Natural selection and favorable traits how were they measured ?

18 views
Skip to first unread message

backspace

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 9:07:54 AM1/20/08
to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection tells us:
"..... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that
are heritable become more common in successive generations ....."

Now other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,
how were their favoribility actually measured?

--
fnord

Ron O

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 9:20:12 AM1/20/08
to
On Jan 20, 8:07 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selectiontells us:

> "..... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that
> are heritable become more common in successive generations ....."
>
> Now other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,
> how were their favoribility  actually measured?
>
> --
> fnord

You have been arguing against natural selection and you do not know
the answer?

Why don't you answer your own question just so that we know that you
haven't been blowing smoke all this time, and we'd also find out if
your question pertained to how a scientists would measure it, or how
nature does the job.

Ron Okimoto

geo...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 9:47:03 AM1/20/08
to
On 20 Jan, 14:07, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selectiontells us:

> "..... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that
> are heritable become more common in successive generations ....."
>
> Now other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,
> how were their favoribility actually measured?
>
> --
> fnord

I actually know the answer to this. It's very simple, but as Ron
Okimoto has said, find out yourself. Talkorigins.org probably has the
answer somewhere (clue: you want the word 'fitness'). I learned this,
the same way I learned what abiogenesis was and why it is different
from evolution. Funny how I only needed to learn once, whereas
creationists repeat that mistake. Funny also how they're the ones that
are using it in arguments.

backspace

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 10:33:34 AM1/20/08
to

Let me give you a clue as to the answer:
http://whatnaturaled.blogspot.com

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/evolution.html
According to the Talk.Origins Archive, sharks haven't changed because
they "are excellently adapted to their particular niche in their
environment."

Does anyone know how this "excellent adaptation" was measured (apart
from observing that sharks haven't changed, that is)?


"[T]he geological record features episodes of high dying, during which
extinction-prone groups are more likely to disappear, leaving
extinction-resistant groups as life's legacy."
S.J. Gould & N. Eldredge, "Punctuated equilibrium comes of age",
Nature (1993) 366:223-7, p. 225.

Anyone wants to tell me how this "extinction-proneness" was measured,
except by noting that the groups went extinct?

--
fnord

Grandbank

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 11:00:56 AM1/20/08
to
On Jan 20, 7:33 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

(snip)

> Anyone wants to tell me how this "extinction-proneness" was measured,
> except by noting that the groups went extinct?
>


Is that an insufficient measure?

How did you measure the sufficiency of the word fnord to get you
whitelisted?


KP

backspace

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 12:21:19 PM1/20/08
to

What are you saying? Are you saying that we measure the "extinction
proneness" by observing what went extinct.
Can't you see that this is tautological , in other words true by
definition.

A tautology is defined as a series of statements that comprise an
argument, which statements are constructed in such a way that the
truth of the proposition is guaranteed. Consequently the statement
conveys no useful information regardless of it's length or complexity.
Thus, for a simple example, the statement "if you can't find something
(that you lost), you are not looking in the right place" is
tautological. It is also true, but conveys no useful information. As a
physical example, to play a game of darts where the dart board was
full of bullseyes, could be called a "tautological" game. You can't
lose. Any argument containing a tautological statement is thus flawed
logically and must be considered erroneous.

A tautological argument is not an argument; a tautological game is not
a game. (As an aside, a great many of the later, "more advanced" books
on evolution attempt to explain away this tautology by some beautiful,
highly complex, arguments; e.g. Mayr and or, Gould. Upon close
examination of these arguments it will be found that the conclusion is
usually obtained by a metaphysical "division by zero", like the well
known mathematical proof that 1 = 0. You will note that the bottom
line of all of these complex arguments is always the same, namely that
"natural selection is the cause of evolution".)

It should also be noted that some apologists for Darwinian logic claim
that mathematical equations such as f = ma, or e = mc2 could also be
termed tautologies. This is a faulted attempt to vindicate Darwinism
which could be termed "innocence by association"; in either case, [and
in every case of a mathematical expression] the terms on both sides of
the equation are defined elsewhere independently, and thus the equal
sign does not mean "is defined by" but rather {hate to say it} but is
equal to, thus establishing an equivalence. This equivalence may
establish a new "law", hitherto unknown.

--
fnord

Greg G.

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 12:37:11 PM1/20/08
to
On Jan 20, 9:33 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 20, 4:47 pm, geop...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 20 Jan, 14:07, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selectiontellsus:
> > > "..... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that
> > > are heritable become more common in successive generations ....."
>
> > > Now other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,
> > > how were their favoribility  actually measured?
>
> > > --
> > > fnord
>
> > I actually know the answer to this. It's very simple, but as Ron
> > Okimoto has said, find out yourself. Talkorigins.org probably has the
> > answer somewhere (clue: you want the word 'fitness'). I learned this,
> > the same way I learned what abiogenesis was and why it is different
> > from evolution. Funny how I only needed to learn once, whereas
> > creationists repeat that mistake. Funny also how they're the ones that
> > are using it in arguments.
>
> Let me give you a clue as to the answer:http://whatnaturaled.blogspot.com
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/evolution.html
> According to the Talk.Origins Archive, sharks haven't changed because
> they "are excellently adapted to their particular niche in their
> environment."

You are conflating "sharks" in general with "sharks" as particular
species. No shark species that existed tens of millions of years ago
is still in existance. Some of them evolved into present day sharks.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalodon for a well studied,
recently extinct shark.


>
> Does anyone know how this "excellent adaptation" was measured (apart
> from observing that sharks haven't changed, that is)?

How can you provide a definition for something when you are not
allowed to use a valid definition? Sharks are adapted to an
environment that has remained in existance for some time. In the link
I gave, we have an example of a type of shark that went extinct when
the environment it specialized in changed.


