Revised tautology FAQ finally up.

[Friar Broccoli]

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

If anybody points out any errors, I will correct them in place.

--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

[air]

I would suggest amending the phrase
"The above examples highlight the fact that some statements which may
be formally defined as tautologies, accurately describe real world
events, consequently not all tautologies are bad."

perhaps" ....not all tautologies are free of explanatory power."

Air

[John S. Wilkins]

The question is not whether mathematical tautologies are good or bad,
but whether (as logical assertions) they happen to describe some of the
world, and when.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[Friar Broccoli]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 16:31:02 -0700 (PDT), air <airbo...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 12 Oct, 14:19, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
>>
>> If anybody points out any errors, I will correct them in place.

.

>I would suggest amending the phrase
>"The above examples highlight the fact that some statements which may
>be formally defined as tautologies, accurately describe real world
>events, consequently not all tautologies are bad."
>
>perhaps" ....not all tautologies are free of explanatory power."

The word "bad" here - is sloppy and makes no point on its own. It was
intended to refer back to and encapsulate "accurately describe real
world events".

I will think about it for a day or two - and watch for other comments,
but it seems to me that your "free of explanatory power" is a fancy way
of saying "empty" so I may just replace "bad" with "empty".

I think "empty" is better because it obviously refers back to the main
idea, while having a simple independent meaning.

Thanks for reviewing the text and your comment.

[Glenn]

"Friar Broccoli" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e5gh78h6n6f5e2qia...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 16:31:02 -0700 (PDT), air <airbo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On 12 Oct, 14:19, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
> >>
> >> If anybody points out any errors, I will correct them in place.
>
> .
>
> >I would suggest amending the phrase
> >"The above examples highlight the fact that some statements which may
> >be formally defined as tautologies, accurately describe real world
> >events, consequently not all tautologies are bad."
> >
> >perhaps" ....not all tautologies are free of explanatory power."
>
> The word "bad" here - is sloppy and makes no point on its own. It was
> intended to refer back to and encapsulate "accurately describe real
> world events".
>
> I will think about it for a day or two - and watch for other comments,
> but it seems to me that your "free of explanatory power" is a fancy way
> of saying "empty" so I may just replace "bad" with "empty".
>

If you dislike claiming "free" or "without explanatory power, and just
considering what single word to replace "bad" with, I suggest "naughty". The
tautologies that are not "bad" are better described as "nice" rather than
"good".

[Friar Broccoli]

A good point. It would be nice to remove the naughty "not ... free" and
go with:

"... consequently some tautologies have explanatory power."

[Glenn]

"Friar Broccoli" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:m3kh781ufe6crurh7...@4ax.com...

Which of course leaves the question of whether that is naughty or nice
unresolved.

[Friar Broccoli]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 19:36:27 -0700, "Glenn"

Yes, that is the question!
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep
No more; and by a sleep, to say we end
The Heart-ache, and the thousand Natural shocks
That Flesh is heir to? 'Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished. To die to sleep,
To sleep, perchance to Dream;

Aye, there's the rub!!!

[Glenn]

"Friar Broccoli" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:v0oh78h3a9snsit5v...@4ax.com...

What, no flowers?

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Friday, October 12, 2012 10:04:12 PM UTC-4, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 16:31:02 -0700 (PDT), air <airbo...@gmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 12 Oct, 14:19, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
>
> >>
>
> >> If anybody points out any errors, I will correct them in place.
>
>
>
> .
>
>
>
> >I would suggest amending the phrase
>
> >"The above examples highlight the fact that some statements which may
>
> >be formally defined as tautologies, accurately describe real world
>
> >events, consequently not all tautologies are bad."
>
> >
>
> >perhaps" ....not all tautologies are free of explanatory power."
>
>
>
> The word "bad" here - is sloppy and makes no point on its own. It was
>
> intended to refer back to and encapsulate "accurately describe real
>
> world events".
>
>
>
> I will think about it for a day or two - and watch for other comments,
>
> but it seems to me that your "free of explanatory power" is a fancy way
>
> of saying "empty" so I may just replace "bad" with "empty".
>
> I think "empty" is better because it obviously refers back to the main
> idea, while having a simple independent meaning.

[snip]

I think "free of explanatory power" is better because, fancy or not, it actually tells people what the heck you mean. I note, that the FAQ refers to "empty" as a property of both tautologies and "wording," which is itself confusing without further explanation, while never directly defining what "empty" in context means. It certainly gives one opportunity of guess, and possibly enough information, but this is not a ideal solution in a FAQ. I propose the FAQ define "empty" as "free of explanatory power," if that is indeed correct, in it's first paragraph.

I also suggest that the usage "empty wording" in the second paragraph be firmly booted, and replaced by "empty tautology" or perhaps just "empty," if that suffices. I further warn against "meaningless empty tautology" in the first paragraph, as it is an abomination. Look, I suspect that nothing more than "empty tautology" is truly meant there, and though my inexpert suspicion is that empty tautologies as a class do tend to the meaningless, even more inexpert readers are liable to spy that "meaningless" there and nervously worry that it is there not to decorate, but to add some additional spot of meaning, if only for irony's sake.

Mitchell Coffey

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Friday, October 12, 2012 2:19:14 PM UTC-4, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
>
>
>
> If anybody points out any errors, I will correct them in place.

Surely you've passed it by backspace for comment...

Mitchell Coffey

[Stephen]

I like this one best of the suggested alternatives.

S

--

[Nick Keighley]

On Oct 13, 3:04 am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 16:31:02 -0700 (PDT), air <airbowl...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> >On 12 Oct, 14:19, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
>
> >> If anybody points out any errors, I will correct them in place.
>
>  .
>
> >I would suggest amending the phrase
> >"The above examples highlight the fact that some statements which may
> >be formally defined as tautologies, accurately describe real world
> >events, consequently not all tautologies are bad."
>
> >perhaps" ....not all tautologies are free of explanatory power."
>
> The word "bad" here - is sloppy and makes no point on its own.   It was
> intended to refer back to and encapsulate "accurately describe real
> world events".
>
> I will think about it for a day or two - and watch for other comments,
> but it seems to me that your "free of explanatory power" is a fancy way
> of saying "empty" so I may just replace "bad" with "empty".
>
> I think "empty" is better because it obviously refers back to the main
> idea, while having a simple independent meaning.
>
> Thanks for reviewing the text and your comment.

If I saw "....not all tautologies are empty." I'd wonder "empty of
what?"

[Walter Bushell]

In article <1krwgu3.1yu2fz1u9si6aN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,

jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

> air <airbo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 12 Oct, 14:19, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
> > >
> > > If anybody points out any errors, I will correct them in place.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
> > > I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
> >
> > I would suggest amending the phrase
> > "The above examples highlight the fact that some statements which may
> > be formally defined as tautologies, accurately describe real world
> > events, consequently not all tautologies are bad."
> >
> > perhaps" ....not all tautologies are free of explanatory power."
> >
> > Air
>
> The question is not whether mathematical tautologies are good or bad,
> but whether (as logical assertions) they happen to describe some of the
> world, and when.

Mathematics itself does not describe any real world phenomenon, but
allows for the derivation of the logical results of our thoughts about
the phenomenal world. For example, if we assume the existence of the
luminous aether we can use mathematics to deduce the consequences of
that.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[jonathan]

"John S. Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1krwgu3.1yu2fz1u9si6aN%jo...@wilkins.id.au...

> air <airbo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> The question is not whether mathematical tautologies are good or bad,
> but whether (as logical assertions) they happen to describe some of the
> world, and when.

The whole problem is the assumption that natural selection
is the primary source of the final product. It's not! This
statement from the posted faq misses the relationship
between randomness and evolution in a fundamental way.

From the posted Faq...

"Sometimes survival isn't determined by fitness"

"Another problem with Coulter's argument is that it sets up full
equivalence between survival and fitness. "Who are the "fittest"?
The ones who survive! Why look - it happens every time!"
(emphasis added). If that were true, then all differential survival
would necessarily be selection. But we have a name for differential
survival that isn't selection; it is called drift (basically, changes in a
population's gene pool due to chance). And in fact we can often
perform tests that distinguish selection from drift. We couldn't
do that if selection were just "those that survive survive"."


The newer field of self organizing systems shows a completely
different view of the relationship between selection and evolution.
Randomness leads to ...self-organization, not drift. Self organizing
systems take on a 'life of it's own', and the processes of evolution
become mostly...internal. The external forces of selection
become secondary.

The fittest do not always survive. Small adaptive improvements
can be ignored almost indefinitely as it takes a large step to
change a self organized system.

Self-Organizing Faq

"4.1 Isn't this just the same as selection ?"

"No, selection is a choice between competing options such that
one arrangement is preferred over another with reference to
some external criteria - this represents a choice between two stable
systems in state space. In self-organization there is only one system
which internally restricts the area of state space it occupies. In essence
the system moves to an attractor that covers only a small area of
state space, a dynamic pattern of expression that can persist even
in the face of mutation and opposing selective forces. Alternative
stable options are each self-organized attractors and selection may
then choose between them based upon their emergent phenotypic
properties."
http://calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm


Hence, reality is the result of a natural tautology, as an iterative
loop is dependent mostly upon itself~


"The main current scientific theory related to self-organization is
Complexity Theory, which states:"

"Critically interacting components self-organize to form potentially
evolving structures exhibiting a hierarchy of emergent system properties."


Jonathan


"Growth of Man like Growth of Nature
Gravitates within
Atmosphere, and Sun endorse it
Bit it stir alone

Each its difficult Ideal
Must achieve Itself
Through the solitary prowess
Of a Silent Life

Effort is the sole condition
Patience of Itself
Patience of opposing forces
And intact Belief

Looking on is the Department
Of its Audience
But Transaction is assisted
By no Countenance"


By E Dickinson (1830-1886)


s

[jonathan]

"Walter Bushell" <pr...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:proto-A1658C....@news.panix.com...

But there is a relationship between reality and the use of
mathematics.


"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain,
as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

~ Albert Einstein



So how do we solve that contradiction?




s

[backspace]

We all have a property we call life that makes us aware of ourselves, but life itself isn't defined in materialism. In what way would we possess a property 'fitness' that enables life?

[John Harshman]

On 10/13/12 7:34 AM, backspace wrote:
> We all have a property we call life that makes us aware of ourselves,
> but life itself isn't defined in materialism. In what way would we
> possess a property 'fitness' that enables life?
>

This is the post as backspace sees it:

We all have a property we call qzxl that makes us aware of ourselves,
but qzxl itself isn't defined in smzobtigl. In what way would we possess
a property 'potrzebie' that enables qzxl?

[RAM]

Could it be backspace's intellectual qzxl lacks potrzebie?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 07:34:22 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:

<snip>

>We all have a property we call life that makes us aware of ourselves, but life itself isn't defined in materialism. In what way would we possess a property 'fitness' that enables life?

Drool much?
--

Bob C.

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

- McNameless

[John Harshman]

Kltpzyxm.

[Stephen]

Friar Broccoli wrote:

>
> Yes, that is the question!
> Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
> The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
> Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
> And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep
> No more; and by a sleep, to say we end
> The Heart-ache, and the thousand Natural shocks
> That Flesh is heir to? 'Tis a consummation
> Devoutly to be wished. To die to sleep,
> To sleep, perchance to Dream;
>
> Aye, there's the rub!!!

Thus play I in one person many people,
And none contented: sometimes am I king;
Then treasons make me wish myself a beggar,
And so I am: then crushing penury
Persuades me I was better when a king;
Then am I king'd again: and by and by
Think that I am unking'd by Bolingbroke,
And straight am nothing: but whate'er I be,
Nor I nor any man that but man is
With nothing shall be pleased, till he be eased
With being nothing.


--

[William Morse]

On 10/12/2012 02:18 PM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
>
> If anybody points out any errors, I will correct them in place.

I like it. Did you consider adding a reference to this:

"John Maynard Smith once remarked, any theory involving two lines of
algebra will contain tautologies"

I remember reading this in print and I found it on a web site but I have
no original reference.

[backspace]

Wallace: "....My dear Darwin,— I have been so repeatedly struck by the utter inability of number of intelligent persons to see clearly, or at all, the self-acting and necessary effects of Natural Selection, that I am led to conclude that the term itself, and your mode of illustrating it however beautiful to many of us, are yet not the best adapted to impress it on the general naturalistic public...I think [the difficulty in understanding] arises almost entirely from your choice of the term Natural Selection, and so constantly comparing it in its effects to man's selection, and also to your so frequently personifying nature as 'selecting', as 'preferring', 'as seeking only the good of the species', etc., etc. To the few this is as clear as daylight, and beautifully suggestive, but to many it is evidently a stumbling block....I wish, therefore to suggest to you the possibility of entirely avoiding this source of misconception in your great work (if now not too late)...by adopting Spencer's term viz. 'Survival

of the Fittest'. This term is a plain expression of the fact; 'Natural Selection' is a metaphorical expression of it, and to a certain degree indirect and incorrect, since, even personifying Nature, she does not so much select special variations as exterminate the most unfavourable ones. ..." "....even personifying Nature, she does not so much select special variations as exterminate the most unfavourable ones. ..."


