:43 am, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > It does cite the source: Origin Species 6th edition. The purpose? Well
>> > the purpose is to give Darwin's actual theory the theory that the
>> > evolution page on Wikipedia refuses to provide. They keep on telling
>> > us about Darwin's theory but then never state the actual theory. But
>> > of course Darwin didn't give a theory he stated a tautology.
>> > "..preservation of a large number of individuals, which varied more or
>> > less in any favourable direction, and of the destruction of a large
>> > number which varied in an opposite manner..."
>> > Or in other words those survived survived because they are not dead
>> > and those that didn't survive didn't because they are dead and
>> > therefore a monkey turned into a human. (Or common ancestor or
>> > whatever you want to call the stupid ape back then!)
>
>> You're looking at this sideways. The theory of evolution is not a
>> description of the characteristics of animals who survive.
>
> And until you define for me the theory of evolution and who's theory
> exactly it is and where did this person publish this theory you are
> not even wrong.

It would help enormously if you would put even a *little* effort into
understanding the topic you are talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Evolution#History_of_evolutionary_th
ought
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

So, was it a lie when you claimed that even Wikipedia had nothing to say on
what exactly the theory of evolution was and who came up with it, or are
you just too lazy to actually find the truth before you begin speaking?

On the other hand, it seems to me that there is a word for people who
habitually make up something that agrees with them rather than finding out
the correct answer.

--
Bon nou mujin sei gan dan

Vend

unread,
Nov 10, 2007, 1:51:33 PM11/10/07
to

<backspace>
Mr. Differential-survival-of-animals doesn't exist and therefore can't
lead anyone anywhere.
Appeal to Abstract Authority HaHa!
</backspace>

Vend

unread,
Nov 10, 2007, 1:52:06 PM11/10/07
to
On 10 Nov, 04:43, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:

<backspace>

Vend

unread,
Nov 10, 2007, 1:50:19 PM11/10/07
to
On 10 Nov, 04:43, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:

<backspace>

Inez

unread,
Nov 10, 2007, 2:11:24 PM11/10/07
to
On Nov 10, 9:39 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 4:56 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Lets rephrase:
> > > I an individual using the alias Inez hereby formally propose a
> > > conjecture:
> > > The survival of animals leads to overall changes in the population of
> > > animals.
> > > Thus says Inez why should we bother with your conjecture?
> > Note also that you say that first say the ToE is undefined and demand
> > a definition, and then when given one claim that such a definition is
> > meaningless because I gave it to you, and I am not an authority.
>
> And neither am I but when we say that "..the pull between two objects
> are proportional to their distances squared..." everybody knows who we
> are quoting.

No they don't. And until you tell me what the intent is with "pull"
"between" "two" "objects" "proportional" and "distances" are, you're
not even wrong.

See how it works? Nothing can get through your system of pretending
not to understand. Luckily it doesn't matter to anyone else if you
understand or not.

> And when you tell me about this much vaunted ToE you need
> to tell me where did you get your theory from?

Where I got the theory from is not relevant to whether it is correct
of not.


backspace

unread,
Nov 10, 2007, 5:12:55 PM11/10/07
to
On Nov 10, 8:27 pm, Mujin <umwin...@seesee.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
> It would help enormously if you would put even a *little* effort into
> understanding the topic you are talking about.

What topic is this now? I am asking for Darwin's theory of evolution
as defined by Darwin and Wikipedia and everybody around here are
refusing to provide it.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Evolution#History_of_evolution...
> oughthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

> So, was it a lie when you claimed that even Wikipedia had nothing to say on
> what exactly the theory of evolution was and who came up with it, or are
> you just too lazy to actually find the truth before you begin speaking?

What exactly is "evolutionary thought"? As posted during the first
edition of OoS *evolution* meant the unrolling of prefabricated
beings. The idea of animals changing into humans is probably as old
mankind itself. But this is an idea, a conjecture a flight of the
imagination - it is not a theory.
Why is it so difficult to understand that merely saying "Monkeys(or
common ancestors) turned into humans" doesn't make it so. You first
need to specify the problem and then only can you formulate a theory
instead Darwin formulated a tautology and called it a theory.

Free Lunch

unread,
Nov 10, 2007, 5:33:47 PM11/10/07
to
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:12:55 -0800, in talk.origins
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1194732775....@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:

>On Nov 10, 8:27 pm, Mujin <umwin...@seesee.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
>> It would help enormously if you would put even a *little* effort into
>> understanding the topic you are talking about.
>
>What topic is this now? I am asking for Darwin's theory of evolution
>as defined by Darwin and Wikipedia and everybody around here are
>refusing to provide it.

Darwin's theory of evolution by variation and natural selection is quite
out of date. Why do you want it? It has been improved in a number of
ways as evidence has been collected about evolution.