>
> "[T]he geological record features episodes of high dying, during which
> extinction-prone groups are more likely to disappear, leaving
> extinction-resistant groups as life's legacy."
> S.J. Gould & N. Eldredge, "Punctuated equilibrium comes of age",
> Nature (1993) 366:223-7, p. 225.
>
> Anyone wants to tell me how this "extinction-proneness" was measured,
> except by noting that the groups went extinct?

An extinction-prone species is dependent on a particular element of
environment. A species that is not extinction-prone is more of a
generalist. For example, the polar bear and the black bear are closely
related but the polar bear is dependent on hunting in an environment
of ice and snow where food sources are limited, while the black bear
eats most anything and lives in an environment that provides a variety
of food.
>
> --
> fnord

AIUI, once you are white-listed you don't need the "fnord". The
"fnord" gets you white-listed (or will in the future). Am I correct?

--
Greg G.

I was trying to daydream, but my mind kept wandering.
.

Greg G.

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 12:53:24 PM1/20/08
to
On Jan 20, 11:21 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 20, 6:00 pm, Grandbank <zetetic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 20, 7:33 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > (snip)
>
> > > Anyone wants to tell me how this "extinction-proneness" was measured,
> > > except by noting that the groups went extinct?
>
> > Is that an insufficient measure?
>
> > How did you measure the sufficiency of the word fnord to get you
> > whitelisted?
>
> > KP
>
> What are you saying? Are you saying that we measure the "extinction
> proneness" by observing what went extinct.
> Can't you see that this is tautological , in other words true by
> definition.
>
> A tautology is defined as a series of statements that comprise an
> argument, which statements are constructed in such a way that the
> truth of the proposition is guaranteed.

The term "extinction-proneness" is not a series of statements that
comprise an argument, therefore it is not a tautology.

> Consequently the statement
> conveys no useful information regardless of it's length or complexity.

Insurance companies classify characteristics of groups of people and
charge those groups based on their risk factors. These risk factors
are measured in the same terms that you are complaining about
"extinction-proneness", yet those factors are clearly useful.

WTF is "Darwinian logic"? Evolution is the conclusion reached by
applying plain old deductive reasoning to the facts uncovered by
rigorous research. If your religion is incompatible with those facts,
change your religion or don't embarrass yourself in public.
>
> --
> fnord

--
Greg G.

Time to calibrate my computer. Hand me that hammer.
.

Friar Broccoli

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 2:39:59 PM1/20/08
to
On Jan 20, 9:07 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selectiontells us:

> "..... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that
> are heritable become more common in successive generations ....."
>
> Now other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,
> how were their favoribility actually measured?

Your question is answered in a FAQ provided by John Wilkins here:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html

In short Natural Selection results from relative fitness of those
individuals that can be "expected to survive because of their
adaptations and functional efficiency, when compared to others
in the population" (or more succinctly there "extinction-proneness")

I will add that I think that Greg G.'s comment of
Jan 20 2008 12:53 pm about insurance
company evaluations clarifies things so much that I
hope John will consider adding it to his FAQ.

Cordially;

Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com

--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------

Garamond Lethe

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 3:11:45 PM1/20/08
to
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 09:21:19 -0800, backspace wrote:

<snip>

> A tautological argument is not an argument; a tautological game is not a
> game.

<snip>

And a tautological tautology is not a tautology.

Ken Shackleton

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 3:31:55 PM1/20/08
to
On Jan 20, 7:07 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selectiontells us:> ".....

Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that> are
heritable become more common in successive generations ....."> > Now
other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,> how
were their favoribility  actually measured?Measured by their
reproductive success.....simply put, if your traits result in you
having more babies than your peers, those traits will become more
common in the population [over many generations].> > --> fnord

backspace

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 4:59:01 PM1/20/08
to
On Jan 20, 9:39 pm, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 20, 9:07 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selectiontellsus:
> > "..... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that
> > are heritable become more common in successive generations ....."

> > Now other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,
> > how were their favoribility actually measured?

> Your question is answered in a FAQ provided by John Wilkins here:
> http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html


Darwin: "..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. 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....."

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."

--
fnord

Grandbank

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 7:13:13 PM1/20/08
to


You seem to have confused "saying" with "argument". What is your
intent with "saying" and with "argument"? Is saying something the
same as making an argument? What if you say your not arguing, is that
an argument? Also a bit hazy about your definition of the phrase "by
definition". Are you saying definitions must by definition be false
or else they become tautologies and then by definiton true in a
falsely tautological way?


KP

Friar Broccoli

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 7:18:44 PM1/20/08
to
Note that I modified some of the links you provided to be more
direct.

On Jan 20, 4:59 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 20, 9:39 pm, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 20, 9:07 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selectiontellsus:
>>> "..... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that
>>> are heritable become more common in successive generations ....."
>>> Now other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,
>>> how were their favoribility actually measured?
>> Your question is answered in a FAQ provided by John Wilkins here:
>>http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
>
> Darwin: "..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. 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....."
>
> 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/msg/1b039385d37c84fb


> "... "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/msg/67ee14eb6cca4fab


> "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."

I am a bit puzzled by all of the above. I would like to hope
that you have presented the foregoing to indicate that you now
understand the point, however, I fear that you believe you
have seen some contradiction and intend to place it before me to
see if I can untangle it.

I will admit to considerable personal discomfort dealing with
this approach (if indeed that is your intent).

It is, in general, my belief that words are imperfect and
imprecise pointers to reality. I am therefore very suspicious
of word definition games and much more comfortable discussing
the direct evidence for the position I am defending.


Since I haven't followed your discussions much I have spent a few
minutes searching your old messages attempting to figure out
what you position is. Reading between the lines of the
following:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0c8300c0d3e9c4ef

I get the impression that you (like Behe) accept common descent
and discount pure Natural Selection (NS), preferring some form of
Theological Evolution. Is that correct?