Notes Edit
Other than noting that certain variations were exterminated how was their unfavorability measured by Wallace ?

[Mitchell Coffey]

Why are you asking me this? And for the record, I count three, maybe four, fallacies in backspace's post. Does anyone count more?

Mitchell Coffey

[John S. Wilkins]

Maynard Smith, John. 1972. On evolution. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press, page 85.

[backspace]

Note how Wallace used 'fitness' below:

http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Milton_Wain_collection_of_pre_Darwin_authors#Patric_Matthew_Tautology_1
We can get the gist of Matthew�s ideas from the following passage quoted from On Naval Timbers by Wallace:

As the field of existence is limited and preoccupied, it is only the hardier, more robust, better-suited-to-circumstance individuals who are able to struggle forward to maturity, these inhabiting only the situations to which they have superior adaptation and greater powers of occupancy than any other kind: the weaker and less circumstance-suited being prematurely destroyed. This principle is in constant action: it regulates the colour, the figure, the capacities, and instincts; those individuals in each species whose colour and covering are best suited to concealment or protection from enemies, or defence from inclemencies or vicissitudes of climate, whose figure is best accommodated to health, strength, defence, and support: in such immense waste of primary and youthful life these only come forward to maturity from the strict ordeal by which nature tests their adaptation to her standard of perfection and fitness to continue their kind of reproduction.

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

On Oct 14, 6:54 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Note how Wallace used 'fitness' below:
>

> http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Milton_Wain_collection_of_pre_Darwin_...
> We can get the gist of Matthew s ideas from the following passage quoted from On Naval Timbers by Wallace:

>
> As the field of existence is limited and preoccupied, it is only the hardier, more robust, better-suited-to-circumstance individuals who are able to struggle forward to maturity, these inhabiting only the situations to which they have superior adaptation and greater powers of occupancy than any other kind: the weaker and less circumstance-suited being prematurely destroyed. This principle is in constant action: it regulates the colour, the figure, the capacities, and instincts; those individuals in each species whose colour and covering are best suited to concealment or protection from enemies, or defence from inclemencies or vicissitudes of climate, whose figure is best accommodated to health, strength, defence, and support: in such immense waste of primary and youthful life these only come forward to maturity from the strict ordeal by which nature tests their adaptation to her standard of perfection and fitness to continue their kind of reproduction.

---------------------

See that very first word above? "As"? It conveys that the process he
describes *depends* on a condition; a "limited and preoccupied" field
of existence. It is not true by definition, it follows from a set of
conditions.

Thus no tautology.

Thanks.

[backspace]

As the field of existence is limited and preoccupied, it is only the hardier, more robust, better-suited-to-circumstance individuals who are able to struggle forward to maturity, these inhabiting only the situations to which they have superior adaptation and greater powers of occupancy than any other kind: the weaker and less circumstance-suited being prematurely destroyed. This principle is in constant action: it regulates the colour, the figure, the capacities, and instincts; those individuals in each species whose colour and covering are best suited to concealment or protection from enemies, or defence from inclemencies or vicissitudes of climate, whose figure is best accommodated to health, strength, defence, and support: in such immense waste of primary and youthful life these only come forward to maturity from the strict ordeal by which nature tests their adaptation to her standard of perfection and fitness to continue their kind of reproduction.

rephrase:
the more robust individuals who struggle to maturity, inhabit situations to which they have superior adaptation than other kinds:
the weaker being prematurely destroyed.

Finally:
The fit individuals survive their habitat while the less fit or weaker die. No test can be devised to refute or verify this.

[RAM]

How cryptic!

[Boikat]

If you think that, you have a very limited intellect. Not only that,
but it's been observed, so it's been verified. Once it's verified,
it's as hard to refute as dropping a rock, watching it fall to the
ground, then trying to show that the rock did not fall to the ground.

Boikat

[backspace]

On Oct 14, 3:54 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 9:34 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As the field of existence is limited and preoccupied, it is only the hardier, more robust, better-suited-to-circumstance individuals who are able to struggle forward to maturity, these inhabiting only the situations to which they have superior adaptation and greater powers of occupancy than any other kind: the weaker and less circumstance-suited being prematurely destroyed. This principle is in constant action: it regulates the colour, the figure, the capacities, and instincts; those individuals in each species whose colour and covering are best suited to concealment or protection from enemies, or defence from inclemencies or vicissitudes of climate, whose figure is best accommodated to health, strength, defence, and support: in such immense waste of primary and youthful life these only come forward to maturity from the strict ordeal by which nature tests their adaptation to her standard of perfection and fitness to continue their kind of reproduction.
>
> > rephrase:
> > the more robust individuals who struggle to maturity, inhabit situations to which they have superior adaptation than other kinds:
> > the weaker being prematurely destroyed.
>
> > Finally:
> > The fit individuals survive their habitat while the less fit or weaker die.  No test can be devised to refute or verify this.

http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Milton_Wain_collection_of_pre_Darwin_authors#Patric_Matthew_Tautology_1
Lyell dutifully did as he was requested and the following statement
appeared in Darwin’s name in the Gardeners’ Chronicle on April 21st,
1860 (Darwin, 1860c): I have been much interested by Mr Patrick
Matthew’s communication in the number of your paper dated April 7th. I
freely acknowledge that Mr Matthew has anticipated by many years the
explanation which I have offered of the origin of species, under the
name of natural selection. I think that no one will feel surprised
that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist had heard of Mr
Matthew’s views, considering how briefly they are given, and that they
appeared in the appendix to a work on Naval Timber and Arboriculture.
I can do no more than offer my apologies to Mr Matthew for my entire
ignorance of his publication. If another edition of my work is called
for, I will insert to the forgoing effect. Here then, we have Darwin
admitting that he was beaten to the theory of natural selection by
Patrick Matthew. In a subsequent letter, written in the same month to
the, American naturalist, Asa Gray he states: Have you noticed how
completely I have been anticipated by Mr P.Matthew, in Gardeners’
Chronicle? (Darwin, 1860d

This proves Darwin lied which Samuel Butler an intellectual genius
also showed. Darwin no more managed to figure out the acquisition of
attributes via the *natural* means of competitve *selection* than the
author of a Journal paper around 1960's managed to described the IC
concept using *composite integrity* by himself, the term was lifted
from Wentworth Thompson.


.... I can do no more than offer my apologies to Mr Matthew for my
entire ignorance of his publication. ..... Which is a lie because
DArwin read Matthews book on the Beagle.

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

Firstly, even though you have tried mightily to remove the meaning
from your "rephrase, you are still wrong. All could survive. Or none
could survive. Or the environment could be sufficiently capricious
that which ones survive might not be related to any heritable traits.
And in any case, it is only true in the aggregate; sometimes a
creature with a truly enviable set of traits ends up under a bus or
mounted over the mantel at the lodge.

But back to the "effect" that you always manage to launder out of the
original construction: Natural Selection predicts that a population
will change over time, coming to possess more of the traits that
allowed some individuals in previous generations to leave more progeny
in future generations.

We can indeed test that proposition. If the percentage of light moths
to dark moths were to remain the same over many generations despite
birds eating most of the light ones, natural selection would be
falsified, at least in that case.

When you include the cause (differential reproduction of creatures
with different traits) and the effect (change in the representation of
traits in the population) it is indeed testable.

[Burkhard]

The same tests that were given to you a hundred times over will do
just fine.

[J.J. O'Shea]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 15:25:30 -0400, John Harshman wrote
(in article <ouSdnbCvzay...@giganews.com>):

That's Rm Kltpzyxm.

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

On Oct 14, 12:29 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 3:54 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 14, 9:34 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > As the field of existence is limited and preoccupied, it is only the hardier, more robust, better-suited-to-circumstance individuals who are able to struggle forward to maturity, these inhabiting only the situations to which they have superior adaptation and greater powers of occupancy than any other kind: the weaker and less circumstance-suited being prematurely destroyed. This principle is in constant action: it regulates the colour, the figure, the capacities, and instincts; those individuals in each species whose colour and covering are best suited to concealment or protection from enemies, or defence from inclemencies or vicissitudes of climate, whose figure is best accommodated to health, strength, defence, and support: in such immense waste of primary and youthful life these only come forward to maturity from the strict ordeal by which nature tests their adaptation to her standard of perfection and fitness to continue their kind of reproduction.
>
> > > rephrase:
> > > the more robust individuals who struggle to maturity, inhabit situations to which they have superior adaptation than other kinds:
> > > the weaker being prematurely destroyed.
>
> > > Finally:
> > > The fit individuals survive their habitat while the less fit or weaker die.  No test can be devised to refute or verify this.
>

> http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Milton_Wain_collection_of_pre_Darwin_...

Suppose we take your word for it. What of it? What if Darwin never
actually left his own yard, wouldn't know a finch from a winch and (as
some jackass argued) shot dogs for sport?

It's no secret, you know. It will always be easier to attack a person
than an idea, especially an idea as simple, understandable and
successful as Natural Selection. But every time you go that route, you
prove how robust the idea is.

[backspace]

There is no test that can measure your fitness, you don't possess a
property called fitness, and don't have more or less 'fit' parts that
enable you to survive. A fitness measurement machine doesn't exist.

Because adaptationists know that "survival of the fittest" is a
tautology they came up with a new formulation of the phrase that gave
us an independent criterion of fitness - the environment. Success in
survival is now tick-boxed as: "better adapted for the immediate,
local environment". But this is a tautology too. An environment, like
a destination, isn't a geographical place. A description of an
environment is cast in terms of a creature's attributes. As my
environment is already described by my attributes I can't be adapted
TO my environment. And even less can I be "better adapted" to my
environment. "Survival of the fittest" There is only one thing being
considered here. "Survival" describes the "fittest" as the scientists
know. With the premise of Adaption There is STILL only one thing on
offer here, as adaption describes an environment, as the scientists
have failed to notice.

An environment is a description of a habitat. And a habitat is
creature-specific. It isn't a geographical place. For example, the
geographical place "the top of mount Everest and the kitchen sink" is
not a habitat because a creature doesn't fulfil the requirements to
exist in such a large physical place. Also, the clutter on my desk
isn't a habitat as it offers an insufficient description of a
creature's attributes/habitat.

'''Fitness isn't a measurable quality'''. A creature is, by being an
existing creature, fit. The creature doesn't "have" fit parts or
alleles. If parts and alleles constitute the creature, then they don't
also require a property called "fitness" that helps it exist. I don't
see the significance of saying that evolution is about populations.
Like the term "fit" can't apply to individuals, the term "evolve"
can't apply to populations. There aren't properties and processes
(fit, evolve,) above and beyond the individual and the population. An
environment is, at the same time, logically entails, a description of
a set of attributes.

Adaptation confuses an environment with a geographical place. An
environment entails the description of what allows an animal to
survive, and this description logically entails a creature's
attributes. ''

[RAM]

Backspace is incapable of understanding induction.

[Boikat]

On Oct 14, 11:29 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 3:54 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 14, 9:34 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > As the field of existence is limited and preoccupied, it is only the hardier, more robust, better-suited-to-circumstance individuals who are able to struggle forward to maturity, these inhabiting only the situations to which they have superior adaptation and greater powers of occupancy than any other kind: the weaker and less circumstance-suited being prematurely destroyed. This principle is in constant action: it regulates the colour, the figure, the capacities, and instincts; those individuals in each species whose colour and covering are best suited to concealment or protection from enemies, or defence from inclemencies or vicissitudes of climate, whose figure is best accommodated to health, strength, defence, and support: in such immense waste of primary and youthful life these only come forward to maturity from the strict ordeal by which nature tests their adaptation to her standard of perfection and fitness to continue their kind of reproduction.
>
> > > rephrase:
> > > the more robust individuals who struggle to maturity, inhabit situations to which they have superior adaptation than other kinds:
> > > the weaker being prematurely destroyed.
>
> > > Finally:
> > > The fit individuals survive their habitat while the less fit or weaker die.  No test can be devised to refute or verify this.
>

> http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Milton_Wain_collection_of_pre_Darwin_...

What does that have to do with what I wrote, ande you snipped and
ignored? You appear more dishonest than you imagine Darwin ever was.

Boikat

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 21:30:51 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:

<snip irrelevancies>

>Wallace: "....even personifying Nature, she does not so much select special variations as exterminate the most unfavourable ones. ..."

>Other than noting that certain variations were exterminated how was their unfavorability measured by Wallace ?

