Latest edit on Wikipedia natural selection

2 views
Skip to first unread message

backspace

unread,
May 22, 2009, 6:20:04 AM5/22/09
to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
"...Natural selection is the process where heritable traits that make
it more likely for an organism to survive long enough to reproduce
become more common over successive generations of a population. It is
a key mechanism of evolution....."

In what way is the concept changed by whomever is this individual who
wrote the opening paragraph , below by replacing common with
preserved. And what is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics,
who says so and how would one falsify such a concept. What is this
persons view on the fact the there is no mathematical formula in the
opening paragraph.

=== Replace "more common" with "preserved" ===
"...Natural selection is the process where heritable traits that make
it more likely for an organism to survive long enough to reproduce
become preserved over successive generations of a population. It is a
key mechanism of evolution..."

=== Replace "common" with "preserved" ===
"...Natural selection is the process where heritable traits that make
it more likely for an organism to survive long enough to reproduce
become more preserved over successive generations of a population. It
is a key mechanism of evolution..."

Burkhard

unread,
May 22, 2009, 8:46:05 AM5/22/09
to
On May 22, 11:20 am, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
> "...Natural selection is the process where heritable traits that make
> it more likely for an organism to survive long enough to reproduce
> become more common over successive generations of a population. It is
> a key mechanism of evolution....."
>
> In what way is the concept changed by whomever is this individual who
> wrote the opening paragraph , below by replacing common with
> preserved. And what is thehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics,

> who says so and how would one falsify such a concept. What is this
> persons view on the fact the there is no mathematical formula in the
> opening paragraph.
>
> === Replace "more common" with "preserved" ===
> "...Natural selection is the process where heritable traits that make
> it more likely for an organism to survive long enough to reproduce
> become preserved over successive generations of a population. It is a
> key mechanism of evolution..."

This has changed the meaning. Models ta are ruled out under the first
formulation are permitted under the second.

>
> === Replace "common" with "preserved" ===
> "...Natural selection is the process where heritable traits that make
> it more likely for an organism to survive long enough to reproduce
> become more preserved over successive generations of a population. It
> is a key mechanism of evolution..."

I don't think "more preserved" is correct English. Something either
is or is not preserved.

trader100

unread,
May 22, 2009, 10:02:23 AM5/22/09
to
On May 22, 12:20 pm, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
> "...Natural selection is the process where heritable traits that make
> it more likely for an organism to survive long enough to reproduce
> become more common over successive generations of a population. It is
> a key mechanism of evolution....."

=== rephrase ===
There is some process where traits that are more likely to survive


long enough to reproduce become more common over successive
generations of a population.

=== rephrase ===
There is some process where traits that are more likely to survive
long enough to reproduce become more common.

=== rephrase ===
There is some process where surviving traits become more common.

unrestra...@hotmail.com

unread,
May 22, 2009, 10:10:04 AM5/22/09
to
On May 22, 3:20 am, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
> "...Natural selection is the process where heritable traits that make
> it more likely for an organism to survive long enough to reproduce
> become more common over successive generations of a population. It is
> a key mechanism of evolution....."
>
> In what way is the concept changed by whomever is this individual who
> wrote the opening paragraph , below by replacing common with
> preserved.

I don't care for either sentence. Altho preserved is in some way more
precise, it is the spread of the allele which the particular organism
carries that matters. The organism doesn't spread; instead the
favorable, inheritable trait spreads.

> And what is thehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics,


> who says so and how would one falsify such a concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics
is not a concept; it is the web address of a minimal article on
pragmatics in Wikipedia.

>What is this
> persons view on the fact the there is no mathematical formula in the
> opening paragraph.

Why would there be math in the opening paragraph? How many first
semester text books on science start with math in the first paragraph?
Natural selection is studied using math (but not exclusively); it is
not defined using it, however.

>
> === Replace "more common" with "preserved" ===
> "...Natural selection is the process where heritable traits that make
> it more likely for an organism to survive long enough to reproduce
> become preserved over successive generations of a population. It is a
> key mechanism of evolution..."
>

I would replace it with "preserved and spread". It's also not clear
that differential reproduction is what it's about. The "losing"
alleles do not have to be associated with death, but only less
successful reproduction. Think ao f healthy peacock with a less than
average sized tail. It doesn't die; it may even be healthier than its
cousins. But it is less likely to reproduce, and *that's what it's all
about.