If it is, I won't argue the point. I believe in NS and believe
the evidence points strongly in favour of NS, but I know I
cannot prove that God does not sometimes intervene in the
process.

Do you think that you and I disagree on some substantive
point?

PS: The "fnord"s in your post serve no purpose. The DIG has
already WHITELISTED you.

Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 7:57:03 PM1/20/08
to

Lol... <golf clap>

I'm wondering what his intent is with mindless syntactical attempts to
baffle every issue ever under discussion. I'm thinking it's because
he doesn't have any real arguments.

Al

David Hare-Scott

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 8:17:30 PM1/20/08
to

"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:020e45f4-c62b-48fb...@21g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...

Here we go again. "Survival of the fittest is a tautology, therefore
evolution is wrong"

How many times are you going to replay this? Probably endlessly. Why?

Because you like the attention you get for being such a dunce and if you
learnt from the many explanations that you have been given you would have to
think up another nonsense to get attention.

David


geo...@hotmail.com

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 8:36:14 PM1/20/08
to
On 20 Jan, 15:33, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 20, 4:47 pm, geop...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 20 Jan, 14:07, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selectiontellsus:
> > > "..... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that
> > > are heritable become more common in successive generations ....."
>
> > > Now other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,
> > > how were their favoribility actually measured?
>
> > > --
> > > fnord
>
> > I actually know the answer to this. It's very simple, but as Ron
> > Okimoto has said, find out yourself. Talkorigins.org probably has the
> > answer somewhere (clue: you want the word 'fitness'). I learned this,
> > the same way I learned what abiogenesis was and why it is different
> > from evolution. Funny how I only needed to learn once, whereas
> > creationists repeat that mistake. Funny also how they're the ones that
> > are using it in arguments.
>
> Let me give you a clue as to the answer:http://whatnaturaled.blogspot.com

You've made a whole blog around your inability to comprehend the
English language? Awesome. :)

>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/evolution.html
> According to the Talk.Origins Archive, sharks haven't changed because
> they "are excellently adapted to their particular niche in their
> environment."
>
> Does anyone know how this "excellent adaptation" was measured (apart
> from observing that sharks haven't changed, that is)?

Clue: the sharks have a high 'fitness' in that environment. Fitness is
measured in terms of reproductive success. Basically more children -
more fit, but if you want a better answer, learn some evolution. Get
your friends to stop trying to run it out of schools for biblical
reasons and the education might be easier to obtain. That's a
tautology that is.


>
> "[T]he geological record features episodes of high dying, during which
> extinction-prone groups are more likely to disappear, leaving
> extinction-resistant groups as life's legacy."
> S.J. Gould & N. Eldredge, "Punctuated equilibrium comes of age",
> Nature (1993) 366:223-7, p. 225.
>
> Anyone wants to tell me how this "extinction-proneness" was measured,
> except by noting that the groups went extinct?

Have you tried reading the article the quote comes from?

>
> --
> fnord

John Wilkins

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 9:27:21 PM1/20/08
to
David Hare-Scott <com...@rotting.com> wrote:

> "backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:020e45f4-c62b-48fb...@21g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection tells us:
> > "..... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that
> > are heritable become more common in successive generations ....."
> >
> > Now other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,
> > how were their favoribility actually measured?
> >
> > --
> > fnord
> >
>
> Here we go again. "Survival of the fittest is a tautology, therefore
> evolution is wrong"

And let it be noted that tautologies are *by definition* true.


>
> How many times are you going to replay this? Probably endlessly. Why?
>
> Because you like the attention you get for being such a dunce and if you
> learnt from the many explanations that you have been given you would have to
> think up another nonsense to get attention.
>
> David


--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

wf3h

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 9:37:42 PM1/20/08
to
On Jan 20, 9:07 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selectiontells us:

> "..... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that
> are heritable become more common in successive generations ....."
>
> Now other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,
> how were their favoribility  actually measured?
>
> --

guess backspace doesn't realize that a gazelle that runs faster than
another gazelle can escape from a lion.


it's apparently impossible to overestimate the stupidy that
christianism breeds in its believers...

amazing.

Walter Bushell

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 10:29:57 PM1/20/08
to
In article
<fe10519e-520f-461a...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> For example, the polar bear and the black bear are closely
> related but the polar bear is dependent on hunting in an environment
> of ice and snow where food sources are limited, while the black bear
> eats most anything and lives in an environment that provides a variety
> of food.

But the polar bear can be transformed into a regular bear by a simple
coordinate transformation.

Greg G.

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 10:52:01 PM1/20/08
to
On Jan 20, 9:29 pm, Walter Bushell <pr...@oanix.com> wrote:
> In article
> <fe10519e-520f-461a-af6a-1c0b6467e...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

That would be a Cartesian bear...
.

John Wilkins

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 11:38:53 PM1/20/08
to
Greg G. <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:

Riemannian Bears have a saddle.

Michael Siemon

unread,
Jan 21, 2008, 12:49:02 AM1/21/08
to
In article <1ib2lyd.wn7j8hqag0lyN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au>,
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:

> Greg G. <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 20, 9:29 pm, Walter Bushell <pr...@oanix.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <fe10519e-520f-461a-af6a-1c0b6467e...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > For example, the polar bear and the black bear are closely
> > > > related but the polar bear is dependent on hunting in an environment
> > > > of ice and snow where food sources are limited, while the black bear
> > > > eats most anything and lives in an environment that provides a variety
> > > > of food.
> > >
> > > But the polar bear can be transformed into a regular bear by a simple
> > > coordinate transformation.
> >
> > That would be a Cartesian bear...
> > .
>
> Riemannian Bears have a saddle.

Nah; that's Lobachevskian bears...