All else being equal, extermination is pretty indicative of
unfavorability; what else do you imagine to be required?

But don't take it personally;, I'm just trying to 'elp you
on a bit; see Kipling's "The 'Eathen" for context.

[Burkhard]

On Oct 14, 5:44 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 5:34 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 14 Oct, 15:34, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > As the field of existence is limited and preoccupied, it is only the hardier, more robust, better-suited-to-circumstance individuals who are able to struggle forward to maturity, these inhabiting only the situations to which they have superior adaptation and greater powers of occupancy than any other kind: the weaker and less circumstance-suited being prematurely destroyed. This principle is in constant action: it regulates the colour, the figure, the capacities, and instincts; those individuals in each species whose colour and covering are best suited to concealment or protection from enemies, or defence from inclemencies or vicissitudes of climate, whose figure is best accommodated to health, strength, defence, and support: in such immense waste of primary and youthful life these only come forward to maturity from the strict ordeal by which nature tests their adaptation to her standard of perfection and fitness to continue their kind of reproduction.
>
> > > rephrase:
> > > the more robust individuals who struggle to maturity, inhabit situations to which they have superior adaptation than other kinds:
> > > the weaker being prematurely destroyed.
>
> > > Finally:
> > > The fit individuals survive their habitat while the less fit or weaker die.  No test can be devised to refute or verify this.
>
> > The same tests that were given to you a hundred times over will do
> > just fine.
>
> There is no test that can measure your fitness,

just measure the ratio between the number of individuals with that
genotype after selection to those before selection to get the absolute
fitness, or count the average number of surviving offspring of a
particular genotype compared with average number of surviving
offspring of a competing genotypes after a single generation for the
relative fitness. ,

>you don't possess  a
> property called fitness, and don't have more or less 'fit' parts that
> enable you to survive. A fitness measurement machine doesn't exist.

Tell that to the lion next time you get chases. It sure will be
impressed by your verbal acrobatics

>
> Because adaptationists know that "survival of the fittest" is a
> tautology they came up with a new formulation of the phrase that gave
> us an independent criterion of fitness - the environment. Success in
> survival is now tick-boxed as: "better adapted for the immediate,
> local environment".  But this is a tautology too.

You were given repeatedly possible observations that would falsify NS,
so your claim has been falsified a long time ago

> An environment, like
> a destination, isn't a geographical place. A description of an
> environment is cast in terms of a creature's attributes.

Eh, no?

>As my
> environment is already described by my attributes I can't be adapted
> TO my environment. And even less can I be "better adapted" to my
> environment.

If there are lions in your environment, and your neighbour runs faster
than you then he is better adapted than you.

> "Survival of the fittest" There is only one thing being
> considered here. "Survival" describes the "fittest" as the scientists
> know. With the premise of Adaption There is STILL only one thing on
> offer here, as adaption describes an environment, as the scientists
> have failed to notice.
>
> An environment is a description of a habitat. And a habitat is
> creature-specific. It isn't a geographical place. For example, the
> geographical place "the top of mount Everest and the kitchen sink" is
> not a habitat because a creature doesn't fulfil the requirements to
> exist in such a large physical place. Also, the clutter on my desk
> isn't a habitat as it offers an insufficient description of a
> creature's attributes/habitat.
>

meaningless word salad

[Amy Guarino]

On Oct 14, 12:44 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 5:34 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 14 Oct, 15:34, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > As the field of existence is limited and preoccupied, it is only the hardier, more robust, better-suited-to-circumstance individuals who are able to struggle forward to maturity, these inhabiting only the situations to which they have superior adaptation and greater powers of occupancy than any other kind: the weaker and less circumstance-suited being prematurely destroyed. This principle is in constant action: it regulates the colour, the figure, the capacities, and instincts; those individuals in each species whose colour and covering are best suited to concealment or protection from enemies, or defence from inclemencies or vicissitudes of climate, whose figure is best accommodated to health, strength, defence, and support: in such immense waste of primary and youthful life these only come forward to maturity from the strict ordeal by which nature tests their adaptation to her standard of perfection and fitness to continue their kind of reproduction.
>
> > > rephrase:
> > > the more robust individuals who struggle to maturity, inhabit situations to which they have superior adaptation than other kinds:
> > > the weaker being prematurely destroyed.
>
> > > Finally:
> > > The fit individuals survive their habitat while the less fit or weaker die.  No test can be devised to refute or verify this.
>
> > The same tests that were given to you a hundred times over will do
> > just fine.
>
> There is no test that can measure your fitness, you don't possess  a
> property called fitness, and don't have more or less 'fit' parts that
> enable you to survive. A fitness measurement machine doesn't exist.
>

Even if that were true, it's irrelevant. The concept of Natural
Selection does not depend on characterizations like "fitness" or
"hardiness". Whatever traits are associated with more progeny in
future generations will become more common in the population, changing
the population as a result. If the critters with brown coats
consistently out-reproduce those with tan coats, eventually
essentially the entire population will become brown. If shorter legs,
thinner fur and spots confer a reproductive advantage, *for whatever
reason*, we will expect to see the population change slowly to one
with short stature, short fur and spots.

Now for brevity we like to call that quality that allows creatures to
thrive and reproduce "fitness". But it is not crucial. You like to
rephrase it down to "what survives survives", but a truer paraphrase
would be "what survives and reproduces changes the population over
time".

[Earle Jones]

In article <qjvl78dndgv48f3rt...@4ax.com>,

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 21:30:51 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
> <steph...@gmail.com>:
>
> <snip irrelevancies>
>
> >Wallace: "....even personifying Nature, she does not so much select special
> >variations as exterminate the most unfavourable ones. ..."
>
> >Other than noting that certain variations were exterminated how was their
> >unfavorability measured by Wallace ?
>
> All else being equal, extermination is pretty indicative of
> unfavorability; what else do you imagine to be required?
>
> But don't take it personally;, I'm just trying to 'elp you
> on a bit; see Kipling's "The 'Eathen" for context.

*
"The 'eathen in 'is blindness bows down to wood an' stone;
'E don't obey no orders unless they is 'is own;
'E keeps 'is side-arms awful: 'e leaves 'em all about,
An' then comes up the regiment an' pokes the 'eathen out.

All along o' dirtiness, all along o' mess,
All along o' doin' things rather-more-or-less,
All along of abby-nay, kul, an' hazar-ho, *
Mind you keep your rifle an' yourself jus' so!"

* abby-nay: Not now. kul: To-morrow. hazar-ho: Wait a bit.

Rudyard Kipling, "The 'eathen"

earle
*

[ivar]

Arguably, the tautology argument is something of an illusion. After
all, Darwin and practically all modern biologists would probably agree
that "the survivors are the survivors." The real issue is not whether
the survivors are the survivors but rather whether the characteristics
of the survivors change as the environment changes. The classic
example of change are those moths that got darker or lighter depending
on how polluted the atmosphere was.

Actually, most creationists appear to accept microevolution. It is
macroevolution that they object to. Today, the response of biologists
to this is mutation and genetic drift. But this is a different
subject.

Ivar

[Friar Broccoli]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 23:58:16 -0400, William Morse
<wdNOSP...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On 10/12/2012 02:18 PM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>>
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
>>
>> If anybody points out any errors, I will correct them in place.
>
>
>I like it. Did you consider adding a reference to this:
>
>"John Maynard Smith once remarked, any theory involving two lines of
>algebra will contain tautologies"
>
>I remember reading this in print and I found it on a web site but I have
>no original reference.

I couldn't find that exact phrase. Dawkins and Waddington both quote
Maynard as saying in 1969 that:

"Of course Darwinism contains tautological features: any scientific
theory containing two lines of algebra does so"

but I couldn't find a usable reference. I have no problem with adding
an additional reference in the footnotes, but I'd like to be able to see
the original quote in context - and preferably be able to point the
reader directly at it.

[Friar Broccoli]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 00:12:21 -0700 (PDT), Mitchell Coffey
<mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, October 12, 2012 10:04:12 PM UTC-4, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 16:31:02 -0700 (PDT), air <airbo...@gmail.com>
>>
>> wrote:

>>
>>
>>
>> >On 12 Oct, 14:19, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> If anybody points out any errors, I will correct them in place.
>>
>>
>>

>> .
>>
>>
>>
>> >I would suggest amending the phrase
>>
>> >"The above examples highlight the fact that some statements which may
>>
>> >be formally defined as tautologies, accurately describe real world
>>
>> >events, consequently not all tautologies are bad."
>>
>> >
>>
>> >perhaps" ....not all tautologies are free of explanatory power."
>>
>>
>>
>> The word "bad" here - is sloppy and makes no point on its own. It was
>>
>> intended to refer back to and encapsulate "accurately describe real
>>
>> world events".
>>
>>
>>
>> I will think about it for a day or two - and watch for other comments,
>>
>> but it seems to me that your "free of explanatory power" is a fancy way
>>
>> of saying "empty" so I may just replace "bad" with "empty".
>>
>> I think "empty" is better because it obviously refers back to the main
>> idea, while having a simple independent meaning.
>[snip]

I got up this morning fully intending to make all the changes you
suggested, but when I started trying I found that I could see no
additions that helped the reader understand the issue without creating
other problems, although I did delete some words that added nothing.

> I think "free of explanatory power" is better because, fancy or not, it
> actually tells people what the heck you mean.

Looking at the phrase, I couldn't convince myself that "free of
explanatory power" (or any of the other variants) adds anything that
isn't already in "accurately describe real world events", so I just
chopped off the end of the sentence since the current "bad" adds nothing
at all.

> I note, that the FAQ refers to "empty" as a property of both tautologies and
> "wording," which is itself confusing without further explanation, while never
> directly defining what "empty" in context means. It certainly gives one
> opportunity of guess, and possibly enough information, but this is not a ideal
> solution in a FAQ. I propose the FAQ define "empty" as "free of explanatory
> power," if that is indeed correct, in it's first paragraph.

The main reason I made frequent use of "empty tautology" in the opening
is because I wanted to oppose it to "substantive ... predictions" and
since almost no one knows what "tautology" means it wasn't obvious that
most people would understand that "tautology" naked was the opposite of
"substantive". Thus without the addition of "empty" the meaning/point
of the opening summary would be lost to most readers.

In addition as is made clear in the section on mathematics, that type of
tautology is substantive, so I needed to make an implicit distinction
between substantive and empty tautologies.

Also I don't want to lose my reader in definitional digressions. I want
him to focus on the fact that SoF makes reference to something
substantive. Further I find "without explanatory power" to be somewhat
nebulous and therefore likely to result in loss of focus.


> I also suggest that the usage "empty wording" in the second paragraph be
> firmly booted, and replaced by "empty tautology" or perhaps just "empty," if
> that suffices.

The use of "empty wording" here is intended as a second reference to the
final argument titled: "The tautology argument is an attack against
*wording*, not substance". I think that section makes clear that the
tautology argument is all about words and not at all about substance and
as already noted I am using "empty" in opposition to "substantive".


> I further warn against "meaningless empty tautology" in the
> first paragraph, as it is an abomination.

Speaking of abominations, I wonder how "it" is defined.

> Look, I suspect that nothing more than "empty tautology" is truly meant there,
> and though my inexpert suspicion is that empty tautologies as a class do tend
> to the meaningless, even more inexpert readers are liable to spy that
> "meaningless" there and nervously worry that it is there not to decorate, but
> to add some additional spot of meaning, if only for irony's sake.

Personally, I like "meaningless" but can see no objective reason for
keeping it, so I deleted it.

[Friar Broccoli]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 02:29:08 -0700 (PDT), ivar <ylvi...@verizon.net>
wrote:

>Arguably, the tautology argument is something of an illusion. After
>all, Darwin and practically all modern biologists would probably agree
>that "the survivors are the survivors." The real issue is not whether
>the survivors are the survivors but rather whether the characteristics
>of the survivors change as the environment changes. The classic
>example of change are those moths that got darker or lighter depending
>on how polluted the atmosphere was.

I agree

>
>Actually, most creationists appear to accept microevolution. It is
>macroevolution that they object to. Today, the response of biologists
>to this is mutation and genetic drift. But this is a different
>subject.

I don't think its a completely different subject, after all in the FAQ I
(Harshman actually) identified SoF with microevolution to show that
creationists agree with the principle they are arguing against.

And thanks for pointing out the need to revise the tautology FAQ all
these many years ago.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 15:02:17 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Earle Jones
<earle...@comcast.net>:

See my reference above; I was thinking of the line...

"But day by day they kicks 'im, which 'elps 'im on a bit"

....although I fear that backspace will never acquire "a full
and proper kit". Or for that matter, even a partial one...