> === Replace "common" with "preserved" ===
> "...Natural selection is the process where heritable traits that make
> it more likely for an organism to survive long enough to reproduce
> become more preserved over successive generations of a population. It
> is a key mechanism of evolution..."

It currently says "Natural selection is the process where heritable


traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive long enough
to reproduce become more common over successive generations of a
population. It is a key mechanism of evolution."

This is clear but not complete. The language is clear and graceful. I
am unsatisfied with its emphasis on survival, however, when it is
reproductive success - of the offspring, actually - that counts.

Kermit

wf3h

unread,
May 22, 2009, 11:09:25 AM5/22/09
to

'rephrasing' merely means you re-define scientific terms in terms of
your 3rd century concepts. as i've pointed out, dan diner, barbara
tuchman and other historians have shown that religious
fanaticism...like yours...inhibits language development. that's why
you don't understand science

wf3h

unread,
May 22, 2009, 11:08:05 AM5/22/09
to
On May 22, 6:20 am, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
> "...Natural selection is the process where heritable traits that make
> it more likely for an organism to survive long enough to reproduce
> become more common over successive generations of a population. It is
> a key mechanism of evolution....."
>
> In what way is the concept changed by whomever is this individual who
> wrote the opening paragraph , below by replacing common with
> preserved. And what is thehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics,

> who says so and how would one falsify such a concept. What is this
> persons view on the fact the there is no mathematical formula in the
> opening paragraph.

'common' is not equivalent to 'preserved'. you are obsessed with your
linquistic tricks, having no SCIENTIFIC knowledge, so i'm surprised
you don't understand the difference

you're a creationist. your scientific knowledge is, therefore,
minimal. i suggest you read a bit more and post a bit less. you have
a rudimentary knowledge, at best, of scientific terminology


trader100

unread,
May 22, 2009, 12:31:59 PM5/22/09
to
On May 22, 5:08 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > In what way is the concept changed by whomever is this individual who
> > wrote the opening paragraph , below by replacing common with
> > preserved. And what is thehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics,
> > who says so and how would one falsify such a concept. What is this
> > persons view on the fact the there is no mathematical formula in the
> > opening paragraph.

> 'common' is not equivalent to 'preserved'. you are obsessed with your
> linquistic tricks, having no SCIENTIFIC knowledge, so i'm surprised
> you don't understand the difference

The pragmatics here with "common" begs the question. The author is
assuming that as the first living cell spread and became more "common"
that a baboon eventually came from it. He is assuming the very thing
he must prove.

trader100

unread,
May 22, 2009, 12:33:53 PM5/22/09
to
On May 22, 4:10 pm, unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com wrote:
> The organism doesn't spread; instead the favorable, inheritable trait spreads.

Other than noting the trait was favorable how its spreadablity
measured?

Rich Mathers

unread,
May 22, 2009, 12:47:13 PM5/22/09
to

If you really don't know the answer to this, it just revels how
intellectually dishonest you are.

After all your thousands of posts you should know the answer. Some
Christian morals would help you learn evolution.

Burkhard

unread,
May 22, 2009, 12:47:56 PM5/22/09
to

By not being able to tell it's not butter?

trader100

unread,
May 22, 2009, 12:59:01 PM5/22/09
to
On May 22, 2:46 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > === Replace "common" with "preserved" ===
> > "...Natural selection is the process where heritable traits that make
> > it more likely for an organism to survive long enough to reproduce
> > become more preserved over successive generations of a population. It
> > is a key mechanism of evolution..."
>
> I don't think "more preserved" is correct  English. Something either
> is or is not preserved.

Here the April 2009 revision:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural_selection&oldid=283416859
"....Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable
traits become more common in successive generations of a population of
reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less
common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes....."

=== rephrase ===
Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits become more
common , and unfavorable traits less common.

=== rephrase replace "common" with preserved ===
Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits are
preserved , and unfavorable traits
not preserved.

This last revision is from Darwin's theory of evolution as posted here
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/591b7b2337aa6455/a46b1b84146bd57c?tvc=1#a46b1b84146bd57c

Darwin's theory of evolution is:
The preservation of individuals, which were favorable, and the
destruction of those which weren't
favorable.

Thus natural selection and evolution are used interchangeably but the
same tautological banality remains:
Favorable ones are preserved and the non-favorable ones aren't
preserved. Which he got directly from Aristotle as derived here:
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology


trader100

unread,
May 22, 2009, 1:16:12 PM5/22/09
to
On May 22, 6:59 pm, trader100 <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Darwin's  theory of evolution is:
> The preservation of individuals, which were favorable, and  the
> destruction of those which weren't
> favorable.