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Evolution#History_of_evolution...
>> oughthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought
>
>> So, was it a lie when you claimed that even Wikipedia had nothing to say on
>> what exactly the theory of evolution was and who came up with it, or are
>> you just too lazy to actually find the truth before you begin speaking?
>
>What exactly is "evolutionary thought"? As posted during the first
>edition of OoS *evolution* meant the unrolling of prefabricated
>beings. The idea of animals changing into humans is probably as old
>mankind itself. But this is an idea, a conjecture a flight of the
>imagination - it is not a theory.
>Why is it so difficult to understand that merely saying "Monkeys(or
>common ancestors) turned into humans" doesn't make it so. You first
>need to specify the problem and then only can you formulate a theory
>instead Darwin formulated a tautology and called it a theory.

The evidence shows that we share a common ancestor with the other great
apes. Your refusal to accept that evidence does not change the evidence.

Cj

unread,
Nov 10, 2007, 5:43:49 PM11/10/07
to
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> > vomited thus:

> And until you define for me the theory of evolution and who's theory
> exactly it is and where did this person publish this theory you are
> not even wrong.
>

You have repeated this statement at least a dozen times in the last 6
months. It is nonsense and rather stupid. It has also been answered
properly a number of times, usually with well deserved insolence. I
appreciate your intellectual limitations and inability to reason but
repetition of stupidity doesn't improve it. FOAD

peter

unread,
Nov 10, 2007, 6:26:14 PM11/10/07
to
On Nov 10, 9:39 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> And neither am I but when we say that "..the pull between two objects
> are proportional to their distances squared..." everybody knows who we
> are quoting.

I certainly don't and I suspect no one else here does either. Who is
the "we" to whom you refer? AFAIK, only you are doing any quoting
above so perhaps you could clarify what other individuals are
involved. And I suspect that you are actually not quoting anyone at
all, at least I hope so, since the statement quoted is unclear in
meaning and likely incorrect. Forces, such as gravitational,
electromagnetic, weak, and strong nuclear, generally decrease with
distance rather than increasing as in your quote above. And it's
unclear what "distances" (plural) are involved with only two objects?
Are you implying that each object has some intrinsic distance? That's
not the usual usage, but you seem to have some unique usages of
language so perhaps you could clarify.


Mujin

unread,
Nov 10, 2007, 7:26:15 PM11/10/07
to
backspace <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1194732775....@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

> On Nov 10, 8:27 pm, Mujin <umwin...@seesee.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
>> It would help enormously if you would put even a *little* effort into
>> understanding the topic you are talking about.
>
> What topic is this now? I am asking for Darwin's theory of evolution
> as defined by Darwin and Wikipedia and everybody around here are
> refusing to provide it.

Both Wikipedia and other posters in this thread have in fact provided you
with the theory of evolution; you just refuse to read it. Right at the
beginning of the first Wikipedia page I offered:

"In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a
population from one generation to the next."

This process of evolution is the phenomenon that was noted by scholars as
early as Anaxiamander, and many attempts have been made to explain how it
works.

Later in the same paragraph we see Darwin's theory of natural selection,
which he thought explained the phenomenon of evolution:

"Natural selection is a process that causes heritable traits that are
helpful for survival and reproduction to become more common, and harmful
traits to become more rare. This occurs because organisms with
advantageous traits pass on more copies of these heritable traits to the
next generation."

You have no doubt noticed that Darwin himself said nothing much about
genes. That's because he was unaware of Mendel's work on genetics which
had emerged at about the same time as Darwin published his theory - Darwin
thought that blended inheritance made sense, and this is reflected in The
Origin of Species. Hardly anyone was aware of Mendel's work until 1900,
and when it re-emerged there was dispute between Mendelian geneticists and
Darwinian evolutionists. It wasn't until Ronald Fischer in the 1930s that
Mendelian inheritance and Darwin's natural selection were combined in the
modern evolutionary synthesis:

"According to the modern synthesis as established in the 1930s and 1940s,
genetic variation in populations arises by chance through mutation (this is
now known to be sometimes caused by mistakes in DNA replication) and
recombination (crossing over of homologous chromosomes during meiosis).
Evolution consists primarily of changes in the frequencies of alleles
between one generation and another as a result of genetic drift, gene flow,
and natural selection. Speciation occurs gradually when populations are
reproductively isolated, for example by geographical barriers."

(from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis#Tenets_of_the_mo
dern_synthesis )

You claim that Wikipedia says nothing about what the central ideas of the
theory of evolution are or who came up with them, yet the three articles I
offer you contain excellent summaries *including* the names of the
scientists primarily responsible for developing the ideas.