[Stephanus]

On Oct 14, 10:49 pm, Amy Guarino <amy.l.guar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 14, 12:44 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 14, 5:34 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On 14 Oct, 15:34, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > As the field of existence is limited and preoccupied, it is only the hardier, more robust, better-suited-to-circumstance individuals who are able to struggle forward to maturity, these inhabiting only the situations to which they have superior adaptation and greater powers of occupancy than any other kind: the weaker and less circumstance-suited being prematurely destroyed. This principle is in constant action: it regulates the colour, the figure, the capacities, and instincts; those individuals in each species whose colour and covering are best suited to concealment or protection from enemies, or defence from inclemencies or vicissitudes of climate, whose figure is best accommodated to health, strength, defence, and support: in such immense waste of primary and youthful life these only come forward to maturity from the strict ordeal by which nature tests their adaptation to her standard of perfection and fitness to continue their kind of reproduction.
>
> > > > rephrase:
> > > > the more robust individuals who struggle to maturity, inhabit situations to which they have superior adaptation than other kinds:
> > > > the weaker being prematurely destroyed.
>
> > > > Finally:
> > > > The fit individuals survive their habitat while the less fit or weaker die. No test can be devised to refute or verify this.
>
> > > The same tests that were given to you a hundred times over will do
> > > just fine.
>
> > There is no test that can measure your fitness, you don't possess a
> > property called fitness, and don't have more or less 'fit' parts that
> > enable you to survive. A fitness measurement machine doesn't exist.

> Even if that were true, it's irrelevant. The concept of Natural
> Selection does not depend on characterizations like "fitness" or
> "hardiness".

Only sentences can concepts, ns is a term not a sentence. It was the
metaphor for SoF in the *natural* competitive *selective* struggle for
life as Wallace, Darwin wrote.

> Whatever traits are associated with more progeny in
> future generations will become more common in the population, changing
> the population as a result.

rephrase:
Those with more progeny will become more common and from this we
conclude that new attributes will be acquired in the population as a
result.

The fact that they had more progeny implies they will become more
common, stating the same thing twice. (more common <=> more progeny)
Your premise is the acquisition of attributes and therefore your
conclusion is that new attributes will be acquired in descendent
populations. Your argument between premise and conclusion was a
rhetorical tautology, thus the conclusion is a non-sequitur.

[Friar Broccoli]

What is more common are some specific *characteristics* in the
population.

Specific characteristics and progeny (complex instances of an organism)
are not the same thing so the equality you need for (one type of)
tautology is not there.

>Your premise is the acquisition of attributes and therefore your
>conclusion is that new attributes will be acquired in descendent
>populations. Your argument between premise and conclusion was a
>rhetorical tautology, thus the conclusion is a non-sequitur.
>
>

[Friar Broccoli]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:59:35 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>In addition as is made clear in the section on mathematics, that type of
>tautology is substantive, so I needed to make an implicit distinction
>between substantive and empty tautologies.

After further thought I have made that distinction explicit by changing
the final phrase in the section titled:
"Mathematical expressions of scientific laws as tautologies"

from:

"The above examples highlight the fact that some statements which may be

formally defined as tautologies, accurately describe real world events."
to:

"The above examples highlight the fact that some statements which may be

formally defined as tautologies are substantive, not empty since they
accurately describe real world events."

[John S. Wilkins]

I gave the citation in this subthread.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[Greg Guarino]

On 10/15/2012 2:50 PM, Stephanus wrote:
> On Oct 14, 10:49 pm, Amy Guarino <amy.l.guar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 14, 12:44 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 14, 5:34 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 14 Oct, 15:34, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> As the field of existence is limited and preoccupied, it is only the hardier, more robust, better-suited-to-circumstance individuals who are able to struggle forward to maturity, these inhabiting only the situations to which they have superior adaptation and greater powers of occupancy than any other kind: the weaker and less circumstance-suited being prematurely destroyed. This principle is in constant action: it regulates the colour, the figure, the capacities, and instincts; those individuals in each species whose colour and covering are best suited to concealment or protection from enemies, or defence from inclemencies or vicissitudes of climate, whose figure is best accommodated to health, strength, defence, and support: in such immense waste of primary and youthful life these only come forward to maturity from the strict ordeal by which nature tests their adaptation to her standard of perfection and fitness to continue their kind of reproduction.
>>
>>>>> rephrase:
>>>>> the more robust individuals who struggle to maturity, inhabit situations to which they have superior adaptation than other kinds:
>>>>> the weaker being prematurely destroyed.
>>
>>>>> Finally:
>>>>> The fit individuals survive their habitat while the less fit or weaker die. No test can be devised to refute or verify this.
>>
>>>> The same tests that were given to you a hundred times over will do
>>>> just fine.
>>
>>> There is no test that can measure your fitness, you don't possess a
>>> property called fitness, and don't have more or less 'fit' parts that
>>> enable you to survive. A fitness measurement machine doesn't exist.
>
>> Even if that were true, it's irrelevant. The concept of Natural
>> Selection does not depend on characterizations like "fitness" or
>> "hardiness".
>
> Only sentences can concepts, ns is a term not a sentence. It was the
> metaphor for SoF in the *natural* competitive *selective* struggle for
> life as Wallace, Darwin wrote.

Luckily Darwin wrote an entire book explaining the concept. You again
make a weak attempt to attack the "shorthand" term as if it were the
entire argument, demonstrating that the full argument is too robust to
tackle.

>> Whatever traits are associated with more progeny in
>> future generations will become more common in the population, changing
>> the population as a result.
>
> rephrase:
> Those with more progeny will become more common

Already incorrect. The *traits* that help individuals have more progeny
will become more common in future generations.

and from this we
> conclude that new attributes will be acquired in the population as a
> result.

Also incorrect. New variations are produced by mutations in individuals.
The spread of some of those mutations through a population is due (in
part) to differential reproduction associated with certain heritable
traits, as is the dwindling and disappearance of other variations.

> The fact that they had more progeny implies they will become more
> common,

Wrong again. You've used the word "they" twice, representing two
different things: "traits" and "population members".

stating the same thing twice. (more common <=> more progeny)

You're really on a roll here. That those that have the most progeny tend
to pass on more of their *traits* to the next generation is not a
consequence of rhetoric, but a property of how heredity happens to work
here on Earth.

> Your premise is the acquisition of attributes and therefore your
> conclusion is that new attributes will be acquired in descendent
> populations.

Wrong yet again, to the point of being gibberish. The "acquisition" of a
new heritable trait in a population is an entirely different process
(mutation). Selection influences the distribution of that trait in
future generations.

Your argument between premise and conclusion was a
> rhetorical tautology, thus the conclusion is a non-sequitur.

Wrong on every count.

[Friar Broccoli]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 00:58:50 +1100, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins)
wrote:

>Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 23:58:16 -0400, William Morse
>> <wdNOSP...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 10/12/2012 02:18 PM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
>> >>
>> >> If anybody points out any errors, I will correct them in place.
>> >
>> >
>> >I like it. Did you consider adding a reference to this:
>> >
>> >"John Maynard Smith once remarked, any theory involving two lines of
>> >algebra will contain tautologies"
>> >
>> >I remember reading this in print and I found it on a web site but I have
>> >no original reference.
>>
>> I couldn't find that exact phrase. Dawkins and Waddington both quote
>> Maynard as saying in 1969 that:
>>
>> "Of course Darwinism contains tautological features: any scientific
>> theory containing two lines of algebra does so"

.

>> but I couldn't find a usable reference. I have no problem with adding
>> an additional reference in the footnotes, but I'd like to be able to see
>> the original quote in context - and preferably be able to point the
>> reader directly at it.

.

>I gave the citation in this subthread.

I did not miss it. It was here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/332b50020c7477af


The problem is I am not certain what the exact quote was in that cited
source.

Morse's complete quoted statement was:

"John Maynard Smith once remarked, any theory involving two lines of
algebra will contain tautologies"

and I got zero hits (except for this thread) on the shorter exact
phrase: "any theory involving two lines of algebra will contain
tautologies."

So I was suspicious that Morse was paraphrasing. I don't want to be
responsible for putting a possibly misleading paraphrase into the TO
archive.

And the other similar quote I found:

"Of course Darwinism contains tautological features: any scientific
theory containing two lines of algebra does so"

is apparently not from the same source - although I am not certain where
it is from. (As I recall I got several conflicting cited sources -
although I assume Dawkins and Waddington are correct - though vague)

[backspace]

Selection as metaphor for what?

[Greg Guarino]

No answer here?

>>>> Whatever traits are associated with more progeny in
>>>> future generations will become more common in the population, changing
>>>> the population as a result.
>>
>>> rephrase:
>>> Those with more progeny will become more common
>>
>> Already incorrect. The *traits* that help individuals have more progeny
>> will become more common in future generations.

None here either?

>> and from this we
>>
>>> conclude that new attributes will be acquired in the population as a
>>> result.
>>
>> Also incorrect. New variations are produced by mutations in individuals.
>> The spread of some of those mutations through a population is due (in
>> part) to differential reproduction associated with certain heritable
>> traits, as is the dwindling and disappearance of other variations.

Nor here. Why not?

>>> The fact that they had more progeny implies they will become more
>>> common,
>>
>> Wrong again. You've used the word "they" twice, representing two
>> different things: "traits" and "population members".
>>
>> stating the same thing twice. (more common <=> more progeny)
>>
>> You're really on a roll here. That those that have the most progeny tend
>> to pass on more of their *traits* to the next generation is not a
>> consequence of rhetoric, but a property of how heredity happens to work
>> here on Earth.

And still nothing.

>>> Your premise is the acquisition of attributes and therefore your
>>> conclusion is that new attributes will be acquired in descendent
>>> populations.
>>
>> Wrong yet again, to the point of being gibberish. The "acquisition" of a
>> new heritable trait in a population is an entirely different process
>> (mutation). Selection influences the distribution of that trait in
>> future generations.
>
> Selection as metaphor for what?

And here we see the complete bankruptcy of your position. When cornered,
which is usually, you fire off one of your bits of boilerplate nonsense.

The answer, the obvious answer, the answer that most every educated
person over the age of 15 could provide, is "Selection as the accepted
term for a certain biological process, famously (but not exclusively)
described by Darwin." We name things. "Selection" is the accepted name
for a process you haven't got the guts (or the argument) to address
directly.

[Glenn]

"Greg Guarino" <gdgu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:k5kgun$nq0$1...@dont-email.me...
snip

>
> The answer, the obvious answer, the answer that most every educated
> person over the age of 15 could provide, is "Selection as the accepted
> term for a certain biological process, famously (but not exclusively)
> described by Darwin." We name things. "Selection" is the accepted name
> for a process you haven't got the guts (or the argument) to address
> directly.
>

Is natural selection actually taught to be a *biological process*?

[John S. Wilkins]

Since you are paraphrasing anyway (the quote is not exact or direct) it
shouldnt matter. I am not ambulatory or I'd check a physical copy in th
elibrary).

[Amy Guarino]

On Oct 16, 6:48 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The "full argument" is actually text-book brainwashing: all Darwin
> does is define himself correct, wear the reader down, by repeating the
> same nonsense over and over using different words. I might add: the
> whole ballgame is in the concept or foundation which is then, by
> extrapolation, said to have accomplished X,Y and Z.
>
> Again, I can support what I just said with evo scholarship.

As you've said practically nothing at all, it shouldn't take long.

> > No answer here?
>
> > >>>> Whatever traits are associated with more progeny in
> > >>>> future generations will become more common in the population, changing
> > >>>> the population as a result.
>
> > >>> rephrase:
> > >>> Those with more progeny will become more common
>
> > >> Already incorrect. The *traits* that help individuals have more progeny
> > >> will become more common in future generations.
>

> Diversity exists simultaneously for long periods of time.
>
Seems unrelated to the argument at hand. Backspace is arguing that
Natural Selection is a tautology, chiefly because he thinks "survival
of the fittest" is all there is to it. He thinks that semantics can
constrain biology.

As for your comment, diversity can exist and be sustained for traits
that are not under strong selection. If there's no reproductive
advantage to either red, brown or blonde hair, all may coexist for a
long while. But where there is selection, some variations will become
more prevalent as compared with the others.

>
> > None here either?
>
> > >> and from this we
>
> > >>> conclude that new attributes will be acquired in the population as a
> > >>> result.
>
> > >> Also incorrect. New variations are produced by mutations in individuals.
> > >> The spread of some of those mutations through a population is due (in
> > >> part) to differential reproduction associated with certain heritable
> > >> traits, as is the dwindling and disappearance of other variations.
>
> > Nor here. Why not?
>
> > >>> The fact that they had more progeny implies they will become more
> > >>> common,
>
> > >> Wrong again. You've used the word "they" twice, representing two
> > >> different things: "traits" and "population members".
>
> > >> stating the same thing twice. (more common <=> more progeny)
>
> > >> You're really on a roll here. That those that have the most progeny tend
> > >> to pass on more of their *traits* to the next generation is not a
> > >> consequence of rhetoric, but a property of how heredity happens to work
> > >> here on Earth.
>

> Yet all accepted explanations of speciation construct bottlenecks that
> choke inheritance and variability.