Ken Shackleton

unread,
Jan 20, 2008, 11:51:39 PM1/20/08
to
On Jan 20, 7:37 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:> On Jan 20,
9:07 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:> > >http://

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selectiontellsus:> > "..... Natural
selection is the process by which favorable traits that> > are
heritable become more common in successive generations ....."> > > Now
other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,> >
how were their favoribility  actually measured?> > > --> > guess
backspace doesn't realize that a gazelle that runs faster than>
another gazelle can escape from a lion.> > it's apparently impossible
to overestimate the stupidy that> christianism breeds in its
believers...> > amazing....Don't limit it to
Christianity....fundamentalism of any sort leads to all sorts of
stupidity.Ken...

TomS

unread,
Jan 21, 2008, 12:09:14 PM1/21/08
to
"On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 21:49:02 -0800, in article
<mlsiemon-0801B9...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>, Michael Siemon
stated..."

Consider a spherical bear ...


--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings

Puppet_Sock

unread,
Jan 21, 2008, 12:50:10 PM1/21/08
to
On Jan 20, 9:07 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selectiontells us:

> "..... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that
> are heritable become more common in successive generations ....."
>
> Now other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,
> how were their favoribility  actually measured?

How does one measure the ability of a runner to run? Are you
looking for some complicated thing beyond "measure how
fast the runner runs?"

Maybe you want to call highschool track meets "tautological."
Socks

Walter Bushell

unread,
Jan 21, 2008, 1:13:04 PM1/21/08
to
In article <210935353.000...@drn.newsguy.com>,
TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:

But spherical bears are bipolar. You don't even want to thing about a
bipolar polar bear. Unbearable!

backspace

unread,
Jan 22, 2008, 9:26:58 AM1/22/08
to
Friar Broccoli wrote:

> If it is, I won't argue the point. I believe in NS and believe
> the evidence points strongly in favour of NS, but I know I
> cannot prove that God does not sometimes intervene in the
> process.

> Do you think that you and I disagree on some substantive
> point?

Let me ask you the following which is my answer to you:

What is the true meaning of the following:
1) Survival of the fittest. (Note that I never said SoF is a
tautology.)
2) You Friar Broccoli have a green light.

Think a bit about this.....

Bill Hudson

unread,
Jan 22, 2008, 10:53:41 AM1/22/08
to
On Jan 20, 6:37 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> On Jan 20, 9:07 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selectiontellsus:
> > "..... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that
> > are heritable become more common in successive generations ....."
>
> > Now other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,
> > how were their favoribility actually measured?
>
> > --
>
> guess backspace doesn't realize that a gazelle that runs faster than
> another gazelle can escape from a lion.
>

Also note, the gazelle doesn't have to run faster than the lion, but
only a bit faster than the other gazelle. A joke involving two
hunters, a grizzly bear, and a pair of running shoes comes to mind.


Bill Hudson

unread,
Jan 22, 2008, 10:59:33 AM1/22/08
to
On Jan 22, 6:26 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
> > If it is, I won't argue the point. I believe in NS and believe
> > the evidence points strongly in favour of NS, but I know I
> > cannot prove that God does not sometimes intervene in the
> > process.
> > Do you think that you and I disagree on some substantive
> > point?
>
> Let me ask you the following which is my answer to you:
>
> What is the true meaning of the following:
> 1) Survival of the fittest. (Note that I never said SoF is a
> tautology.)

Differential reproductive success of organisms due to an interplay
between environmental conditions and variations of the phenotypes
within a population.

[snip]

hersheyh

unread,
Jan 22, 2008, 12:17:19 PM1/22/08
to
On Jan 22, 9:26 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
> > If it is, I won't argue the point. I believe in NS and believe
> > the evidence points strongly in favour of NS, but I know I
> > cannot prove that God does not sometimes intervene in the
> > process.
> > Do you think that you and I disagree on some substantive
> > point?
>
> Let me ask you the following which is my answer to you:
>
> What is the true meaning of the following:
> 1) Survival of the fittest. (Note that I never said SoF is a
> tautology.)

Taken literally, not much. Better would be "survival of the
fitter" (reproductive success is relative to the success of others,
not absolute -- there is no 'fittest' in an absolute sense, only
fitter in a conditional and relative sense). Better yet would be
"greater differential reproductive success due to better phenotypic
adaption to local conditions than organisms with a different
phenotype" (only that portion of the phenotype that is due to genotype
has evolutionary consequences). This, of course, assumes that the
words 'success' and 'better' are used, as is standard usage, for the
survival and/or reproductive success of an organism rather than for
its early death or sterility. So we are really looking at a
correlation: between differential reproductive success and adaptive
success (on some feature important to an organism's relative ability
to live/reproduce in a particular local environment). Sometimes
relative adaption can be measured independently by engineering
standards. That is, certain phenotypes can be empirically
demonstrated to be be better at helping an organism eat, survive, and/
or reproduce than alternative phenotypes. In organisms, the only
consistent measure of "success" is differential reproductive success.
In a number of cases, death of the organism itself is evolutionarily
favored *because* it leads to increased reproductive success.

Friar Broccoli

unread,
Jan 22, 2008, 1:01:56 PM1/22/08
to
On Jan 22, 9:26 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hmmm, as I see things here,

- I don't like talking about linguistic distinctions

- You don't like talking about physical reality (or maybe you
just don't want to tell us what you believe - or something
like that)

So I wonder if we can make a deal here:

I will work out and present an answer that I like to your
question: "What does 'Survival of the fittest' mean?",

if you will agree to tell me something about what you believe,
specifically beginning with:

Do you accept the reality of the tree of common descent which
includes things like - modern whales are descendants of a common
non-whale ancestor?


Note, that I am willing to go first, if you will agree that you
will provide me with a clear answer to my question in your very
next post to me.

Is that arrangement acceptable to you?