Clearly you didn't read very far. Or perhaps you didn't bother to read
anything about evolution at all, since you had already decided what must be
there.

>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Evolution#History_of_evolution.
>> .. oughthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought


>
>> So, was it a lie when you claimed that even Wikipedia had nothing to
>> say on what exactly the theory of evolution was and who came up with
>> it, or are you just too lazy to actually find the truth before you
>> begin speaking?
>
> What exactly is "evolutionary thought"?

Evolutionary thought is, obviously, that body of thought which encompasses
ideas about and logical arguments for evolution. In the case of the
article I offered you, it is a history of the observation that evolution
occurs (an observation that goes back at least to the 6th Century BCE), and
a history of attempts to explain scientifically why evolution occurs.

You have said before that English is not your first language. I
sympathize, since I know how hard it is to operate in a foreign language no
matter how fluent you may be. I suggest that you consider taking remedial
lessons since your ability to actually understand native English appears to
be weak in some contexts.

> As posted during the first
> edition of OoS *evolution* meant the unrolling of prefabricated
> beings.

You may notice that Darwin didn't use the word evolution in his original
edition of the Origin of Species. At the time Darwin wrote, the word
evolution was already firmly established as referring to the production or
emergence of some end product - the evolution of hydrogen gas during
electrolysis of water, or the evolution of a plant from its seed, for
example. Darwin simply extended the biological meaning to refer to the
emergence of one species from another.

> The idea of animals changing into humans is probably as old
> mankind itself. But this is an idea, a conjecture a flight of the
> imagination - it is not a theory.

So? The mythological - and invariably magical - creation of humans from
animal stock is not the root of Darwin's concept of natural selection.
Darwin simply observed a phenomenon in nature and proposed an explanation
based on what he knew of biology. This explanation proved powerful in the
process of understanding the relationships between organisms, especially in
understanding the relationship between modern organisms and the fossils
then being excavated at an enormous rate, so it was adopted by biologists
of Darwin's time so rapidly that in the 6th edition of the Origin of
Species he was able to say

"At the present day almost all naturalists admit evolution under some
form."

Now, most Creationists claim that the only real reason to accept the theory
of evolution is the fact that it helps atheism make sense, but considering
that nearly all naturalists/biologists of Darwin's time were Christian the
only logical answer is that they found the theory persuasive in the face of
the evidence available.

> Why is it so difficult to understand that merely saying "Monkeys(or
> common ancestors) turned into humans" doesn't make it so.

Thankfully, that's not what the theory of evolution says.

> You first
> need to specify the problem and then only can you formulate a theory
> instead Darwin formulated a tautology and called it a theory.

No Creationist has yet successfully demonstrated on the basis of logic that
Darwin's proposed theory of evolution is a tautology. Perhaps you can be
the first, but I doubt it.

Grandbank

unread,
Nov 10, 2007, 7:32:18 PM11/10/07
to

You know, I was just about to go throw some gasoline into the
woodstove but I guess I'll stay here instead.


KP

Cj

unread,
Nov 10, 2007, 8:49:21 PM11/10/07
to
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1194694227....@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...

> On Nov 9, 10:23 pm, "theSalamander"
> <notarealem...@nospamthanks.co.nospam> wrote:
>> > and
>> > therefore a monkey turned into a human. (Or common ancestor or
>> > whatever you want to call the stupid ape back then!)
>>
>> Would it be SO much trouble for you to learn something about evolution
>> before attacking it?
>
> Which depends on what you define as "evolution" - what is evolution?
> Or more specifically what is the difference between Darwin's(note
> Darwin not Wilkins or Harshman) Theory of Evolution ?
>

"what is the difference between Darwin's Theory of Evolution?"

That doesn't make much sense, but then few things you write
do make any sense. Is it too difficult for you to finish a sentence?

>
> Let just restate Darwin's conjecture: By slow and gradual steps a
> monkey(chimp,bonobo, common ancestor or anything apish that will make
> happy) transforms into a human. Is this what you mean by Evolution?
> Now what it is the intent with calling this process "evolution" - why
> do we use the word "evolution"?

Incorrect restatement and nothing 'transforms' into a human, a nonsense
assertion. The intent of evolution as a term is pretty obvious if you have
read anything about the topic. Darwin's evolution is a theory of variation
and the consequences in terms of the origin of species.


> What are we really trying to say here. Are we trying to say that
> mankind is more "advanced" than an ape and that this species
> transformation moves towards some higher goal. Because one meaning of
> the word evolution is progress, so if it is progress to go from a an
> ape to a human - according to whom
> is this progress.


I don't know what you're trying to say here. Evolution has absolutely no
goal, it's something that happens as a consequence of a number of
biological factors. Species are different, advanced is your
misunderstanding
of the species concept. I know of no biological scientist who equates
evolution
with progress, biologically the terms are totally unrelated and irrelevant.
In
fact evolution is about biological change. Do you understand that?