> Thus natural selection and evolution are used interchangeably but the
> same tautological banality remains:
> Favorable ones are preserved and the non-favorable ones aren't
> preserved. Which he got directly from Aristotle as derived here:http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology

"more common" and "preserved" are used to communicate the same
pragmatics. Which is that some baboon thing became more common and
then oneday a talking monkey was born that looked like a human.
(Harshman doesn't know what a pure human looks like though).

The terms "more common" and "preserved" are ad-hoc and arbitrary,
don't fixate on it, focus on the underlying circularity it disguises.

unrestra...@hotmail.com

unread,
May 22, 2009, 1:25:30 PM5/22/09
to
On May 22, 9:31 am, trader100 <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 22, 5:08 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > In what way is the concept changed by whomever is this individual who
> > > wrote the opening paragraph , below by replacing common with
> > > preserved. And what is thehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics,
> > > who says so and how would one falsify such a concept. What is this
> > > persons view on the fact the there is no mathematical formula in the
> > > opening paragraph.
> > 'common' is not equivalent to 'preserved'. you are obsessed with your
> > linquistic tricks, having no SCIENTIFIC knowledge, so i'm surprised
> > you don't understand the difference
>
> The pragmatics here with "common" begs the question.

No, the pragmatics does not do anything. The writer is trying to
explain a concept. Stop pretending you are doing linguistics. Even if
you could write a coherent sentence, you offer no intelligible
comments on the evidence, nor describe any alternative testable model.

> The author is
> assuming that as the first living cell spread and became more "common"
> that a baboon eventually came from it.

No, he is describing natural selection, which is the most important
(but not only) mechanism for evolution.

> He is assuming the very thing
> he must prove.

No he's not. Why do you think so?

There are a number of alternative explanations for a baboon being
descended from single-celled organisms. But at this point they are
either non-scientific or falsified. Unless you have another?

Kermit

Inez

unread,
May 22, 2009, 2:22:59 PM5/22/09
to

Let's do you trick:

Rephrase- Other than looking at how much a trait has spread, how can
you measure how much it has spread?

trader100

unread,
May 22, 2009, 2:58:45 PM5/22/09
to
On May 22, 5:08 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > In what way is the concept changed by whomever is this individual who
> > wrote the opening paragraph , below by replacing common with
> > preserved. And what is thehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics,
> > who says so and how would one falsify such a concept. What is this
> > persons view on the fact the there is no mathematical formula in the
> > opening paragraph.

> 'common' is not equivalent to 'preserved'. you are obsessed with your
> linquistic tricks, having no SCIENTIFIC knowledge, so i'm surprised
> you don't understand the difference

True, at the level of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics , but not
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics.
And it is the pragmatics we are after, just like "Green" doesn't
always mean the color green.

trader100

unread,
May 22, 2009, 3:01:14 PM5/22/09
to

The observation is that the trait spreads. But why did it spread?
Because it was "favorable" , well obviously otherwise it wouldn't have
spread. We need to be told the actual reason it spread. Don't make the
same mistake Aristotle made that those which were constituted were
preserved. The word "constituted" implies they were preserved, but
doesn't tell us why they were preserved.

trader100

unread,
May 22, 2009, 3:19:11 PM5/22/09
to
On May 22, 7:25 pm, unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com wrote:

> There are a number of alternative explanations for a baboon being
> descended from single-celled organisms. But at this point they are
> either non-scientific or falsified. Unless you have another?

An elephant, horse, human, ape, tiger etc... all implement IPC
(inverted pendulum control) pivoting on their legs. How did the
algorithm responsible for this arise in the first place if the animal
would die if it never had the algorithm to begin with. And how is this
algorithm transmitted millions of years down the line from the first
common ancestor, how was the mathematical code secured.

If can't answer the question by using existing tiger brains, how is
fossils with no soft tissue going to help, if we don't even know
whether that fossil such as Tiktaalik had kids.

unrestra...@hotmail.com

unread,
May 22, 2009, 3:39:37 PM5/22/09
to
On May 22, 12:01 pm, trader100 <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 22, 8:22 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 22, 9:33 am, trader100 <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 22, 4:10 pm, unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > The organism doesn't spread; instead the  favorable, inheritable trait spreads.
>
> > > Other than noting the trait was favorable how its spreadablity
> > > measured?
>
> > Let's do you trick:
> > Rephrase- Other than looking at how much a trait has spread, how can
> > you measure how much it has spread?
>
> The observation is that the trait spreads.