Inez

unread,
Jan 22, 2008, 1:14:07 PM1/22/08
to

He doesn't want *your* definition of survival of the fittest, he
want's *the* definition of survival of the fittest, which he believes
must have been published in the Journal of Establishing Terms. If two
people write defintions that differ in a single word, everything is
thrown in confusion and we must reject the theory as meaningless.

Friar Broccoli

unread,
Jan 22, 2008, 1:36:07 PM1/22/08
to

Thanks for summarizing his position.
As long as I can get him to tell me what he thinks external
reality looks like as it relates to evolution, I am willing to hear
his argument through.

backspace

unread,
Jan 22, 2008, 5:31:19 PM1/22/08
to
On Jan 22, 8:01 pm, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> if you will agree to tell me something about what you believe,

Certainly, my name is Stephanus Rensburg from South Africa. I am a
fundamentalist YEC who considers Ken Ham's usage of Natural Selection
as actually meaning something heretical. My mother tongue is Afrikaans
and my second language is obviously English, I am bilingual. I claim
to be perhaps the only Christian that can speak in tongues, the
language you can listen to here http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TongueSpeaker

I am doing everything in my power to help linguists falsify my
Glossolalia, yet not a single one of them is willing to engage me or
return my e-mails. It is as though they are afraid of something. There
is not a single linguist I know of that is willing to state that my
tongues doesn't sound like a language. The linguists neither confirm
nor deny that I can speak in tongues, just stone dead silence from
them.

> specifically beginning with:

> Do you accept the reality of the tree of common descent which
> includes things like - modern whales are descendants of a common
> non-whale ancestor?

Of course not it is absurd nonsense and nothing else but circular
reasoning. Note that begging the question is not the same thing as a
tautology as Dr.Wilkins had to explain to me the other day.

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

backspace

unread,
Jan 22, 2008, 5:33:46 PM1/22/08
to
On Jan 22, 7:17 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 22, 9:26 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Friar Broccoli wrote:
> > > If it is, I won't argue the point. I believe in NS and believe
> > > the evidence points strongly in favour of NS, but I know I
> > > cannot prove that God does not sometimes intervene in the
> > > process.
> > > Do you think that you and I disagree on some substantive
> > > point?
>
> > Let me ask you the following which is my answer to you:
>
> > What is the true meaning of the following:
> > 1) Survival of the fittest. (Note that I never said SoF is a
> > tautology.)
>
> Taken literally, not much. Better would be "survival of the
> fitter" (reproductive success is relative to the success of others,
> not absolute -- there is no 'fittest' in an absolute sense, only
> fitter in a conditional and relative sense). Better yet would be
> "greater differential reproductive success due to better phenotypic

<snip nonsense>

If a cow were meant to produce beer instead of milk would it still be
a success ?

hersheyh

unread,
Jan 22, 2008, 7:04:51 PM1/22/08
to

Success to whom? And 'meant to produce beer' by whom? Obviously,
domesticated cows are "intelligently designed" or, if you prefer,
"eugenically produced" by humans to meet human needs and not the needs
of the cows themselves. That is, cows are examples of "intelligent
design" by "intelligent designers" who want to force cattle into
creatures that only exist to serve its needs. Just like some
"intelligent agent" who supposedly "intelligently designed" humans to
serve only to worship him. No wonder religious imagery in
Christianity is filled with images of "sheep". We all know what
happens to sheep. They get fleeced and then get led to slaughter.

Do the cows that produce beer have greater reproductive success
relative to the ones that produce milk? That is, of course, an
empirically determinable question (one answered by actual
experiment). It is not an empty philosophical or lexicographical
problem determined by blithering idiots who want magical words.

And, if the answer to this empirically determinable question were
"Yes, the beer-producers have more offspring relative to the milk-
producers (that is the metric of 'success').", then the answer is that
those cows that produce beer are 'fitter' than the milk-producers. If
the answer were "No, they have fewer offspring (assuming that they
survive to reproduce themselves).", then the answer is that the beer-
producers are less fit than the milk producers. If the answer were,
"There is no significant difference wrt reproductive success between
the milk producers and the beer producers", then the traits are
selectively neutral and the frequency of the traits will drift to
fixation one way or the other, with a probability determined by the
current frequency. Assuming, of course, that the local environment
remains constant (selective value is contingent and not absolute).

Ray Martinez

unread,
Jan 22, 2008, 7:45:22 PM1/22/08
to
> remains constant (selective value is contingent and not absolute).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Something a mental patient would say who has snuck into the office and
used the computers while the administrators are in the lunch room
singing happy birthday to a co-worker.

Ray


Ray Martinez

unread,
Jan 22, 2008, 7:52:16 PM1/22/08
to
> remains constant (selective value is contingent and not absolute).- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Something a mental patient would say who has snuck into the office and
used the computers while the administrators are in the lunch room
singing happy birthday to a co-worker.

Howard: Backspace was not asking a real question, he was mocking you,
hoping that you would bite and make a fool of yourself. My explanation
just above provides an excuse for your "answer".

Ray


Woland

unread,
Jan 22, 2008, 8:46:52 PM1/22/08
to

Unfortunately you still have no idea what any of those things mean.

Friar Broccoli

unread,
Jan 22, 2008, 9:28:54 PM1/22/08
to
On Jan 22, 5:31 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 22, 8:01 pm, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:

Before replying to the present post (which is of considerable
interest to me) I am first obliged to do as promised and respond
to your question:

> What is the true meaning of the following:
> 1) Survival of the fittest. (Note that I never said SoF is a
> tautology.)

This phrase refers to the process of Natural Selection (NS).
Within the Theory of Evolution, NS is the mechanism that drives
(or controls) the changes in organisms as they evolve. Boiling
NS down to its essence, it SELECTS using one and only one
criteria, which is:
How_well_organisms_replicate_or_reproduce_themselves

So in the phrase "Survival of the fittest"
"Survival" means: REPLICATE well
"Fittest" means: having CHARACTERISTICS that are best for
replication

So "Survival of the fittest" could be paraphrased as:
Having the best CHARACTERISTICS for REPLICATION.