>
> I means lets presume there were no humans and a donkey turned into a
> wombat - would the wombat no consider itself and "improvement"?
>

You have suggested a great number of silly and biologically impossible
ideas in your postings. They clearly demonstrate your ignorance of biology,
evolution, genetics and logic. Most rational individuals don't waste a lot
of effort repeatedly writing nonsense about things they cannot comprehend.
You have made the propagation of silly statements your career. I cannot
understand why anyone would repeatedly make a public fool of himself.
I am not denigrating ignorance, that's merely a lack of knowledge, but your
willful ignorance is rather disgusting... you are a waste of opposable
thumbs.
Cj

Cory Albrecht

unread,
Nov 10, 2007, 8:43:19 PM11/10/07
to
backspace wrote, On 10/11/07 12:39 PM:

> And neither am I but when we say that "..the pull between two objects
> are proportional to their distances squared..." everybody knows who we
> are quoting. And when you tell me about this much vaunted ToE you need
> to tell me where did you get your theory from? We need to give credit
> to this author and how this author derived his theory from first
> principles...."

I don't know whom we are supposedly quoting, however, I do know that
things like gravity are _inversely_ proportional to the square of the
distance (*singular*) between the two objects.

IOW, even though I don't know the name of the person who first published
this relationship, I still know the science better than you do.

Vend

unread,
Nov 10, 2007, 9:00:03 PM11/10/07
to

Damn google.

Clothaire

unread,
Nov 10, 2007, 11:21:07 PM11/10/07
to
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:43:19 -0500, Cory Albrecht
<coryal...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>backspace wrote, On 10/11/07 12:39 PM:
>> And neither am I but when we say that "..the pull between two objects
>> are proportional to their distances squared..." everybody knows who we
>> are quoting. And when you tell me about this much vaunted ToE you need
>> to tell me where did you get your theory from? We need to give credit
>> to this author and how this author derived his theory from first
>> principles...."

>clip
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Backspace is so hung up on _appeals from authority_ that he thinks
that if he can identify the authority and shoot it down or if there is
no identifiable authority, he has won the argument.

Clothaire

"If there be an infinite Being, he does not need our help -- we need
not waste our energies in his defense."
-- Robert Green Ingersoll, "God in the Constitution" (1870)

backspace

unread,
Nov 11, 2007, 1:29:16 AM11/11/07
to

Small typo, I should have said "inversely" and it can only be Newton I
am refering to.

peter

unread,
Nov 11, 2007, 7:22:35 AM11/11/07
to

Hardly. Adding "inversely" fixes only one of the numerous errors in
the quoted statement. Some of the remaining errors are: 1) subject
and verb inconsistency (the pull ... are); 2) insufficient information
about the objects (do they have mass, electrical charge, or other
interaction such as the strong nuclear force?); 3) the reference to
"their distances" - objects do not have any inherent distance; perhaps
you meant the distance between their respective COGs.
But I suspect the main problem is that it is not a quote at all, but a
statement you made up. Otherwise please provide a citation for the
exact statement as quoted.

Even if the statement had been made correctly, there's no particular
reason why it would have to be a quote of Newton. It could also be a
quote of any of numerous instructors, textbook authors, or students
responding to a test question. And it could be in regard to Newtonian
Mechanics, Lagrangian Mechanics, or to Einstein's General Theory of
Relativity.

backspace

unread,
Nov 11, 2007, 8:23:26 AM11/11/07
to
On Nov 11, 2:22 pm, peter <prath...@comcast.net> wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29
"....It describes the capability of an individual of certain genotype
to reproduce, and usually is equal to the proportion of the
individual's genes in all the genes of the next generation. If
differences in individual genotypes affect fitness, then the
frequencies of the genotypes will change over generations; the
genotypes with higher fitness become more common. This process is
called natural selection...."

First we need to know according to which individual is the above
paragraph? Lets just start off with the first issue: Darwin didn't
know about genes, so why is the above then called "natural selection".
In answering me you must refer to what Darwin actually said and
specifically the only place he came close to giving us his definition
of natural selection (notice I said close) - the quote Wikipedia
fraudulently misquoted and still is not fixed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natural_selection#Darwin.27s_hypothesis_section_fraudulent_misquotation

"..I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if
useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark
its relation to man's power of selection...."

To understand Darwin's intent(hopefully) we read the next paragraph:
".... But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the
Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally
convenient. We have seen that man by selection can certainly produce
great results, and can adapt organic beings to his own uses, through
the accumulation of slight but useful variations, given to him by the
hand of Nature. But Natural Selection, we shall hereafter see, is a
power incessantly ready for action, and is as immeasurably superior to
man's feeble efforts, as the works of Nature are to those of Art...."