All? I doubt that. But if "choking variability" means eliminating some
variations in a population, that could indeed be one mechanism of
speciation.

>
> > And still nothing.
>
> > >>> Your premise is the acquisition of attributes and therefore your
> > >>> conclusion is that new attributes will be acquired in descendent
> > >>> populations.
>
> > >> Wrong yet again, to the point of being gibberish. The "acquisition" of a
> > >> new heritable trait in a population is an entirely different process
> > >> (mutation). Selection influences the distribution of that trait in
> > >> future generations.
>
> > > Selection as metaphor for what?
>
> > And here we see the complete bankruptcy of your position. When cornered,
> > which is usually, you fire off one of your bits of boilerplate nonsense.
>

> I understand him quite well.
>
> Why not show us the alleged nonsense instead of continually
> threatening to do so?

Already done. Natural Selection is not a tautology. But here Backspace
is retreating to an even sillier position; that selection, as a
"single word" is meaningless. We give concepts names and may then use
those names to refer to the concept, trusting that educated people
will understand. And they do. Every time he repeats "Selection as a
metaphor for what?", he concedes that he has no argument.

[Stephanus]

Whatever trait there might be in the population will obviously become
more common . But for not individual traits because
the population reverts to the mean.

> Specific characteristics and progeny (complex instances of an organism)
> are not the same thing so the equality you need for (one type of)
> tautology is not there.

Non-sequitur from what i wrote.

[Stephanus]

Natural selection as a term is of the wrong syntactic structure to be
a tautology: only sentences can be tautologies. I used
natural selection as the metaphor for preferential decision(google
preferential+ decision) on my wiki and am pointing out that Darwin
used
ns as the metaphor for SoF. You might not like this but it is an
historical fact. SoF is a phrase and an apt shorthand for
the competitionist mythology of gods fighting seemonsters that is
reformulated in each generation as new discoveries are made.
For example we now have the *alleles* in a battle for survival. Clumps
of sheep meat are apparently fighting , we are deep into metaphorical
nonsense.

> As for your comment, diversity can exist and be sustained for traits
> that are not under strong selection. If there's no reproductive
> advantage to either red, brown or blonde hair, all may coexist for a
> long while. But where there is selection, some variations will become
> more prevalent as compared with the others.

Do you mean natural competitive selection, preservation etc ?

Terms, oxymorons and pleonasms aren't meaningless: only sentences can
be meaningless.. Oxymorons can be used as metaphors
in full sentences. The basic problem with ns is that it is used in the
literal sense, instead of metaphorically.

> We give concepts names and may then use
> those names to refer to the concept, trusting that educated people
> will understand. And they do. Every time he repeats "Selection as a
> metaphor for what?", he concedes that he has no argument.

I rest my case.

[ivar]

Two suggestions:

Add a brief, plainer, more everyday description of Darwin's concept of
"natural selection."

Include a definition of fitness compatible with Darwin's thinking and
compare it with Coulter's.

The claim that "mathematical expressions of scientific laws [are]
tautologies" will be controversial. It seems to imply that all of,
e.g., physics, is true, even when it is known to be false. Newton's
law of gravitation is false -- it has been replaced by Einstein's
theory of relativity -- but, according to the new FAQ, it is still
true because it is an equation.

I guess I'm suggesting it would be simpler to reject and replace
Coulter's (etc) definition of fitness with something more Darwinian
than to explain why SOF as a tautology is OK.

I haven't looked at Dead Rat's comments yet.

Ivar

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

No, you pretend his entire work somehow reduces to "survival of the
fittest", because you can't address the actual concept. At the very
least the phrase, taken in isolation, does not describe the cumulative
effect on a population's traits. Darwin wrote an entire book
describing this effect.

> You might not like this but it is an
> historical fact.

Poppycock. But even if Darwin had actually written nothing but
"Survival of the Fittest", page after page after page, it would be of
no import (except that we would never have heard of him). The term
Natural Selection has a clear meaning among biologists and educated
people everywhere, even many who deny evolution.

> SoF is a phrase and an apt shorthand for
> the competitionist mythology of gods fighting seemonsters that is
> reformulated in each generation as new discoveries are made.

Double poppycock. You pretend that a whole book reduces to a catch
phrase, and then attack the catch phrase. You further pretend that all
of modern biology can be invalidated by the specific words used by a
man dead over a hundred years.

> For example we now have the *alleles* in a battle for survival. Clumps
> of sheep meat are apparently fighting , we are deep into metaphorical
> nonsense.

Only when "rephrased" to distort the meaning. Clumps of sheep meat?
Alleles are rather smaller than that. And they aren't fighting. Some
of them (and other DNA bits) help to produce creatures that survive
longer and leave more offspring on average. When that happens, those
DNA bits spread through the population and the characteristics of the
population are changed.

> > As for your comment, diversity can exist and be sustained for traits
> > that are not under strong selection. If there's no reproductive
> > advantage to either red, brown or blonde hair, all may coexist for a
> > long while. But where there is selection, some variations will become
> > more prevalent as compared with the others.
>
> Do you mean natural competitive selection, preservation etc ?
>

I meant what I said.

Natural selection is a bit of language that everyone but you
understands. Perhaps we've located the real problem?

> > We give concepts names and may then use
> > those names to refer to the concept, trusting that educated people
> > will understand. And they do. Every time he repeats "Selection as a
> > metaphor for what?", he concedes that he has no argument.
>
> I  rest my case.

"Rest" as a metaphor for "death", I assume. Hey, what about all the
(still) unanswered stuff above? Nothing?

[Friar Broccoli]

Interesting idea, so perhaps we could look at a specific example and see
how this applies.

Suppose that some individual bird of prey develops a new mutation that
causes a bit of fuzz at the wingtip. Are you saying such a mutation is
impossible?

Now suppose that this change improves performance by say reducing
turbulent drag or make flight quieter, preventing prey from hearing an
impending attack. Is this impossible?

Could such a change increase the likelihood that the bird would catch
more prey?

Would more captured prey tend increase its ability to feed its young?

Would better fed young have a greater likelihood of surviving?

Would some of the surviving young inherit this parents mutation?

Would offspring with this new characteristics qualify as a "trait there
might be in the population"?

So assuming this new trait gets into the population: What would cause
"the population reverts to the mean"?

[Stephanus]

On Oct 17, 2:08 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 22:33:29 -0700 (PDT), Stephanus
>

My statement on reverting to the mean is based on
http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Fleeming_Jenkin
His critique of Darwin's first or second edition I think resulted in
Darwin changing his conclusion as discussed in the Fleeming Jenking
thread
https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/0b107c481fd1badc#

rom the book : WITTGENSTEIN S BEETLE AND OTHER CLASSIC THOUGHT
EXPERIMENTS p. 28
-------------------------
SPECIAL EQUIPMENT NEEDED: a planet suitable for supporting life Darwin
asks Can the principle of selection, which we have seen is
so potent in the hands of man, apply in nature? Well, after some
learned discussion of giraffes with long necks and so on, he goes on:
In order to make it clear how, as I believe, natural selection acts,
must beg permission to give one or two imaginary illustrations. Let
us take the case of a wolf which preys on various animals, securing
some by craft, some by strength, some by fleetness; and let us suppose
that the fleetest prey, a deer for instance, had from any change in
the country increased in numbers, or that other prey had decreased in
numbers, during the season of the year when the wolf is hardest
pressed for food.

And now Darwin s answer is emphatic:
I can under such circumstances see no reason to doubt that the
swiftest and slimmest wolves would have the best chance of surviving,
and so be preserved or selected. (Origin of Species, 1859) Prejudice
against fat wolves not substantiated. But there is a problem
in Darwin s theory. Fleeming Jenkins, of Edinburgh University, at once
pointed out that there is something dubious about the assumption
that such traits could be passed on. Nature tends to iron out
individual differences, not to promote them. If the swiftest, slimmest
wolf is a rare mutant, then that trait, however advantageous, will in
fact die out as the inevitable result of interbreeding.

So, is evolution dead? In the later editions of the Origin of
Species, Charles Darwin makes
some small but significant changes. The emphasis shifts to the
collective effect rather than the individual one. He now writes:
under certain
circumstances individual differences in the curvature or length of the
proboscis etc., too slight to be appreciated by us might
benefit a bee or other insect, so that certain individuals would be
able to obtain their food more quickly than others, and the
communities in
which they belonged would flourish and throw off many swarms
inheriting the same peculiarities. So, struggle over. A thought
experiment led Darwin to significantly change and improve his theory.
In fact, it had to evolve in order to survive.

--
http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wiki

[John Harshman]

Jenkin's objection is based on the assumption of blending inheritance.
Mendel fixed that: inheritance is particulate.

[Greg Guarino]

Which was pointed out to Backspace in the post immediately following the
one he linked to. He has has a strong affinity for circles, much as Ray
is attracted to opposites.

[John Harshman]

I didn't know Stephanus was Backspace. Are you sure? They certainly have
much in common.

[Friar Broccoli]

Full name appears to be:
Stephanus Janse van Rensburg

He posts interleaved with Backspace - perhaps his work account name.

[Ray Martinez]

They are the same person.

Backspace is Stephan Rensburg of South Africa.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

"I tried once or twice to explain to able men what I meant by natural
selection, but signally failed" (Darwin, Autobio:124).

Ray

> > > We give concepts names and may then use
> > > those names to refer to the concept, trusting that educated people
> > > will understand. And they do. Every time he repeats "Selection as a
> > > metaphor for what?", he concedes that he has no argument.
>
> > I  rest my case.
>

> "Rest" as a ...
>
> read more »

[Ray Martinez]

Amy: I have no trouble undertanding Stephan. Your inability to
understand natural selection----the "thing itself"----to be nonsense,
means you do not understand natural selection.

Ray

[backspace]

Yes, because Google periodically messes up google groups with their
new interface, thus I login under
a different alias. Would somebody explain to Google they are spoiling
the Usenet experience for every, 99% of us will not revert to a new
model but the old model.

[Stephanus]

On Oct 18, 3:08 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Terms, oxymorons and pleonasms aren't meaningless: only sentences can
> > > be meaningless.. Oxymorons can be used as metaphors
> > > in full sentences. The basic problem with ns is that it is used in the
> > > literal sense, instead of metaphorically.
>
> > Natural selection is a bit of language that everyone but you
> > understands. Perhaps we've located the real problem?

> "I tried once or twice to explain to able men what I meant by natural
> selection, but signally failed" (Darwin, Autobio:124).

Thanks so much for this, I have added it to
http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Quotations_on_Natural_selection

[Stephanus]

On Oct 18, 3:18 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > Selection as metaphor for what?
>
> > > > And here we see the complete bankruptcy of your position. When cornered,
> > > > which is usually, you fire off one of your bits of boilerplate nonsense.
>
> > > I understand him quite well.
>
> > > Why not show us the alleged nonsense instead of continually
> > > threatening to do so?
>
> > Already done. Natural Selection is not a tautology. But here Backspace
> > is retreating to an even sillier position; that selection, as a
> > "single word" is meaningless. We give concepts names and may then use
> > those names to refer to the concept, trusting that educated people
> > will understand. And they do. Every time he repeats "Selection as a
> > metaphor for what?", he concedes that he has no argument.
>
> Amy: I have no trouble undertanding Stephan. Your inability to
> understand natural selection----the "thing itself"----to be nonsense,
> means you do not understand natural selection.
>
> Ray

AT http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Tautology_Wiki i wrote the
following metaphors:
1) Jesus Christ, Language incarnate, is our syntax cartographer who
spoke the bounds of our grammar into existence 6000 years ago.
2) Computers don't understand metaphors, a physics equation isn't a
metaphor, the variables can be plugged into a computer and a
description of the phenomena provided.

The sentences are laced with metaphor but everybody proficient in
English knows what I mean. Now take the following sentence from
Aristotle:
http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Logical_incoherence
''..: ...Hence in any order in which an act is pure act, it will only
exist, in that order, as a unique and unlimited act. But whenever it
is finite and manifold, it has entered into a true composition with
potency.....''

There is nothing in the words themselves that could indicate what this
paragraph means, making it highly like that if you have to be an
"expert" to understand it we have in reality http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Meaningless_sentence
. If this is even what Aristotle wrote 2500 years ago(manuscripts
heavily edited) it would have been in all probability as metaphor, but
as metaphor for what? Now the same problem with the oxymoron couplet
- natural selection, it is impossible to derive the meaning without
the background knowledge provided by Prof. Milton at
http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Milton_Wain_collection_of_pre_Darwin_authors#milton_wainwright

At http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/may/27/not-so-natural-selection/
Professor Lewontin from Harvard wrote: "... Nothing creates more
misunderstanding of the results of scientific research than
scientists’ use of metaphors. ..."