______________________________________________________________

Now for my reply to the present post. First, I must admit that
I know nothing about linguistics, so I couldn't possibly say
anything intelligent on the topic so I have cut that discussion.

I found one short phrase from you to be very informative and
interesting for me, so I cut everything else to focus on it:

> I am a fundamentalist YEC ...

I am going to assume that by Young Earth Creationist (YEC) you
mean that you believe (among other things) that:

- the earth and all life forms were created by God about 6000
years ago.

- Noah's flood killed most people and animals about 4500 years ago.


With that in mind, I have three questions for you:

1) The Andromeda Galaxy is the closest major Galaxy to our Milky
Way Galaxy. It is a bit more than 2,000,000 light years away.

How did light from Andromeda get here in 6000 years?

2) After Noah's flood, how did the kangaroos get back to
Australia? (Note that kangaroos are just an example. Unique
geographically isolated groups of species, including fresh
water fish, are found all over the planet.)

3) In Genesis 4:14 Cain says to God:

"Behold, You have driven me this day from the face of the
ground; and from Your face I will be hidden, and I will be a
vagrant and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me
will kill me."

Who do you think Cain feared would kill him?

hersheyh

unread,
Jan 23, 2008, 12:25:23 PM1/23/08
to

I know full well that backspace was mocking. I also know full well
that cows do not make beer (although some beers taste like they were
brewed through a cow wrt having the appropriate amber color, but not
the taste). But since backspace is so mind-numbingly ignorant about
how one quantitatively measures and empirically determines the "level
of reproductive success" or what "natural selection" means, I decided
to use his stupid idea as if it were real. He (and you) apparently
are not smart enough to deal with *real* examples which measure
fitness and demonstrate selection, so maybe stupid examples of your
own can penetrate your very thick skulls.

Where, exactly, am I wrong about the mechanism by which one would
measure the 'relative fitness' and, hence, the 'natural selection' of
the traits that backspace mentioned (or any more realistic ones)?
Backspace, rather ignorantly, thinks that natural selection does not
occur or cannot be observed if it does occur if he can pretend it
doesn't by saying that the words do not describe a reality (post-
modernist that he is). Do you think that natural selection is a myth,
too?

The fact is that 'natural selection' describes a real (but contingent
and relative) process that occurs and can be observed and
mathematically measured in nature. Do you have evidence that it
doesn't occur, cannot be observed, or cannot be mathematically
described?

Ray Martinez

unread,
Jan 23, 2008, 1:04:24 PM1/23/08
to
> described?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I just wanted to give you the courtesy of knowing that I read your
reply, that I can see that you are not rattled....I am impressed.

As for your points on natural selection: I cannot comment right now,
but I do so in my forth-coming paper. I will have a lot to say about
evolution by natural selection - a lot. I am sure you will not like my
conclusions but Darwinists are not known to like or accept any
scientific facts that harm their theories, especially their long-time
accepted theories. In case you do not know: I am publicly committed to
providing positive scientific evidence for the scientific veracity of
Creationism, AND positive scientific evidence disproving the
scientific veracity of Evolution (as defined by three or four of the
biggest names in evolutionary science). Of course I have also
announced to having a Eureka! moment (actually several of them). This
means I am in possession of this scientific evidence and data that
will prove Creationism and disprove Evolution. I do look forward to
seeing your reaction to my arguments.

Ray


Grandbank

unread,
Jan 23, 2008, 4:36:03 PM1/23/08
to
On Jan 23, 10:04 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

(snip)

>
> As for your points on natural selection: I cannot comment right now,
> but I do so in my forth-coming paper. I will have a lot to say about
> evolution by natural selection - a lot. I am sure you will not like my
> conclusions but Darwinists are not known to like or accept any
> scientific facts that harm their theories, especially their long-time
> accepted theories. In case you do not know: I am publicly committed to
> providing positive scientific evidence for the scientific veracity of
> Creationism, AND positive scientific evidence disproving the
> scientific veracity of Evolution (as defined by

And so the weaseling begins.
Although isn't it traditional to actually *do* the quote-mining and/or
bullshitting before you start to try to lie your way out of it?

> three or four of the
> biggest names in evolutionary science).
> Of course I have also
> announced to having a Eureka! moment (actually several of them).

Hope you had a Kleenex handy. If they go on for more than 4 hours,
consult a physician.

> This
> means I am in possession of this scientific evidence and data that
> will prove Creationism and disprove Evolution. I do look forward to
> seeing your reaction to my arguments.


KP

backspace

unread,
Jan 23, 2008, 4:59:22 PM1/23/08
to
On Jan 23, 7:25 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The fact is that 'natural selection' describes a real (but contingent
> and relative) process that occurs and can be observed and
> mathematically measured in nature. Do you have evidence that it
> doesn't occur, cannot be observed, or cannot be mathematically
> described?

That depends on where was the mechanism responsible for species
transition defined. Note that once the mechanism has been defined you
can then label it natural selection if you so desire. But the label is
independent of any as yet to be stated theory. You have not provided
me with any theory, what is your theory?

And telling me that traits becoming more common are favorable and
those that don't are not favorable is true by definition and hence a
tautology and not a theory.

Bill Hudson

unread,
Jan 23, 2008, 5:26:19 PM1/23/08
to
On Jan 23, 1:59 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 23, 7:25 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The fact is that 'natural selection' describes a real (but contingent
> > and relative) process that occurs and can be observed and
> > mathematically measured in nature. Do you have evidence that it
> > doesn't occur, cannot be observed, or cannot be mathematically
> > described?
>
> That depends on where was the mechanism responsible for species
> transition defined.