Now Peter what I want to know from you is if Chris Colby on
talkorigins.org writes an article saying that SoF is "misleading" then
what impact does this have on NS? As you can see Darwin's usage of NS
is intertwined with SoF. And allow me to show you yet again the egg
dance Wilkins and Harshman has performed on this whole SoF issue:

Chris Colby:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html#natsel The
phrase "survival of the fittest" is often used synonymously with
natural selection. The phrase is both incomplete and misleading.

John Wilkins:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/cc737705dbc10c8e?tvc=1
"... "survival of the fittest" is a verbal shorthand for complex math.
The *math* is not a tautology - for the terms in the equations are
interpreted, which means they are what gives the equations substance.
For SotF to be an *empty* tautology, and not a contentful one (i.e., a
definition), you would need to show that the terms are not
interpretable...."

John Wilkins wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/38df9a9a127281a8/cea310284f6d201c#cea310284f6d201c
"..Many were worried about the voluntaristic implications of the use
of the term "selection": this is why Wallace and Spencer insisted on
changing it to "survival of the fittest", which lacks that
implication. Darwin adopted it, but it raised a whole host of other
problems - the main one being that it made the whole thing into a
tautology, which it wasn't. The main difficulty is that our language
*is* voluntaristic, and we don't have a ready made vocabulary without
connontations for talking about an a posteriori outcome. "Goals" are
unfortunately part of the vernacular - we talk about "in order to" in
biology, but we *don't* mean that a particular biological property
thereby happened with that outcome in "mind". Because it achieved that
result, it was retained. That's selection in biology..."

John Harshman: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/65ec48d891d6b4b9/85cc1b8964d9e435#85cc1b8964d9e435
On Jun 21, 3:08 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
wrote:
> > We don't know what Darwin's intent was with "survival of the fittest".

> That's not even Darwin's phrase, but Spencer's. And of course we know,
> at least those of us who can read. It's just an intended synonym for
> natural selection. I see you are changing the subject from natural
> selection and unconscious selection to artificial selection.

And thus Peter when I ask "who says so?" it is with good reason since
individuals establish theories.

wf3h

unread,
Nov 11, 2007, 9:00:00 AM11/11/07
to
On Nov 11, 7:23 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 2:22 pm, peter <prath...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29
> "....It describes the capability of an individual of certain genotype
> to reproduce, and usually is equal to the proportion of the
> individual's genes in all the genes of the next generation. If
> differences in individual genotypes affect fitness, then the
> frequencies of the genotypes will change over generations; the
> genotypes with higher fitness become more common. This process is
> called natural selection...."
>
> First we need to know according to which individual is the above
> paragraph?

why? why is this relevant?

oh. it's not. OK. strike one.


> >
>
> Now Peter what I want to know from you is if Chris Colby on
> talkorigins.org writes an article saying that SoF is "misleading" then
> what impact does this have on NS?

nando, apparently, does not realize usage can change with time. take
the term 'slavery' for example

at one time backspace's intellectual predecessors...the
creationists...were generally pro slavery. we know this because they
formed the largest protestant church in american history....the s.
baptists.

yet today few s. baptists are pro slavery. so the term 'slavery' which
was used with great approval by creationists like backspace today is
regarded with disdain...
> >
> John Harshman:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/65ec48d...


> On Jun 21, 3:08 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> > > We don't know what Darwin's intent was with "survival of the fittest".
> > That's not even Darwin's phrase, but Spencer's. And of course we know,
> > at least those of us who can read. It's just an intended synonym for
> > natural selection. I see you are changing the subject from natural
> > selection and unconscious selection to artificial selection.
>
> And thus Peter when I ask "who says so?" it is with good reason since
> individuals establish theories.

and theories have general features. that's why scientists can use
them. if they weren't understood, backspace wouldn't be able to use
his scientist invented computer to tell us that we should return to
the 14th century when slavery was all the rage in the christian world,
and 'god did it' was science.


wf3h

unread,
Nov 11, 2007, 9:04:49 AM11/11/07
to
On Nov 11, 7:23 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 2:22 pm, peter <prath...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29
> "....It describes the capability of an individual of certain genotype
> to reproduce, and usually is equal to the proportion of the
> individual's genes in all the genes of the next generation. If
> differences in individual genotypes affect fitness, then the
> frequencies of the genotypes will change over generations; the
> genotypes with higher fitness become more common. This process is
> called natural selection...."
>
> First we need to know according to which individual is the above
> paragraph?

why? why is this relevant?

oh. it's not. OK. strike one.
> >
>

> Now Peter what I want to know from you is if Chris Colby on
> talkorigins.org writes an article saying that SoF is "misleading" then
> what impact does this have on NS?

nando, apparently, does not realize usage can change with time. take


the term 'slavery' for example

at one time backspace's intellectual predecessors...the
creationists...were generally pro slavery. we know this because they
formed the largest protestant church in american history....the s.
baptists.

yet today few s. baptists are pro slavery. so the term 'slavery' which
was used with great approval by creationists like backspace today is
regarded with disdain...
> >
> John Harshman:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/65ec48d...