Yes. And your question was how do we measure it? The answer is by
comparing how much it spreads compared to others in its genepool.

> But why did it spread?

This is a different question. Do you understand that?

Why did *what* spread? Tell us of a specific trait that spread, and
we'll see if we can explain it.

Some traits spread thru other means, such as neutral drift. Traits
that spread thru natural selection spread because they are favorable.
There is no "favorable" that is the same for all traits. It depends on
the trait, and the environment. Please offer a specific example or
two.

> Because it was "favorable" , well obviously otherwise it wouldn't have
> spread.

Sure it could have. It could have spread by neutral drift, or by
sexual selection.

In non-scientific models it could spread because God wills it, or
that's how the programmers want it to go. In now falsified alternative
theories, it could spread because the parent adapted to the
environment, or because the species was getting senile.

There are plenty of reasons why it might have spread. This is one
reason why it is not a tautology, which you have claimed in the past.

> We need to be told the actual reason it spread.

Which "it"?
White fur on North American rabbits in the winter?
The length of the reproductive cycle in 17-years locusts?
A dog's habit of circling before lying down to go to sleep?

> Don't make the
> same mistake Aristotle made that those which were constituted were
> preserved. The word "constituted" implies they were preserved, but
> doesn't tell us why they were preserved.

The word "preserves" implies that there were other possibilities, if
only in concept.
The word "constituted" does not suggest a process, but only what *is.

Why bring up Aristotle? Did he really say that, or are you
misrepresenting someone again?

Kermit

Inez

unread,
May 22, 2009, 3:44:39 PM5/22/09
to
On May 22, 12:01 pm, trader100 <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 22, 8:22 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 22, 9:33 am, trader100 <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 22, 4:10 pm, unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > The organism doesn't spread; instead the  favorable, inheritable trait spreads.
>
> > > Other than noting the trait was favorable how its spreadablity
> > > measured?
>
> > Let's do you trick:
> > Rephrase- Other than looking at how much a trait has spread, how can
> > you measure how much it has spread?
>
> The observation is that the trait spreads. But why did it spread?
> Because it was "favorable" , well obviously otherwise it wouldn't have
> spread.

So what are you arguing about?

>We need to be told the actual reason it spread.

If you want to know the exact nature of the favorability, you have to
look at specific cases. For example, a fast gazelle is more likely to
have babies because its speed gives it an advantage in getting away
from predators. When you get to this level of detail you can make all
sorts of measurements. your problem is you want to take a general
description of a category of observations and demand specific
measurements from it.

> Don't make the
> same mistake Aristotle made that those which were constituted were
> preserved. The word "constituted" implies they were preserved, but
> doesn't tell us why they were preserved.

Again, if you want specifics, you need to talk about specific cases.

trader100

unread,
May 22, 2009, 3:45:58 PM5/22/09
to
On May 22, 7:25 pm, unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com wrote:

The link below is at number one on Google with "natural selection".
Note that nowhere is it actually defined what precisely is a natural
selection.

http://faculty.clintoncc.suny.edu/faculty/Michael.Gregory/files/bio%20101/Bio%20101%20Lectures/Natural%20Selection/natural.htm

unrestra...@hotmail.com

unread,
May 22, 2009, 4:01:36 PM5/22/09
to
On May 22, 12:19 pm, trader100 <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 22, 7:25 pm, unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > There are a number of alternative explanations for a baboon being
> > descended from single-celled organisms. But at this point they are
> > either non-scientific or falsified. Unless you have another?
>

You have several questions. This is good. They indicate a profound
misunderstanding of science. This is not so good.

> An elephant, horse, human, ape, tiger etc...  all implement IPC
> (inverted pendulum control) pivoting on their legs. How did the
> algorithm responsible for this

Remember that math is just a way - one of many - for humans to
understand and describe the behavior of the world around us. Sometimes
math is by far the most elegant way of describing something. Sometimes
it is not.

> arise in the first place if the animal
> would die if it never had the algorithm to begin with.

The transformation was very gradual. The difference between
generations in the past is no greater than we generally see now, from
one generation to the next. Often kids can do things that their
parents cannot do; often vice versa. This is where mutations and
recombinations of genes come in.