[Ernest Major]

In message
<7745e79e-7a74-4c93...@b15g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, Amy
Guarino <amy.l....@gmail.com> writes

>> > >> Already incorrect. The *traits* that help individuals have more progeny
>> > >> will become more common in future generations.
>>
>> Diversity exists simultaneously for long periods of time.
>>
>Seems unrelated to the argument at hand. Backspace is arguing that
>Natural Selection is a tautology, chiefly because he thinks "survival
>of the fittest" is all there is to it. He thinks that semantics can
>constrain biology.
>
>As for your comment, diversity can exist and be sustained for traits
>that are not under strong selection. If there's no reproductive
>advantage to either red, brown or blonde hair, all may coexist for a
>long while. But where there is selection, some variations will become
>more prevalent as compared with the others.

There is also frequency-dependent selection, where it is advantageous to
have a rare phenotype. Commonly this occurs for parasite resistance, as
the adaptation of the parasites, with shorter generation time, tracks
the commoner phenotypes. But there are other examples, such as
self-incompatibility alleles in plants.
--
alias Ernest Major

[Greg Guarino]

What they have "in common" is exceedingly uncommon, and very unlikely to
have arisen twice independently. Perhaps Backspace/Stephanus does have
something to teach us about evidence for common descent, if nothing else.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 03:17:50 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:


<snip>

>...because Google periodically messes up google groups with their

>new interface, thus I login under
>a different alias. Would somebody explain to Google they are spoiling
>the Usenet experience for every, 99% of us will not revert to a new
>model but the old model.

Or you could use a newsserver to access Usenet, and a "real"
newsreader, instead of using a Web kludge.

Oh, and BTW, don't let Ray convince you that "Google IS the
Internet!" (and, by inference, Usenet); it's a mania of his,
and, like most of his manias, wrong.
--

Bob C.

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

- McNameless

[Ray Martinez]

Your most welcome.

By the way, it is my position that natural selection is nonsense, and
the only way it becomes "sensible" is when one becomes initiated into
the philosophy of Materialism. Therefore those who do not understand
natural selection as nonsense do not understand natural selection. So
when Greg Guarino (or any other Darwinist) accuses you of not
understanding natural selection----it is they who don't understand. IF
they understood they would readily accept your arguments showing the
falsity of natural selection. Since their minds have been absorbed by
Materialism they are incapable of understanding natural selection
correctly.

Ray

[Mitchell Coffey]

You certainly may explain to Google yourself.

But, back to the point. Do you now understand that your citation of Fleeming Jenkin to support your anachronistic assertion that "the population reverts to the mean" was mistaken? Do you now realize that your tendency to cite, quote, or treat as authoritative extremely old sources - in this case 1867 - faces the fundamental problem that further research is almost certain to have taken place?

Mitchell Coffey

[Greg Guarino]

On 10/18/2012 2:49 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Oct 18, 3:33 am, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 18, 3:08 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Terms, oxymorons and pleonasms aren't meaningless: only sentences can
>>>>> be meaningless.. Oxymorons can be used as metaphors
>>>>> in full sentences. The basic problem with ns is that it is used in the
>>>>> literal sense, instead of metaphorically.
>>
>>>> Natural selection is a bit of language that everyone but you
>>>> understands. Perhaps we've located the real problem?
>>> "I tried once or twice to explain to able men what I meant by natural
>>> selection, but signally failed" (Darwin, Autobio:124).

You put a great deal of stock in this quote for some reason. Darwin,
prior to rigorously writing down his ideas, failed to explain them to
some "able men"; this at a time when there was a large hole in his
theory, no knowledge of the mechanism of inheritance.

Yet you dismiss the millions that Darwin, through his writings, has been
able to explain it to since, including many that deny what they would
call "macroevolution".

>> Thanks so much for this, I have added it tohttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Quotations_on_Natural_selection
>
> Your most welcome.
>
> By the way, it is my position that natural selection is nonsense, and
> the only way it becomes "sensible" is when one becomes initiated into
> the philosophy of Materialism.

The only materialism required for Natural Selection is Mendelian
genetics. Do you accept Mendelian genetics? Meaning, do you accept that
we inherit our biological characteristics through the DNA we receive
from our parents?

Here you will counter that Mendel was a creationist, which really
doesn't answer the question.

If you accept that we inherit our traits biologically (materially, if
you will) from our parents, then the way the population "looks" is bound
to be influenced by which sorts of "parents" have the most offspring. If
that's the furrier dogs, then the population will become furrier on
average. Should the trend continue, the whole population will be furry.

That's Natural Selection, in an even smaller nutshell.

> Therefore those who do not understand
> natural selection as nonsense do not understand natural selection.

That's a nice hermetically sealed box you've built around yourself there.

So
> when Greg Guarino (or any other Darwinist) accuses you of not
> understanding natural selection----it is they who don't understand.

You really have no ability to focus on a particular question. Backspace
tells us that Natural Selection is a tautology. He's wrong. I, among
many others, have told him why. You're arguing something else, as best I
can tell.

IF
> they understood they would readily accept your arguments showing the
> falsity of natural selection.

He hasn't said it's false. He says it's a tautology, claiming that it is
true by definition, and thus meaningless. He does this by "rephrasing";
in every case poorly.

Since their minds have been absorbed by
> Materialism they are incapable of understanding natural selection
> correctly.

You're telling Backspace, of all people, that only those who don't
understand Natural Selection actually understand it properly. There's
exquisite perfection in that level of irony.

[John S. Wilkins]

> > > > >>> My statement on reverting to the mean is based on
> > > > >>>http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Fleeming_Jenkin
> > >
> > > > >> Jenkin's objection is based on the assumption of blending
> > > > >> inheritance. Mendel fixed that: inheritance is particulate.
> > >
> > > > > Which was pointed out to Backspace in the post immediately
> > > > > following the one he linked to. He has has a strong affinity for
> > > > > circles, much as Ray is attracted to opposites.
> > >
> > > > I didn't know Stephanus was Backspace. Are you sure? They certainly
> > > > have much in common.
> > >
> > > They are the same person.
> > >
> > > Backspace is Stephan Rensburg of South Africa.
> > > Ray
> >
> > Yes, because Google periodically messes up google groups with their
> > new interface, thus I login under
> > a different alias. Would somebody explain to Google they are spoiling
> > the Usenet experience for every, 99% of us will not revert to a new
> > model but the old model.
>
> You certainly may explain to Google yourself.
>
> But, back to the point. Do you now understand that your citation of
> Fleeming Jenkin to support your anachronistic assertion that "the
> population reverts to the mean" was mistaken? Do you now realize that your
> tendency to cite, quote, or treat as authoritative extremely old sources -
> in this case 1867 - faces the fundamental problem that further research is
> almost certain to have taken place?
>

Just to make this explicit: the regession of a population to the mean
relies upon inheritance being blending (that was Fleeming Jenkin's
point). But inheritance is not blending, it is discrete, and so the
population can change rather dramatically without regression to the
mean.

[Ray Martinez]

On Oct 18, 1:38 pm, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/18/2012 2:49 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > On Oct 18, 3:33 am, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 18, 3:08 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Terms, oxymorons and pleonasms aren't meaningless: only sentences can
> >>>>> be meaningless.. Oxymorons can be used as metaphors
> >>>>> in full sentences. The basic problem with ns is that it is used in the
> >>>>> literal sense, instead of metaphorically.
>
> >>>> Natural selection is a bit of language that everyone but you
> >>>> understands. Perhaps we've located the real problem?
> >>> "I tried once or twice to explain to able men what I meant by natural
> >>> selection, but signally failed" (Darwin, Autobio:124).
>
> You put a great deal of stock in this quote for some reason. Darwin,
> prior to rigorously writing down his ideas, failed to explain them to
> some "able men"; this at a time when there was a large hole in his
> theory, no knowledge of the mechanism of inheritance.

Darwin recollected that he was unable to convey the concept to certain
scientific men. This means that **these men** did not understand. The
point being: Whenever you or some other Darwinist breaks out the
misunderstanding card against a non-scientist opponent the same is
instantly undermined by Darwin's admission.

>
> Yet you dismiss the millions that Darwin, through his writings, has been
> able to explain it to since, including many that deny what they would
> call "macroevolution".
>

I haven't dismissed----quite the contrary. I have explained these
people as having been initiated into Materialism----that's why they
"understand."

> >> Thanks so much for this, I have added it tohttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Quotations_on_Natural_selection
>
> > Your most welcome.
>
> > By the way, it is my position that natural selection is nonsense, and
> > the only way it becomes "sensible" is when one becomes initiated into
> > the philosophy of Materialism.
>
> The only materialism required for Natural Selection is Mendelian
> genetics. Do you accept Mendelian genetics? Meaning, do you accept that
> we inherit our biological characteristics through the DNA we receive
> from our parents?
>

Natural selection says biological production is caused by known
material things, not an immaterial God. You appear woefully ignorant
in this basic matter.

> Here you will counter that Mendel was a creationist, which really
> doesn't answer the question.
>
> If you accept that we inherit our traits biologically (materially, if
> you will) from our parents, then the way the population "looks" is bound
> to be influenced by which sorts of "parents" have the most offspring. If
> that's the furrier dogs, then the population will become furrier on
> average. Should the trend continue, the whole population will be furry.
>
> That's Natural Selection, in an even smaller nutshell.
>

Inheritance, in and by itself, is not natural selection. Yet that is
exactly what you just said.

> > Therefore those who do not understand
> > natural selection as nonsense do not understand natural selection.
>
> That's a nice hermetically sealed box you've built around yourself there.
>
> So
>
> > when Greg Guarino (or any other Darwinist) accuses you of not
> > understanding natural selection----it is they who don't understand.
>
> You really have no ability to focus on a particular question.

Such as.....

> Backspace
> tells us that Natural Selection is a tautology. He's wrong. I, among
> many others, have told him why. You're arguing something else, as best I
> can tell.
>
> IF
>
> > they understood they would readily accept your arguments showing the
> > falsity of natural selection.
>
> He hasn't said it's false.

True.

> He says it's a tautology, claiming that it is
> true by definition,

Which is also true. How is it that you are unable to see the gimmickry
in defining yourselves correct?

> and thus meaningless. He does this by "rephrasing";
> in every case poorly.
>
> Since their minds have been absorbed by
>
> > Materialism they are incapable of understanding natural selection
> > correctly.
>
> You're telling Backspace, of all people, that only those who don't
> understand Natural Selection actually understand it properly. There's
> exquisite perfection in that level of irony.

No, I've said very plainly: Anyone who doesn't understand natural
selection as nonsense doesn't understand natural selection. Seems you
are also unable to understand any argument that is offered against
natural selection.

Ray

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

On Oct 18, 6:48 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 18, 1:38 pm, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10/18/2012 2:49 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 18, 3:33 am, Stephanus <srensbu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Oct 18, 3:08 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>>> Terms, oxymorons and pleonasms aren't meaningless: only sentences can
> > >>>>> be meaningless.. Oxymorons can be used as metaphors
> > >>>>> in full sentences. The basic problem with ns is that it is used in the
> > >>>>> literal sense, instead of metaphorically.
>
> > >>>> Natural selection is a bit of language that everyone but you
> > >>>> understands. Perhaps we've located the real problem?
> > >>> "I tried once or twice to explain to able men what I meant by natural
> > >>> selection, but signally failed" (Darwin, Autobio:124).
>
> > You put a great deal of stock in this quote for some reason. Darwin,
> > prior to rigorously writing down his ideas, failed to explain them to
> > some "able men"; this at a time when there was a large hole in his
> > theory, no knowledge of the mechanism of inheritance.
>
> Darwin recollected that he was unable to convey the concept to certain
> scientific men. This means that **these men** did not understand. The
> point being: Whenever you or some other Darwinist breaks out the
> misunderstanding card against a non-scientist opponent the same is
> instantly undermined by Darwin's admission

> > Yet you dismiss the millions that Darwin, through his writings, has been
> > able to explain it to since, including many that deny what they would
> > call "macroevolution".
>
> I haven't dismissed----quite the contrary. I have explained these
> people as having been initiated into Materialism----that's why they
> "understand."

Many who understand believe in God. Some of those reject most or all
evolution. So apparently not much materialism is required.

> > >> Thanks so much for this, I have added it tohttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Quotations_on_Natural_selection
>
> > > Your most welcome.
>
> > > By the way, it is my position that natural selection is nonsense, and
> > > the only way it becomes "sensible" is when one becomes initiated into
> > > the philosophy of Materialism.
>
> > The only materialism required for Natural Selection is Mendelian
> > genetics. Do you accept Mendelian genetics? Meaning, do you accept that
> > we inherit our biological characteristics through the DNA we receive
> > from our parents?
>
> Natural selection says biological production is caused by known
> material things, not an immaterial God. You appear woefully ignorant
> in this basic matter.

You didn't answer the question, or at least I don't think you did.
I'll ask it again, more simply this time. Forget for a moment how life
got started; does material biology produce offspring from parent
organisms? Are you - the material bones, flesh, nerves, organs etc.
anyway - the result of the generally accepted biological processes?
Sperm and egg, cell division, DNA, biology and chemistry? Or does God
need to intervene to create each new rhododendron, each new starfish,
each new Martinez?

Now Natural Selection does indeed depend on that much material
biology, but only that much.

> > Here you will counter that Mendel was a creationist, which really
> > doesn't answer the question.
>
> > If you accept that we inherit our traits biologically (materially, if
> > you will) from our parents, then the way the population "looks" is bound
> > to be influenced by which sorts of "parents" have the most offspring. If
> > that's the furrier dogs, then the population will become furrier on
> > average. Should the trend continue, the whole population will be furry.
>
> > That's Natural Selection, in an even smaller nutshell.
>
> Inheritance, in and by itself, is not natural selection. Yet that is
> exactly what you just said.

I think I said more than that. I'll check. Yes, in fact I did say more
than that. It's right up there, the paragraph with the "furry" bits.

> > > Therefore those who do not understand
> > > natural selection as nonsense do not understand natural selection.
>
> > That's a nice hermetically sealed box you've built around yourself there.
>
> > So
>
> > > when Greg Guarino (or any other Darwinist) accuses you of not
> > > understanding natural selection----it is they who don't understand.
>
> > You really have no ability to focus on a particular question.
>
> Such as.....

Such as natural selection as a tautology, the claim under discussion.

> > Backspace
> > tells us that Natural Selection is a tautology. He's wrong. I, among
> > many others, have told him why. You're arguing something else, as best I
> > can tell.
>
> > IF
>
> > > they understood they would readily accept your arguments showing the
> > > falsity of natural selection.
>
> > He hasn't said it's false.
>
> True.
>
> > He says it's a tautology, claiming that it is
> > true by definition,
>
> Which is also true. How is it that you are unable to see the gimmickry
> in defining yourselves correct?

Show me where that us done. As a hint, reducing natural selection to
four words to critique it won't work.

> > and thus meaningless. He does this by "rephrasing";
> > in every case poorly.
>
> > Since their minds have been absorbed by
>
> > > Materialism they are incapable of understanding natural selection
> > > correctly.
>
> > You're telling Backspace, of all people, that only those who don't
> > understand Natural Selection actually understand it properly. There's
> > exquisite perfection in that level of irony.
>
> No, I've said very plainly: Anyone who doesn't understand natural
> selection as nonsense doesn't understand natural selection. Seems you
> are also unable to understand any argument that is offered against
> natural selection.

I haven't seen any from you, none that actually address it in any
detail. Start by explaining how future populations won't increasingly
resemble (possess the traits of) those creatures that contribute the
most progeny to future generations.

[Earle Jones]

In article
<076a8712-50e0-42ee...@q5g2000pbk.googlegroups.com>,
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[...]

>
> They are the same person.
>
> Backspace is Stephan Rensburg of South Africa.
>
> Ray

*
And who is Ray Martinez?

earle
*

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 21:21:32 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Earle Jones
<earle...@comcast.net>:

Who really cares?

[Ray Martinez]

Correction: these people **claim** to believe in God.

> Some of those reject most or all
> evolution. So apparently not much materialism is required.
>

Comment attempts to conceal the fact that **these** people accept
Darwin's main conceptual claim (natural selection/microevolution) to
exist in nature.

As for those who accept species immutability: Greg needs to provide
evidence supporting his claim (that they understand natural
selection). But I admit that it is **possible.**

Yet even if a fixist understands natural selection the exception
doesn't explain the rule. And we have very many evo arguments that
dismiss those who reject evolution as misunderstanding. Greg needs to
offer an explanation here.

>
> > > >> Thanks so much for this, I have added it tohttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Quotations_on_Natural_selection
>
> > > > Your most welcome.
>
> > > > By the way, it is my position that natural selection is nonsense, and
> > > > the only way it becomes "sensible" is when one becomes initiated into
> > > > the philosophy of Materialism.
>
> > > The only materialism required for Natural Selection is Mendelian
> > > genetics. Do you accept Mendelian genetics? Meaning, do you accept that
> > > we inherit our biological characteristics through the DNA we receive
> > > from our parents?
>
> > Natural selection says biological production is caused by known
> > material things, not an immaterial God. You appear woefully ignorant
> > in this basic matter.
>
> You didn't answer the question, or at least I don't think you did.
> I'll ask it again, more simply this time. Forget for a moment how life
> got started; does material biology produce offspring from parent
> organisms? Are you �- the material bones, flesh, nerves, organs etc.
> anyway - the result of the generally accepted biological processes?
> Sperm and egg, cell division, DNA, biology and chemistry?

Yes, most living things were born. What's the point?

> Or does God
> need to intervene to create each new rhododendron, each new starfish,
> each new Martinez?
>

Nobody ever denied ordinary sexual reproduction.

The main issue of dispute in the Creo-Evo debate is how sexually
reproducing species (Paley's watches) come to exist in nature?

> Now Natural Selection does indeed depend on that much material
> biology, but only that much.
>

Natural selection is much more than ordinary reproduction. The claim
made in behalf of the concept is that it, not God, causes species
(Paley's watches) to exist in nature. The claim is fully material (=
Materialism). I fail to see what you don't understand?

> > > Here you will counter that Mendel was a creationist, which really
> > > doesn't answer the question.
>
> > > If you accept that we inherit our traits biologically (materially, if
> > > you will) from our parents, then the way the population "looks" is bound
> > > to be influenced by which sorts of "parents" have the most offspring. If
> > > that's the furrier dogs, then the population will become furrier on
> > > average. Should the trend continue, the whole population will be furry.
>
> > > That's Natural Selection, in an even smaller nutshell.
>
> > Inheritance, in and by itself, is not natural selection. Yet that is
> > exactly what you just said.
>
> I think I said more than that. I'll check. Yes, in fact I did say more
> than that. It's right up there, the paragraph with the "furry" bits.
>
> > > > Therefore those who do not understand
> > > > natural selection as nonsense do not understand natural selection.
>
> > > That's a nice hermetically sealed box you've built around yourself there.
>
> > > So
>
> > > > when Greg Guarino (or any other Darwinist) accuses you of not
> > > > understanding natural selection----it is they who don't understand.
>
> > > You really have no ability to focus on a particular question.
>
> > Such as.....
>
> Such as natural selection as a tautology, the claim under discussion.
>

Okay....is natural selection true by definition, yes or no?

> > > Backspace
> > > tells us that Natural Selection is a tautology. He's wrong. I, among
> > > many others, have told him why. You're arguing something else, as best I
> > > can tell.
>
> > > IF
>
> > > > they understood they would readily accept your arguments showing the
> > > > falsity of natural selection.
>
> > > He hasn't said it's false.
>
> > True.
>
> > > He says it's a tautology, claiming that it is
> > > true by definition,
>
> > Which is also true. How is it that you are unable to see the gimmickry
> > in defining yourselves correct?
>
> Show me where that us done. As a hint, reducing natural selection to
> four words to critique it won't work.
>

Does acceptance of the existence of variation, inheritance and
differential reproduction mean natural selection does occur?

>
> > > and thus meaningless. He does this by "rephrasing";
> > > in every case poorly.

He shows each and every time how ridiculous the claim is. I have
explained your inability to understand.

>
> > > Since their minds have been absorbed by
>
> > > > Materialism they are incapable of understanding natural selection
> > > > correctly.
>
> > > You're telling Backspace, of all people, that only those who don't
> > > understand Natural Selection actually understand it properly. There's
> > > exquisite perfection in that level of irony.
>
> > No, I've said very plainly: Anyone who doesn't understand natural
> > selection as nonsense doesn't understand natural selection. Seems you
> > are also unable to understand any argument that is offered against
> > natural selection.
>
> I haven't seen any from you, none that actually address it in any
> detail. Start by explaining how future populations won't increasingly
> resemble (possess the traits of) those creatures that contribute the
> most progeny to future generations.

Request presupposes natural and cumulative selection true by
definition. Yet Greg rejects natural selection to be a tautology.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

On 10/22/12 1:42 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Oct 18, 6:48 pm, "g...@risky-biz.com" <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:

snip

>>> I haven't dismissed----quite the contrary. I have explained these
>>> people as having been initiated into Materialism----that's why they
>>> "understand."
>>
>> Many who understand believe in God.
>
> Correction: these people **claim** to believe in God.

You too claim to believe in God. Why is their claim any less valid than
yours?

>
>> Some of those reject most or all
>> evolution. So apparently not much materialism is required.
>>
>
> Comment attempts to conceal the fact that **these** people accept
> Darwin's main conceptual claim (natural selection/microevolution) to
> exist in nature.

The fact is that natural selection and microevolution are both directly
observed to happen in nature. Darwin was correct, and even die hard
creationists can't honestly deny it.

>
> As for those who accept species immutability: Greg needs to provide
> evidence supporting his claim (that they understand natural
> selection). But I admit that it is **possible.**
>
> Yet even if a fixist understands natural selection the exception
> doesn't explain the rule.

What 'rule'? It's only you who claims not to understand the idea that
those organisms which produce the most offspring will be
disproportionally represented in the next generation.

> And we have very many evo arguments that
> dismiss those who reject evolution as misunderstanding.

That's because they are addressing those who equate natural selection
with "only the most savage survive".

> Greg needs to
> offer an explanation here.

And Ray needs to explain why he rejects what has been directly observed
to happen.

>
>>
>>>>>> Thanks so much for this, I have added it tohttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Quotations_on_Natural_selection
>>
>>>>> Your most welcome.
>>
>>>>> By the way, it is my position that natural selection is nonsense, and
>>>>> the only way it becomes "sensible" is when one becomes initiated into
>>>>> the philosophy of Materialism.
>>
>>>> The only materialism required for Natural Selection is Mendelian
>>>> genetics. Do you accept Mendelian genetics? Meaning, do you accept that
>>>> we inherit our biological characteristics through the DNA we receive
>>>> from our parents?
>>
>>> Natural selection says biological production is caused by known
>>> material things, not an immaterial God. You appear woefully ignorant
>>> in this basic matter.

There's nothing about natural selection which could possibly rule out
the existence of an immaterial God. Biological production is a material
process, no matter if it is entirely material, or has an ultimate
"immaterial" cause.

>>
>> You didn't answer the question, or at least I don't think you did.
>> I'll ask it again, more simply this time. Forget for a moment how life
>> got started; does material biology produce offspring from parent
>> organisms? Are you - the material bones, flesh, nerves, organs etc.
>> anyway - the result of the generally accepted biological processes?
>> Sperm and egg, cell division, DNA, biology and chemistry?
>
> Yes, most living things were born. What's the point?

The point you are missing, Ray, is that development of a material being
from material components is a material event. He's asking if you
accept that the production of a new individual, from conception to
death, involves material processes.

Whatever influence an "immaterial" being might have, the process by
which an organism develops is material.

>
>> Or does God
>> need to intervene to create each new rhododendron, each new starfish,
>> each new Martinez?
>>
>
> Nobody ever denied ordinary sexual reproduction.

The question is, if God does not make use of material processes, what is
the point of "ordinary sexual reproduction"? Why would a creator who
must micromanage everything allow the random combination of genes
produced by sexual reproduction? Why add that element of chance at
all? Why isn't God simply creating replacements out of clay, if that's
how he created the originals?

>
> The main issue of dispute in the Creo-Evo debate is how sexually
> reproducing species (Paley's watches) come to exist in nature?

Of course, that's not the 'main issue', as science seeks to explain the
existence of all living things, not just a subset of life. It's only
you, Ray who makes this artificial, and irrational distinction.

>
>> Now Natural Selection does indeed depend on that much material
>> biology, but only that much.
>>
>
> Natural selection is much more than ordinary reproduction.

Natural selection is differential reproductive success, as has been
explained to you, over and over. It involves 'ordinary reproduction',
with some variants accomplishing that "ordinary reproduction" more than
other variants in that population.

> The claim
> made in behalf of the concept is that it, not God, causes species
> (Paley's watches) to exist in nature.

Of course, natural selection does not rule out a belief that God exists,
or that God is making use of natural selection to produce new species.
Natural selection, by itself, is insufficient to produce a new
species, but natural selection, combined with random variation in a
population is sufficient.

> The claim is fully material (=
> Materialism). I fail to see what you don't understand?