> On Jun 21, 3:08 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> > > We don't know what Darwin's intent was with "survival of the fittest".
> > That's not even Darwin's phrase, but Spencer's. And of course we know,
> > at least those of us who can read. It's just an intended synonym for
> > natural selection. I see you are changing the subject from natural
> > selection and unconscious selection to artificial selection.
>
> And thus Peter when I ask "who says so?" it is with good reason since
> individuals establish theories.

and theories have general features. that's why scientists can use

John Vreeland

unread,
Nov 11, 2007, 11:17:13 AM11/11/07
to
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 04:09:04 -0800, backspace
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> opined:

>On Nov 9, 11:09 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Appeal to Abstract Authority - Mr.Science doesn't exist.
>>
>> Correct. Most human beings are capable of abstract thought; I am sorry
>> you are not. "Science" as a personification is linguistic shorthand
>> for the society of people who *do science. this has been explained to
>> you before.
>
>Dr.Gitt is a YEC are you saying that he and Dr.Humphreys from .icr.org
>aren't scientists? What do we define as science. I simply refer to
>"theories that are at the very least well reasoned".


That might describe "good logic" but a "theory" must be testable and
must explain the observed data. A "hypothesis" would be the germ of a
theory which might explain the data observed so far but needs some
further testing. Furthermore, it must be possible to falsify a
theory. For example, if you could identify an organism that
sufficiently breaks the dual-nested hierarchy or life then biological
evolution would be falsified. The fact that no such organism has ever
been found is the main reason that biological evolution has triumphed.
Such a discovery would probably earn someone a Nobel prize.

>> > What was the original theory then?
>
>> The biggest change was understanding the quantized nature of genes.
>> Darwin knew that characteristics were largely inheritable, and
>> imperfectly so, but he did not know of Mendel's work, contemporary
>> with his.
>
>The reply is a red herring. Darwin didn't know about genes. I want to
>know what was Darwin's theory of evolution since we are told the whole
>time about "random mutations" in genes and told in peer reviewed
>journals how Darwin managed to figure this out. But Darwin never said
>this it was an author in 1910, why don't we credit this author? Well
>why not ? What is this about Darwin the whole time. Oh, I forgot it is
>about materialism not Darwinism and Darwin is become a bit of an
>embarrasment to the materialist religious movement. Materialism is the
>first general religious movement that actually thinks it can redefine
>the meaning of language itself. (yes, yes I know this
>appeal to abstract authority, but we all know my intent is the
>materialists. Kermit's intent on the other hand is that if you don't
>believe in his religion of materialism then you can't provide well
>reasoned descriptions)

Who what now?

Science is "materialistic" by definition. It deals with verifiable
facts and comprehensible causes. This separates it from religion
which is based on faith (instead of observation) and mystery (instead
of understanding). Is this what you are complaining about?

>> > What evidence, please define for me the evidence.
>>
>> Better yet, I'll list some:
>
>> Fossil evidence sorted by time, corresponding to progression of early,
>> simple forms to diversity of modern forms, with numerous clear
>> transitional series.
>
>It is the "fossil record" not evidence. You are refering to the first
>common ancestor which is begging the question. First we are told there
>was a first living cell or CA and then we are told that because there
>was a first living CA , therefore the species diverged.

The nested hierarchy of life is the best evidence of biological
evolution. You should look it up. Until you understand it you won't
be able to say anything intelligent on the subject of biological
evolution. Look here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy

--
John Vreeland (IEEE.org) http://rtmabc.blogspot.com
"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God."--Martin Luther

The Enigmatic One

unread,
Nov 11, 2007, 1:29:48 PM11/11/07
to
In article <1194621402.1...@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
sawirel...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>On Nov 9, 5:06 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 9, 6:50 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > We now finally have the Theory of gradual evolution and Theory of
>> > Evolution on Wikipedia. Not the Harshman theory or Provine theory of
>> > Ruse theory or whatever everybody wishes Darwin's theory to be no the
>> > actual theory by Uncle Darwin where he explains to us the non-linear
>> > control algorithms keeping the finch stable in flight. Created by
>> > TongueSpeaker
>
>> Science does not consider Wikipedia as the ultimate authority.

>
>Appeal to Abstract Authority - Mr.Science doesn't exist.


Holy shit!