No, it does not.

Natural selection occurs within species (by any definition of
'species') and even within discreet populations (i.e., subsets of
species). It is an observation. It is seen to occur. It is not
dependent on any definition of 'species' or 'species transition' and
is a component of the overall theory of evolution, but it is not
dependent upon the definition of the theory.

>.. Note that once the mechanism has been defined you


> can then label it natural selection if you so desire.

Natural selection is not *the* mechanism. It is *a* mechanism, one of
several.

>... But the label is


> independent of any as yet to be stated theory.

Nobody, except perhaps you, said that it was.

>... You have not provided


> me with any theory, what is your theory?

Theory of what? Natural selection? Evolution? You switch gears so
often in your posts it is difficult to tell what you are referring to.

> And telling me that traits becoming more common are favorable and
> those that don't are not favorable is true by definition and hence a
> tautology and not a theory.

You seem to be confused about the difference between definitions and
theories, again. Any theory or observation can be summarized in such
a way as to create a tautology. That does not invalidate the theory
or the observation. NS has been defined for you several times in
this thread in non-tautological ways.

Ray Martinez

unread,
Jan 23, 2008, 6:01:38 PM1/23/08
to
On Jan 23, 1:59 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

The evolutionists are identifying simple uncontested truisms then
asserting the same is a creative mechanism. This approach cannot be
falsified.

Ray

hersheyh

unread,
Jan 23, 2008, 6:03:22 PM1/23/08
to

Why should I be rattled?

> As for your points on natural selection: I cannot comment right now,
> but I do so in my forth-coming paper.

Ah, yes. The famous ever-receding-in-publication-date paper.

> I will have a lot to say about
> evolution by natural selection - a lot.

Good. But, again, the point in question was whether there actually
*is* something one can call "natural selection" and whether it can be
observed and measured.

> I am sure you will not like my
> conclusions but Darwinists are not known to like or accept any
> scientific facts that harm their theories, especially their long-time
> accepted theories.

That remains to be seen. In the supposed future paper.

> In case you do not know: I am publicly committed to
> providing positive scientific evidence for the scientific veracity of
> Creationism, AND positive scientific evidence disproving the
> scientific veracity of Evolution (as defined by three or four of the
> biggest names in evolutionary science).

Well, that remains to be seen.

> Of course I have also
> announced to having a Eureka! moment (actually several of them).

That remains to be seen. Your assertions are not exactly convincing.

> This
> means I am in possession of this scientific evidence and data that
> will prove Creationism and disprove Evolution. I do look forward to
> seeing your reaction to my arguments.

When, and if, I see 'em.
>
> Ray

hersheyh

unread,
Jan 23, 2008, 6:20:57 PM1/23/08
to
On Jan 23, 4:59 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 23, 7:25 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The fact is that 'natural selection' describes a real (but contingent
> > and relative) process that occurs and can be observed and
> > mathematically measured in nature. Do you have evidence that it
> > doesn't occur, cannot be observed, or cannot be mathematically
> > described?
>
> That depends on where was the mechanism responsible for species
> transition defined.

"Natural selection", as a mechanism, can (and certainly does)
*contribute* to species divergence or transition. But 'natural
selection' also occurs in species stability. "Natural selection"
happens whether or not the species in question is diverging or
transitioning or not.

> Note that once the mechanism has been defined you
> can then label it natural selection if you so desire. But the label is
> independent of any as yet to be stated theory. You have not provided
> me with any theory, what is your theory?
>
> And telling me that traits becoming more common are favorable and
> those that don't are not favorable is true by definition and hence a
> tautology and not a theory.

The *fact* is that there are differences in phenotype that a defined
environment treats differentially wrt the relative reproductive
success of the two phenotypes.

The *direction* (greater rather than lesser reproductive success) that
gets called "favorable" is, in a real sense, arbitrary. A person
*could* claim that early death and/or inability to reproduce is a
*good thing*. Such a person would be a 'death cultist' akin to the
Jonestown suicidists or that weird group that castrated themselves and
then committed suicide when a certain comet was in the sky.

The fact is that, given the near universality of organisms struggling
*to* reproduce, it is more obvious to consider life and/or
reproductive success as the only consistent goal that living organisms
have. For that reason, that is the direction that is called
"favorable".

If *you* are convinced that organisms should strive to die young and
without progeny, making that direction "favorable" in your mind, feel
free to make that argument. Otherwise, live with the direction that
has been labelled "favorable" -- that is, more reproductive success
is the favorable direction of difference.


wf3h

unread,
Jan 23, 2008, 6:32:38 PM1/23/08
to
On Jan 23, 4:59 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> That depends on where was the mechanism responsible for species
> transition defined. Note that once the mechanism has been defined you
> can then label it natural selection if you so desire. But the label is
> independent of any as yet to be stated theory. You have not provided
> me with any theory, what is your theory?
>

ever get the impression when reading this idiot that, if he were ever
to enter an echo chamber he'd never leave?

wf3h

unread,
Jan 23, 2008, 6:33:54 PM1/23/08
to

says the man who believes in the simple uncontested truism that the
bible is literally true and asserts the same is a creative mechanism.

backspace

unread,
Jan 24, 2008, 9:24:59 AM1/24/08
to
On Jan 24, 12:26 am, Bill Hudson <oldgeek61-...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 23, 1:59 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 23, 7:25 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The fact is that 'natural selection' describes a real (but contingent
> > > and relative) process that occurs and can be observed and
> > > mathematically measured in nature. Do you have evidence that it
> > > doesn't occur, cannot be observed, or cannot be mathematically
> > > described?
>
> > That depends on where was the mechanism responsible for species
> > transition defined.
>
> No, it does not.
>
> Natural selection occurs within species (by any definition of
> 'species') and even within discreet populations (i.e., subsets of
> species).