What you don't seem to understand, Ray, is that the existence of
material processes does not rule out the existence of a supernatural
being. All processes that operate in the universe today are "fully
material". It's not just natural selection that is "fully material".
Every last process, from condensation, producing rain, to sexual
reproduction producing babies, is "fully material". Any supernatural
role is above, and beyond the material.
snip

>>>> You really have no ability to focus on a particular question.
>>
>>> Such as.....
>>
>> Such as natural selection as a tautology, the claim under discussion.
>>
>
> Okay....is natural selection true by definition, yes or no?

No. Natural selection is true, but not by definition. Natural
selection is true because it can be observed happening.

>
>>>> Backspace
>>>> tells us that Natural Selection is a tautology. He's wrong. I, among
>>>> many others, have told him why. You're arguing something else, as best I
>>>> can tell.
>>
>>>> IF
>>
>>>>> they understood they would readily accept your arguments showing the
>>>>> falsity of natural selection.
>>
>>>> He hasn't said it's false.
>>
>>> True.
>>
>>>> He says it's a tautology, claiming that it is
>>>> true by definition,
>>
>>> Which is also true. How is it that you are unable to see the gimmickry
>>> in defining yourselves correct?
>>
>> Show me where that us done. As a hint, reducing natural selection to
>> four words to critique it won't work.
>>
>
> Does acceptance of the existence of variation, inheritance and
> differential reproduction mean natural selection does occur?

Differential reproductive success, Ray. Not just "differential
reproduction". The word "success" here is very important.

If you accept that variation happens in a population, and that
variation is inherited, that's part of the process. What's missing is
that some of those variants reproduce more than others, due to some
environmental factor. That's reproductive success.

>
>>
>>>> and thus meaningless. He does this by "rephrasing";
>>>> in every case poorly.
>
> He shows each and every time how ridiculous the claim is.

Actually, he just shows how ridiculous he himself is.

> I have
> explained your inability to understand.

Making up fantasies about others is not the same as an explanation.

>
>>
>>>> Since their minds have been absorbed by
>>
>>>>> Materialism they are incapable of understanding natural selection
>>>>> correctly.
>>
>>>> You're telling Backspace, of all people, that only those who don't
>>>> understand Natural Selection actually understand it properly. There's
>>>> exquisite perfection in that level of irony.
>>
>>> No, I've said very plainly: Anyone who doesn't understand natural
>>> selection as nonsense doesn't understand natural selection. Seems you
>>> are also unable to understand any argument that is offered against
>>> natural selection.
>>
>> I haven't seen any from you, none that actually address it in any
>> detail. Start by explaining how future populations won't increasingly
>> resemble (possess the traits of) those creatures that contribute the
>> most progeny to future generations.
>
> Request presupposes natural and cumulative selection true by
> definition. Yet Greg rejects natural selection to be a tautology.

Nothing Greg has said indicates he believes that selection is "true by
definition". You are just using wishful thinking.


DJT




>
> Ray
>

[Amy Guarino]

And you somehow know that they do not? There's that terribly jaundiced
view of mankind Ray.

> > Some of those reject most or all
> > evolution. So apparently not much materialism is required.
>
> Comment attempts to conceal the fact that **these** people accept
> Darwin's main conceptual claim (natural selection/microevolution) to
> exist in nature.

There are indeed people like that. You mentioned Kleinman as an
example. He agrees that Natural Selection operates in nature -
producing things like bacterial resistance - but argues that it is too
slow to produce the differences we see between reptiles and birds, or
chimps and humans.

> As for those who accept species immutability: Greg needs to provide
> evidence supporting his claim (that they understand natural
> selection). But I admit that it is **possible.**
>
> Yet even if a fixist understands natural selection the exception
> doesn't explain the rule. And we have very many evo arguments that
> dismiss those who reject evolution as misunderstanding. Greg needs to
> offer an explanation here.

I claim that those that don't understand Natural Selection don't
understand Natural Selection, that's true. But I don't know too many
like that.

> > > > >> Thanks so much for this, I have added it tohttp://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Quotations_on_Natural_selection
>
> > > > > Your most welcome.
>
> > > > > By the way, it is my position that natural selection is nonsense, and
> > > > > the only way it becomes "sensible" is when one becomes initiated into
> > > > > the philosophy of Materialism.
>
> > > > The only materialism required for Natural Selection is Mendelian
> > > > genetics. Do you accept Mendelian genetics? Meaning, do you accept that
> > > > we inherit our biological characteristics through the DNA we receive
> > > > from our parents?
>
> > > Natural selection says biological production is caused by known
> > > material things, not an immaterial God. You appear woefully ignorant
> > > in this basic matter.
>
> > You didn't answer the question, or at least I don't think you did.
> > I'll ask it again, more simply this time. Forget for a moment how life
> > got started; does material biology produce offspring from parent
> > organisms? Are you  - the material bones, flesh, nerves, organs etc.
> > anyway - the result of the generally accepted biological processes?
> > Sperm and egg, cell division, DNA, biology and chemistry?
>
> Yes, most living things were born. What's the point?

The point, as was obvious, was that standard biological heredity is
the only "materialism" you need accept to understand Natural
Selection.

>
> > Or does God
> > need to intervene to create each new rhododendron, each new starfish,
> > each new Martinez?
>
> Nobody ever denied ordinary sexual reproduction.

Good.

> The main issue of dispute in the Creo-Evo debate is how sexually
> reproducing species (Paley's watches) come to exist in nature?

Focus. We're discussing whether Natural Selection operates at all.
You deny this.

> > Now Natural Selection does indeed depend on that much material
> > biology, but only that much.
>
> Natural selection is much more than ordinary reproduction.

Natural selection is a consequence of ordinary (unequal) reproduction,
in the presence of variation.

> The claim
> made in behalf of the concept is that it, not God, causes species
> (Paley's watches) to exist in nature.

The claim is that Natural Selection is part of the explanation for the
divergence of different species, however the first life may have
arisen.

The claim is fully material (=
> Materialism). I fail to see what you don't understand?
>

It is claimed to operate materially, by the material processes of
heredity that you say you accept.

> > > > Here you will counter that Mendel was a creationist, which really
> > > > doesn't answer the question.
>
> > > > If you accept that we inherit our traits biologically (materially, if
> > > > you will) from our parents, then the way the population "looks" is bound
> > > > to be influenced by which sorts of "parents" have the most offspring. If
> > > > that's the furrier dogs, then the population will become furrier on
> > > > average. Should the trend continue, the whole population will be furry.
>
> > > > That's Natural Selection, in an even smaller nutshell.
>
> > > Inheritance, in and by itself, is not natural selection. Yet that is
> > > exactly what you just said.
>
> > I think I said more than that. I'll check. Yes, in fact I did say more
> > than that. It's right up there, the paragraph with the "furry" bits.

Did you miss this part, again?
'

> > > > > Therefore those who do not understand
> > > > > natural selection as nonsense do not understand natural selection.
>
> > > > That's a nice hermetically sealed box you've built around yourself there.
>
> > > > So
>
> > > > > when Greg Guarino (or any other Darwinist) accuses you of not
> > > > > understanding natural selection----it is they who don't understand.
>
> > > > You really have no ability to focus on a particular question.
>
> > > Such as.....
>
> > Such as natural selection as a tautology, the claim under discussion.
>
> Okay....is natural selection true by definition, yes or no?

No. It requires certain conditions, namely variation, incomplete and
unequal reproduction and a system of *particulate* heredity in which
creatures inherit their traits from their parent(s). As it requires
conditions, it is not true by definition.

>
> > > > Backspace
> > > > tells us that Natural Selection is a tautology. He's wrong. I, among
> > > > many others, have told him why. You're arguing something else, as best I
> > > > can tell.
>
> > > > IF
>
> > > > > they understood they would readily accept your arguments showing the
> > > > > falsity of natural selection.
>
> > > > He hasn't said it's false.
>
> > > True.
>
> > > > He says it's a tautology, claiming that it is
> > > > true by definition,
>
> > > Which is also true. How is it that you are unable to see the gimmickry
> > > in defining yourselves correct?
>
> > Show me where that us done. As a hint, reducing natural selection to
> > four words to critique it won't work.
>
> Does acceptance of the existence of variation, inheritance and
> differential reproduction mean natural selection does occur?

Given variation, *particulate* inheritance and differential
reproduction, I can see no easy way to avoid Natural Selection.

> > > > and thus meaningless. He does this by "rephrasing";
> > > > in every case poorly.
>
> He shows each and every time how ridiculous the claim is.  I have
> explained your inability to understand.

At best he "shows" that if Darwin had written a four-word book
("Survival of the fittest") he wouldn't have said very much. But when
confronted with a truer description of Natural Selection, he has no
answer.

> > > > Since their minds have been absorbed by
>
> > > > > Materialism they are incapable of understanding natural selection
> > > > > correctly.
>
> > > > You're telling Backspace, of all people, that only those who don't
> > > > understand Natural Selection actually understand it properly. There's
> > > > exquisite perfection in that level of irony.
>
> > > No, I've said very plainly: Anyone who doesn't understand natural
> > > selection as nonsense doesn't understand natural selection. Seems you
> > > are also unable to understand any argument that is offered against
> > > natural selection.
>
> > I haven't seen any from you, none that actually address it in any
> > detail. Start by explaining how future populations won't increasingly
> > resemble (possess the traits of) those creatures that contribute the
> > most progeny to future generations.
>
> Request presupposes natural and cumulative selection true by
> definition. Yet Greg rejects natural selection to be a tautology.

It is not true by definition. It is true due to the properties of
heredity that happen to exist in life as we know it. Now how about
tackling the actual question I asked? *Given the system of biological
heredity that you claim to accept*, explain how future populations

won't increasingly resemble (possess the traits of) those creatures
that contribute the most progeny to future generations.

Greg Guarino - who has yet again forgotten to check whose account is
signed in on this computer.

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

On Oct 23, 12:13�am, Amy Guarino <amy.l.guar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Given variation, *particulate* inheritance and differential
> reproduction, I can see no easy way to avoid Natural Selection.

Howard will likely chime in here that there are indeed niches right
here on Earth in which there is no differential reproduction
associated with the heritable traits of a particular population, and
thus no selection in progress. This is likely true, but a temporary
condition.

[Ray Martinez]

Are you and Amy related?

Ray

[backspace]

How does *selection* "operate" non-metaphorically? For what did
Kleinman use selection, preservation(Darwin's preferred term) or
cultivation(Artificial cultivation Zoonomia) as a metaphor.

[Greg Guarino]

Indeed. As I mentioned in my other (longer) post, I'm still using the
dreaded Google Groups on that computer and I frequently forget to check
who is "signed in".

As far as I know I (Greg) am the only Guarino on Talk.Origins. There is
also a "Greg G" who seems like a fine fellow, but he isn't me.

The addendum above can really be ignored for the purposes of what we
were discussing, but I endeavor to be clear.

[Greg Guarino]

Don't care. It's just more evasion. The meaning of what I wrote is
clear. Try addressing it, including what you snipped. For a guy who
claims not to know what Natural Selection is, you manage to snip the
"difficult" parts of opposing arguments with great precision.

[Ray Martinez]

"Indeed," what?

Could you please answer a simple question?

What is your relation to Amy?

Or are you outing yourself as transgender?

Your answer is about as clear as your explications of natural
selection.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Stephan: Where did you obtain the idea that the phrase "natural
selection" (or each term separately) is metaphoric?

Darwin never claimed "natural selection" was a metaphor.

The claim is that "artificial selection" is the metaphor, not natural
selection.

Ray

[Amy Guarino]

Indeed, as in "yes", Amy and I are related. But as I have explained, I
sometimes forget that she has signed into the computer and my posts
are labeled with the wrong name. As I wrote above, all of the posts
are mine.

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

And anyone looking for the definition of irony need only look here. I
have in fact done it again.

[Stephanus]

... In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, Natural Selection is a
false term; ....- Charles Darwin
OoS 1863...


http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Darwin_metaphor I list paragraphs
where Darwin said he used ns as a metaphor.

http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Preferential_decision I used
natural(preferential) selection(decision) as the metaphor for the
making of a preferential decision. Because ns is like free gift is a
term I am free to use in any sentence for any purpose. IF natural
selection the term had a fixed meaning, then English itself would
grind to a halt. The issue is not what does the oxymoron ns or the
pleonasm free gift mean but what does one mean and the meaning was
defined by Patric Matthew in a full paragraph.
http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Patrick_Matthew

Only sentences have meaning not terms. The oxymoron natural selection
like the Pleonasm free gift is of the wrong syntactic structure on
semantic grounds to be an oxymoron or tautology. Patrick Matthew's
concept that Darwin lifted is an issue of pragmatics.
Oxymorons are not contradictions in the same way that pleonasm are not
tautologies.