You're really fucking stupid!


-Tim

Inez

unread,
Nov 11, 2007, 3:44:48 PM11/11/07
to
On Nov 10, 10:29 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> am refering to.-

But how can we know what he meant? What was his intent with all those
various words? We can safely ignore his theories because if someone
wrote "you have a green light" it would be ambiguous. Isn't that how
your argument goes?

peter

unread,
Nov 11, 2007, 3:56:02 PM11/11/07
to
On Nov 11, 5:23 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 2:22 pm, peter <prath...@comcast.net> wrote:
No, I did not.

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29
> "....It describes the capability of an individual of certain genotype
> to reproduce, and usually is equal to the proportion of the
> individual's genes in all the genes of the next generation. If
> differences in individual genotypes affect fitness, then the
> frequencies of the genotypes will change over generations; the
> genotypes with higher fitness become more common. This process is
> called natural selection...."

I see you've now switched from making up false statements and then
ascribing them to Newton to plucking text from Wikipedia and ascribing
it to me - even though I didn't write it nor have I ever included that
text in any post.


>
> First we need to know according to which individual is the above
> paragraph?

Not if our intent is to gain some understanding of the subject rather
than delving into past history. Do you have this same trouble when
using a dictionary to discover the meaning of some unfamiliar word?
The original author of most words isn't known and is hardly ever
included in the dictionary definition. Yet most of us still find
dictionaries to be useful tools in improving our understanding.
...


> Now Peter what I want to know from you is if Chris Colby on
> talkorigins.org writes an article saying that SoF is "misleading" then
> what impact does this have on NS?

None. NS is the result of the interaction between a population of
organisms and their environment in nature. An article on talkorigins
is unlikely to change either the organisms or their environment, so NS
will continue to operate just as it was before. OTOH, if Chris were
to somehow precipitate a nuclear exchange bringing on a nuclear winter
scenario then that would impact the operation of NS since it would
change the environment; probably leading to the extinction of many
species but also allowing some others to expand into new niches.
[Note that I am in no way suggesting that Chris has any plans or
desires to do this.]

backspace

unread,
Nov 12, 2007, 1:10:15 AM11/12/07
to
On Nov 11, 6:17 pm, John Vreeland <vreej...@snotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Appeal to Abstract Authority - Mr.Science doesn't exist.

> >> Correct. Most human beings are capable of abstract thought; I am sorry
> >> you are not. "Science" as a personification is linguistic shorthand
> >> for the society of people who *do science. this has been explained to
> >> you before.
>
> >Dr.Gitt is a YEC are you saying that he and Dr.Humphreys from .icr.org
> >aren't scientists? What do we define as science. I simply refer to
> >"theories that are at the very least well reasoned".

> That might describe "good logic" but a "theory" must be testable and
> must explain the observed data.

Is there anything in my definition(lifted from Prof.Herrmann) of a
"theory" that implies otherwise?

> A "hypothesis" would be the germ of a
> theory which might explain the data observed so far but needs some
> further testing.

Weasel words, this is same sort endless statements we get with
"differential reproductive success" it sounds so sophisticated by says
absolutely nothing just like your statement. My definition which I
lifted from Prof. Herrmann is crisp,clear and to the point,you on the
other hand don't really know what you are trying to say. Read this
book by Prof.Herrmann http://www.serve.com/herrmann/gsa.htm
"The great scientific deception, your endangered mind" where he
explains how using "positivist" statements how a materialist spin is
put on observations.

> Science is "materialistic" by definition.

What exactly is science?

> It deals with verifiable facts and comprehensible causes.

Appeal to abstract authority - Mr.Science deals with nothing only you
do within your metaphysical religious framework that matter created
language and everything you say is the result of bouncing atoms and
thus we can't believe anything you say.

> This separates it from religion
> which is based on faith (instead of observation) and mystery (instead
> of understanding). Is this what you are complaining about?

The mystery sir is your continual refusal to explain how matter
created language. The materialist are so occupied with dead bones that
fail to address the real questions as put forth by Chomsky.
That bone is dead, that bone don't talk, you are free to concoct any
story you want to it is an exercise in futility because the control
algorithms that enabled the interdependent relationship between the
muscles, organs and brain you will never access to making you stories
eternally unfalsifiable.

backspace

unread,
Nov 12, 2007, 2:11:36 AM11/12/07
to
On Nov 11, 10:56 pm, peter <prath...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Nov 11, 5:23 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 11, 2:22 pm, peter <prath...@comcast.net> wrote:
> No, I did not.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29
> > "....It describes the capability of an individual of certain genotype
> > to reproduce, and usually is equal to the proportion of the
> > individual's genes in all the genes of the next generation. If
> > differences in individual genotypes affect fitness, then the
> > frequencies of the genotypes will change over generations; the
> > genotypes with higher fitness become more common. This process is
> > called natural selection...."
> > First we need to know according to which individual is the above
> > paragraph?