I do not know in detail how the parthenon was built. But I have seen
other buildings built, and have no doubt that humans built the
parthenon thru ordinary means. My not knowing the details is no reason
to justify a claim that it was built by Zeus.

So too, even if we do not yet know how motor control at higher levels
evolved (I don't know if we do or not) there is no reason to think
that it was not thru natural processes.

Tell me, is your understanding of math equal to your understanding of
language? I suspect you are asking something as silly as asking for
the pragmatics of the first authority to define a scientific term.

> And how is this
> algorithm transmitted millions of years down the line from the first
> common ancestor, how was the mathematical code secured.

Mathematics may describe much in genetics, kinesiology, and
neuroanatomy, but mathematical codes are not passed on to offspring.
Molecules are.

>
> If can't answer the question by using existing tiger brains, how is
> fossils with no soft tissue going to help, if we don't even know
> whether that fossil such as Tiktaalik had kids.

It has been explained to you before. Why the fuck does it matter if
tiktaalik had kids or not? If we find your great uncle's skeleton, and
determine thru a paper trail that he had no kids, does that mean you
don't exist?

Are you seriously questioning whether the *species tiktaalik had kids
or not? Where do you think the animals came from that left the
tiktaalik fossils?

Here:
fish -> intermediate walking fish -> amphibians

The intermediate walking fish that gave rise to the amphibians which
eventually gave rise to (among others) us, may or may not have been
tiktaalik. Sabin predicted the characteristics and location of any
surviving fossils of "the intermediate walking fish". Tiktaalik may
have been a closely related species. We will likely never know if it
was our direct ancestor or not. You might know that you are part
Italian, for instance, but have no idea if you are related to a
particular 13th century Italian skeleton that somebody digs up. Maybe
that skeleton had no kids. So what?

Kermit

unrestra...@hotmail.com

unread,
May 22, 2009, 4:11:18 PM5/22/09
to
On May 22, 11:58 am, trader100 <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 22, 5:08 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > In what way is the concept changed by whomever is this individual who
> > > wrote the opening paragraph , below by replacing common with
> > > preserved. And what is thehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics,
> > > who says so and how would one falsify such a concept. What is this
> > > persons view on the fact the there is no mathematical formula in the
> > > opening paragraph.
> > 'common' is not equivalent to 'preserved'. you are obsessed with your
> > linquistic tricks, having no SCIENTIFIC knowledge, so i'm surprised
> > you don't understand the difference
>
> True, at the level ofhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics, but nothttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics.

> And it is the pragmatics we are after, just like "Green" doesn't
> always mean the color green.

No, the meaning is clear to everybody but you. What you are after is
an excuse to say that evolutionary science is not legitimate.

You claim to be after the "pragmatics", which word you misuse(1). But
you really seek to obfuscate the language we use here, because you do
not like the conclusions. You only succeed in making yourself obscure,
and linguistically inept.

(1) Pragmatics is the *study of meaning, particularly how the context
changes spoken or written meaning from the literal. Most of us, in our
own language and culture, successfully negotiate this without giving
it a thought. If you really have trouble understanding what someone
posts here, just ask, and someone will explain what it *means.

Kermit

Dr. Acula

unread,
May 22, 2009, 4:19:59 PM5/22/09
to
On May 22, 6:20 am, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
> "...Natural selection is the process where heritable traits that make
> it more likely for an organism to survive long enough to reproduce
> become more common over successive generations of a population. It is
> a key mechanism of evolution....."
>
> In what way is the concept changed by whomever is this individual who
> wrote the opening paragraph , below by replacing common with
> preserved. And what is thehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics,

> who says so and how would one falsify such a concept. What is this
> persons view on the fact the there is no mathematical formula in the
> opening paragraph.

Who's concept of the word pragmatics are you interpreting? What does
this have to do with pragmaticus?

unrestra...@hotmail.com

unread,
May 22, 2009, 4:24:28 PM5/22/09
to
On May 22, 12:45 pm, trader100 <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 22, 7:25 pm, unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> The link below is at number one on Google with "natural selection".
> Note that nowhere is it actually defined what precisely is a natural
> selection.

Is that like "a happening"? Groovy. <makes peace sign>

If you cannot use your own native tongue at the level of a junior high
student, you have no business pretending to find problems with the
language of grownups.

>
> http://faculty.clintoncc.suny.edu/faculty/Michael.Gregory/files/bio%2...

These are notes on a lecture. I'm sure the students have had NS
defined for them, and they are now beginning to study it at length.