> It is an observation. It is seen to occur. It is not
> dependent on any definition of 'species' or 'species transition' and
> is a component of the overall theory of evolution, but it is not
> dependent upon the definition of the theory.

Botanical Gazette 1909:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0006-8071%28190901%2947%3A1%3C30%3AAVMATP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage
"...The production of form from formlessness in the egg-derived
individual, the multiplication of parts and the orderly creation of
diversity among them, in an actual evolution, of which anyone may
ascertain the facts, but of which no one has dissipated the mystery in
any significant measure. This MICROEVOLUTION forms an integral part of
the grand evolution problem and lies at the base of it, so that we
shall have to understnad the minor process before we can thoroughly
comprehend the more general one.."

The author in 1909 gave us the problem specification and used
"microevolution" in colloquial terms, he wasn't formulating any theory
of microevolution. Before we can discuss any theories we need to
specify the problem:
By what mechanism does an egg turn into a chicken that makes a racket
before sunrise every morning.

Answer:
We don't know, whatever it is it will be a discovery like nuclear
fusion was a discovery. What did Darwin know a 150 years ago that we
don't know today? Nothing, in fact we know so much more today that it
is clear Darwin couldn't even specify the problem. He was in the same
position as a nomad roaming the Sahara in 1250 A.D trying to develop a
theory of sunshine. Only with the discovery of nuclear fusion were we
in a position to formulate any sort of theory as to why there is
sunshine. In the same manner it is preposterous to talk of any theory
from 1859. Darwin used the term Theory of Natural Selection 36 times
which is like our nomad using the term Theory of sunshine 36 times -
meaningless.

Bill Hudson

unread,
Jan 24, 2008, 10:29:59 AM1/24/08
to
On Jan 24, 6:24 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 12:26 am, Bill Hudson <oldgeek61-...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 23, 1:59 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 23, 7:25 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The fact is that 'natural selection' describes a real (but contingent
> > > > and relative) process that occurs and can be observed and
> > > > mathematically measured in nature. Do you have evidence that it
> > > > doesn't occur, cannot be observed, or cannot be mathematically
> > > > described?
>
> > > That depends on where was the mechanism responsible for species
> > > transition defined.
>
> > No, it does not.
>
> > Natural selection occurs within species (by any definition of
> > 'species') and even within discreet populations (i.e., subsets of
> > species).
> > It is an observation. It is seen to occur. It is not
> > dependent on any definition of 'species' or 'species transition' and
> > is a component of the overall theory of evolution, but it is not
> > dependent upon the definition of the theory.
>
> Botanical Gazette 1909:http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0006-8071%28190901%2947%3A1%3C30%3AA...

So you're changing the topic? Big surprise.

Do you even realize that you're using post-modernist arguments? What
you're essentially saying is that we can't possibly know anything
about anything.

Friar Broccoli

unread,
Jan 24, 2008, 10:57:39 AM1/24/08
to
On Jan 24, 9:24 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Have you decided it is impossible to answer the questions
I asked you here:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/bd594a880d648a1b

two days ago?


If you have, please say so, and I'll find something else to do.

Woland

unread,
Jan 24, 2008, 11:08:09 AM1/24/08
to
On Jan 24, 9:24 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 12:26 am, Bill Hudson <oldgeek61-...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 23, 1:59 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 23, 7:25 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The fact is that 'natural selection' describes a real (but contingent
> > > > and relative) process that occurs and can be observed and
> > > > mathematically measured in nature. Do you have evidence that it
> > > > doesn't occur, cannot be observed, or cannot be mathematically
> > > > described?
>
> > > That depends on where was the mechanism responsible for species
> > > transition defined.
>
> > No, it does not.
>
> > Natural selection occurs within species (by any definition of
> > 'species') and even within discreet populations (i.e., subsets of
> > species).
> > It is an observation. It is seen to occur. It is not
> > dependent on any definition of 'species' or 'species transition' and
> > is a component of the overall theory of evolution, but it is not
> > dependent upon the definition of the theory.
>
> Botanical Gazette 1909:http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0006-8071%28190901%2947%3A1%3C30%3AA...

Actually we do know and if you tried to study biology you would know
too. Again you have no idea what you're talking about.

Ray Martinez

unread,
Jan 24, 2008, 11:13:42 AM1/24/08
to

So you agree that natural selection is an inferred result based on the
identification of simple truisms and their interaction?

Ray

Woland

unread,
Jan 24, 2008, 11:22:20 AM1/24/08
to
On Jan 23, 4:59 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 23, 7:25 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The fact is that 'natural selection' describes a real (but contingent
> > and relative) process that occurs and can be observed and
> > mathematically measured in nature. Do you have evidence that it
> > doesn't occur, cannot be observed, or cannot be mathematically
> > described?
>
> That depends on where was the mechanism responsible for species
> transition defined. Note that once the mechanism has been defined you
> can then label it natural selection if you so desire. But the label is
> independent of any as yet to be stated theory. You have not provided
> me with any theory, what is your theory?

I can't even count how many times you've been provided with this
information. What is wrong with you exactly?

> And telling me that traits becoming more common are favorable and
> those that don't are not favorable is true by definition and hence a
> tautology and not a theory.

Actually, it's part of a theory. Kind of a hypothesis statement
really. Example: "If Natural Selection occurs then we should see more
favorable traits becoming more common throughout the population in
successive generations. If it does not occur traits should be
distributed randomly."
See? I even gave you a way to falsify it!

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

Ernest Major

unread,
Jan 24, 2008, 11:32:52 AM1/24/08
to
In message
<2196f26e-3109-4d8d...@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
That is rather a leap for your to make. He might have meant to suggest
that you were projecting your own intellectual deficiencies onto others.
--
alias Ernest Major

hersheyh

unread,
Jan 24, 2008, 11:37:38 AM1/24/08