> The original author of most words isn't known and is hardly ever


> included in the dictionary definition.

The dictionary definition of "love" is accepted by all but not "The
Theory of Love" - you have to
tell me who's theory it is and until we are told the Theory of Love
isn't even wrong.


> > Now Peter what I want to know from you is if Chris Colby on
> > talkorigins.org writes an article saying that SoF is "misleading" then
> > what impact does this have on NS?

> None. NS is the result of the interaction between a population of
> organisms and their environment in nature.

Says who? Who established this, where was it published, which
individual are you refering to.

"..We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but
we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are
told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and
that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as
well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;'
but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein,
precisely, this evidence consists." Smith, Wolfgang (1988) Teilhardism
and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin, Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books & Publishers Inc.,
p.2.."

Woland

unread,
Nov 12, 2007, 10:58:33 AM11/12/07
to

You are dishonest. Jesus no likey.

John Vreeland

unread,
Nov 12, 2007, 11:09:34 AM11/12/07
to
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 22:10:15 -0800, backspace
<sawirel...@yahoo.com> opined:

>On Nov 11, 6:17 pm, John Vreeland <vreej...@snotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Appeal to Abstract Authority - Mr.Science doesn't exist.
>
>> >> Correct. Most human beings are capable of abstract thought; I am sorry
>> >> you are not. "Science" as a personification is linguistic shorthand
>> >> for the society of people who *do science. this has been explained to
>> >> you before.
>>
>> >Dr.Gitt is a YEC are you saying that he and Dr.Humphreys from .icr.org
>> >aren't scientists? What do we define as science. I simply refer to
>> >"theories that are at the very least well reasoned".
>
>> That might describe "good logic" but a "theory" must be testable and
>> must explain the observed data.
>
>Is there anything in my definition(lifted from Prof.Herrmann) of a
>"theory" that implies otherwise?

Never having seen your definition, I wouldn't know. Having followed
some of your dialogue, I would say yes, either your definition is very
wrong or you do not understand it.

>> A "hypothesis" would be the germ of a
>> theory which might explain the data observed so far but needs some
>> further testing.
>
>Weasel words, this is same sort endless statements we get with
>"differential reproductive success" it sounds so sophisticated by says
>absolutely nothing just like your statement. My definition which I
>lifted from Prof. Herrmann is crisp,clear and to the point,you on the
>other hand don't really know what you are trying to say. Read this
>book by Prof.Herrmann http://www.serve.com/herrmann/gsa.htm
>"The great scientific deception, your endangered mind" where he
>explains how using "positivist" statements how a materialist spin is
>put on observations.

That is not "spin"; that is the way it works. If you are not basing
your conclusions on what you can reliably detect then you are spinning
fantasy. You are talking the same post-modern rubbish that gave rise
to Scientology's "what's true for you is true" and chupacabras.

>> Science is "materialistic" by definition.
>
>What exactly is science?
>
>> It deals with verifiable facts and comprehensible causes.
>
>Appeal to abstract authority - Mr.Science deals with nothing only you
>do within your metaphysical religious framework that matter created
>language and everything you say is the result of bouncing atoms and
>thus we can't believe anything you say.

There is no Mr. Science. I am defining what science is. If you are
pursuing something else then it is not science. You are always free to
redefine words to create your own private language but you should not
be surprised if people seem to not understand you.

I kindly suggest you read some different books. "The Canon," by
Natalie Angers is new and pretty good.

>> This separates it from religion
>> which is based on faith (instead of observation) and mystery (instead
>> of understanding). Is this what you are complaining about?
>
>The mystery sir is your continual refusal to explain how matter
>created language. The materialist are so occupied with dead bones that
>fail to address the real questions as put forth by Chomsky.
>That bone is dead, that bone don't talk, you are free to concoct any
>story you want to it is an exercise in futility because the control
>algorithms that enabled the interdependent relationship between the
>muscles, organs and brain you will never access to making you stories
>eternally unfalsifiable.

This sounds like an appeal to gobbledygook. Can't you speak plainly?
What dead bones are you talking about? What are Chomsky's "unanswered
questions?" Are you suggesting that the answer can be found through
an appeal to a divine authority? If so, which one?

Anyway, what is so difficult about the question, "how did matter
create language?" Taken literally the answer is simple and obvious.
Is there some hidden meaning to the question?

--
Two Creation Scientists can hold an intelligent conversation, if one of them is a sock puppet.
---John Vreeland(IEEE.org) http://rtmabc.blogspot.com

Kermit

unread,
Nov 12, 2007, 12:51:44 PM11/12/07