You have been pointed to dictionaries and encyclopedia articles. You
can't get past definitions; no wonder you have trouble actually
learning anything. Anterograde amnesia?

Kermit

David Hare-Scott

unread,
May 22, 2009, 8:07:39 PM5/22/09
to

What is the relationship between this article quoted and the validity of the
modern ToE?

Why do you think that the words used in some description of one aspect of
the ToE have anything to do with how or whether it can be falsified?

Make your case. I have asked you this question in different ways several
times and not got one reply.


David

wf3h

unread,
May 22, 2009, 9:37:01 PM5/22/09
to

the same question, repeated ad nauseum.

creationism is like the velveeta of theology.

wf3h

unread,
May 22, 2009, 9:38:57 PM5/22/09
to
On May 22, 3:01 pm, trader100 <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 22, 8:22 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 22, 9:33 am, trader100 <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 22, 4:10 pm, unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > The organism doesn't spread; instead the  favorable, inheritable trait spreads.
>
> > > Other than noting the trait was favorable how its spreadablity
> > > measured?
>
> > Let's do you trick:
> > Rephrase- Other than looking at how much a trait has spread, how can
> > you measure how much it has spread?
>
> The observation is that the trait spreads. But why did it spread?
> Because it was "favorable" , well obviously otherwise it wouldn't have
> spread. We need to be told the actual reason it spread.

well for starters it was favorable...

DUH!!

Don't make the
> same mistake Aristotle made that those which were constituted were
> preserved. The word "constituted" implies they were preserved, but
> doesn't tell us why they were preserved.

it's funny that he mentions aristotle. for a thousand years
creationists denied empiricism had any role in evaluating concepts.
they just stuck with the argument from authority

which is why 'trader100' has such a problem understanding the role of
evolution in development of life on earth.


wf3h

unread,
May 22, 2009, 9:40:35 PM5/22/09
to

i've seen you try to make this argument repeatedly.

it's wrong. it's useless. not every concept in science is a tautology,
like it is in creationism. science short circuits tautologies via
empricism

creationism, OTOH, is, by definition a tautology since it relies on
the argument from authority. thats why you creationists made no
progress in understanding nature.

trader100

unread,
May 23, 2009, 3:10:29 PM5/23/09
to
On May 23, 2:07 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
> backspace wrote:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
> > "...Natural selection is the process where heritable traits that make
> > it more likely for an organism to survive long enough to reproduce
> > become more common over successive generations of a population. It is
> > a key mechanism of evolution....."
>
> > In what way is the concept changed by whomever is this individual who
> > wrote the opening paragraph , below by replacing common with
> > preserved. And what is thehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics,

> > who says so and how would one falsify such a concept. What is this
> > persons view on the fact the there is no mathematical formula in the
> > opening paragraph.
>
> > === Replace "more common" with "preserved" ===
> > "...Natural selection is the process where heritable traits that make
> > it more likely for an organism to survive long enough to reproduce
> > become preserved over successive generations of a population. It is a
> > key mechanism of evolution..."
>
> > === Replace "common" with "preserved" ===
> > "...Natural selection is the process where heritable traits that make
> > it more likely for an organism to survive long enough to reproduce
> > become more preserved over successive generations of a population. It
> > is a key mechanism of evolution..."
>
> What is the relationship between this article quoted and the validity of the
> modern ToE?
>
> Why do you think that the words used in some description of one aspect of
> the ToE have anything to do with how or whether it can be falsified?
>
> Make your case.  I have asked you this question in different ways several
> times and not got one reply.
>
> David

And I have quoted the actual theory of evolution as defined by DArwin:
Those favorable ones were preserved and those not favorable weren't
preserved. What ToE are you referring to and how did he derive this
ToE from Darwin's original tautology?

David Hare-Scott

unread,
May 24, 2009, 7:47:21 PM5/24/09
to
>>
>> What is the relationship between this article quoted and the
>> validity of the modern ToE?
>>
>> Why do you think that the words used in some description of one
>> aspect of the ToE have anything to do with how or whether it can be
>> falsified?
>>
>> Make your case. I have asked you this question in different ways
>> several times and not got one reply.
>>
>> David
>
> And I have quoted the actual theory of evolution as defined by DArwin:
> Those favorable ones were preserved and those not favorable weren't
> preserved. What ToE are you referring to and how did he derive this
> ToE from Darwin's original tautology?

Still no reply. I take this to be an admission of inability.

David

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages