Difference between randomness and automated selection
backspace
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html
"...Sober [1984:99] illustrates the process in this way: imagine a
child's toy that has numbers of three different size balls in a
container, with two internal layers that have increasingly smaller
holes in them. Shaking the toy (a randomising process) increases the
likelihood that the smaller balls will pass through the first filter,
and that the smallest balls through the second. The smallest balls
are, in effect, the most "fit" (or make the best fit) and make it
through to the bottom. There has been a selection, or sorting, process
which results in the smallest balls making it to the bottom...."
Sober confused http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness with
''automated selection''. Lets mix the different size balls in a pot,
then we select out the smaller balls by hand, this is a directed, non-
random filtering process by a human.
(Aristotelians would write directed while theists directed as per
[[Naming Conventions]]. Some believe that "novel accidents" are
continually taking place in trillions of possible parallel universes
including the small balls being selected3 out - it was just a novel
accident in parallel universe 154trillion).
In order to automate the process the person designs a toy that will
allow specific size balls to pass through the layers and be selected2
out. The toy didn't make2 itself, it was designed with a purpose2 -
automating the filtering2 process.
Sober's toy example isn't a randomness or randomizing process but a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sample - (probability
sampling) automated design process.
hersheyh
> === Equivocation between randomness and automated selection ===http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html
> sampling) automated design process.
Natural selection is an "automatic" filtering process similar (but not
identical) to the one that filters out (or in) different sized balls.
[The local 'environment' acts as the sieve in this analogy.]
Randomness arises from the fact that some small fraction of the
'balls' are not static in size, but have randomly mutated to a
different size before each iteration of the filtering event. And each
generation undergoes a new filtering process (i.e., it is not a one-
time event). Analogies are only useful to the extent that they are
similar.
hersheyh
> sampling) automated design process.
If you want to ask what happens in a completely random process with no
selection allowed, you need to think about the drunkard's walk.
Long and short of it is that whether there is natural selection or
not, there will be change in gene frequencies. The only way that
there is the appearance (but not the reality) of gene frequency stasis
is when there is conserving natural selection. IOW, the appearance of
stasis acheived by a dynamic process of selective filtering.
aganunitsi
> === Equivocation between randomness and automated selection ===http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html
> sampling) automated design process.
The toy is a good example of how adding energy to (some) open systems
can decrease the entropy within the system (increased order).
Now expand on that. Can anyone demonstrate a filter that would occur
naturally, or must all filters be the product of an intelligent
manufacturing process?
If a naturally occurring filter benefits the existence of more
filterers and filterees (that which is filtered), you get a symbiotic
relationship. And then, if either the filterer or filteree is capable
of gradual changes over time, you get an evolutionary process.
Like a cell membrane with ion channels.
backspace
Depends whether you use filter in the patter or design sense as per
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Naming_Conventions
> If a naturally occurring filter benefits the existence of more
> filterers and filterees (that which is filtered), you get a symbiotic
> relationship.
This is a rhetorical tautology or a logical validity depending on
intent.
> And then, if either the filterer or filteree is capable
> of gradual changes over time, you get an evolutionary process.
> Like a cell membrane with ion channels.
Which is a non-sequitur from your previous tautology3.
backspace
Is it an automatic or feedback automatic process? Wilkins wrote in the
same article: "....Natural selection in modern science is a feedback
process....."
aganunitsi
<snip>
> > If a naturally occurring filter benefits the existence of more
> > filterers and filterees (that which is filtered), you get a symbiotic
> > relationship.
>
> This is a rhetorical tautology or a logical validity depending on
> intent.
It's a logical validity regardless of intent. An intentless computer
could have spit it out as a randomly generated string of words and it
would still be logically valid.
>
> > And then, if either the filterer or filteree is capable
> > of gradual changes over time, you get an evolutionary process.
> > Like a cell membrane with ion channels.
>
> Which is a non-sequitur from your previous tautology3.
Nope, it is a statement that requires the previous statement for
validity. See the definition for non-sequitur, Señor Palabras No
Tienen Significado. If the filterer/filteree system isn't self
perpetuating in some way, such as symbiosis, gradual changes over time
do not get you an evolutionary process, they get you increased entropy.
backspace
> On Jun 17, 9:14�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > > If a naturally occurring filter benefits the existence of more
> > > filterers and filterees (that which is filtered), you get a symbiotic
> > > relationship.
>
> > This is a rhetorical tautology or a logical validity depending on
> > intent.
>
> It's a logical validity regardless of intent. An intentless computer
> could have spit it out as a randomly generated string of words and it
> would still be logically valid.
>
>
>
> > > And then, if either the filterer or filteree is capable
> > > of gradual changes over time, you get an evolutionary process.
> > > Like a cell membrane with ion channels.
>
> > Which is a non-sequitur from your previous tautology3.
>
> Nope, it is a statement that requires the previous statement for
> Tienen Significado. If the filterer/filteree system isn't self
> perpetuating in some way, such as symbiosis, gradual changes over time
> do not get you an evolutionary process, they get you increased entropy.
You wrote:
"...If a naturally occurring filter benefits the existence of more
filterers and filterees (that which is filtered), you get a symbiotic
relationship. And then, if either the filterer or filteree is capable
of gradual changes over time, you get an evolutionary process...."
Their beneficial existence implies symbiosis , beneficial and
symbiosis alludes to the same fact, it is says the same thing twice ,
making your conclusion a non-sequitur.
aganunitsi
<syllosnipstic fallacy>
> "...If a naturally occurring filter benefits the existence of more
> filterers and filterees (that which is filtered), you get a symbiotic
> relationship. And then, if either the filterer or filteree is capable
> of gradual changes over time, you get an evolutionary process...."
>
> Their beneficial existence implies symbiosis , beneficial and
> symbiosis alludes to the same fact, it is says the same thing twice ,
> making your conclusion a non-sequitur.
Nope, there are beneficial relationships that are not universally
defined as symbiotic. "Alluding to" and "implying" are not "saying (as
is )". I outlined the starting conditions, which has potential for
symbiosis, and then clarified with my definition of the resulting
situation. You bitch about "words have no meaning", then you have a
problem with me outlining the situation that defines the word I use.
And actually it's your final clause that is the non-sequitur, even
assuming your first two clauses were true.
A. You have two initial premises that say the same thing twice
B. Therefore your conclusion is a non-sequitur (false - non-sequitur)
A. My name is Steve
B. My name is Steve
C. Therefore my name is spelled S-T-E-V-E (true)
backspace
> On Jun 17, 10:15 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <syllosnipstic fallacy>
>
> > "...If a naturally occurring filter benefits the existence of more
> > filterers and filterees (that which is filtered), you get a symbiotic
> > relationship. And then, if either the filterer or filteree is capable
> > of gradual changes over time, you get an evolutionary process...."
>
> > Their beneficial existence implies symbiosis , beneficial and
> > symbiosis alludes to the same fact, it is says the same thing twice ,
> > making your conclusion a non-sequitur.
>
> Nope, there are beneficial relationships that are not universally
> defined as symbiotic.
Since words don't mean anything they can't have definitions: Only
ideas are defined. The idea you represented with beneficial is the
same represented with symbiotic, in the context used they alluded to
the same fact. The idea represented with "selectus" 2000 years ago was
defined as decision for example, today different ideas are
represented.
Quark is defined as meaning anything: Only the concept of a German
cheese or atomic particle can be defined. "Quark" is the semantic
symbolic representation of either or both ideas depending on how the
user wields the tool. "Quark" is a tool it has no meaning, thus can't
have any definitional meaning either.
backspace
Are you using Selection the pattern or designs sense as per :
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Naming_Conventions
> Long and short of it is that whether there is natural selection or
> not, there will be change in gene frequencies.
Begging the question here, I am not conceding that "natural selection"
is even a valid term. If I did concede, then the sentence wouldn't be
circular reasoning.
> The only way that
> there is the appearance (but not the reality) of gene frequency stasis
> is when there is conserving natural selection.
Where are we now, Darwin didn't know about genes ....
aganunitsi
A. Words represent ideas
B. Ideas are defined
C. Therefore, a word that represents an idea shares the definition of
that idea, dumbass
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In order to automate the process the person designs a toy that will
>allow specific size balls to pass through the layers and be selected2
>out. The toy didn't make2 itself, it was designed with a purpose2 -
>automating the filtering2 process.
>
>Sober's toy example isn't a randomness or randomizing process but a
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sample - (probability
>sampling) automated design process.
a scientist creates lightening in a lab. does this prove all
lightenin is inteligently designed?
really....you people need to start thinking instead of bleating
slogans
hersheyh
Tell me what *you* think distinguishes the two phrases: "automatic
feedback process" or "feedback process". If you are using "automatic"
to mean that there is no need for intelligent intervention by a
sentient outside agent, then *natural* selection is automatic and
*artificial* selection is not, as the latter requires repeated
intervention by humans.
hersheyh
Selection is a process or mechanism. Whether what it produces is
called "pattern" or "design" is determined by the observer's defining
convention. If the observer requires that "design" be produced by an
intelligent entity, then *natural* selection is not design and
*artificial* selection is.
> > Long and short of it is that whether there is natural selection or
> > not, there will be change in gene frequencies.
>
> Begging the question here, I am not conceding that "natural selection"
> is even a valid term. If I did concede, then the sentence wouldn't be
> circular reasoning.
Whether or not you regard "natural selection" to be 'valid' is
irrelevant in the face of the fact that the process biologists
describe as "natural selection" exists both experimentally and in the
wild. That description (fundamentally, environmentally caused
differential reproductive success of phenotypes) differs significantly
from the catch phrase "survival of the fittest". The process
described by the term "neutral drift" also exists. With the sole
exception of "conservative or stabilizing natural selection", all the
other processes lead to change in allele frequencies. And that
exception, "conservative or stabilizing natural selection", only
produces the false appearance of stasis. It is a dynamic process.
> > The only way that
> > there is the appearance (but not the reality) of gene frequency stasis
> > is when there is conserving natural selection.
>
> Where are we now, Darwin didn't know about genes ....
SFW? He also used the phrase "survival of the fittest" (or, rather,
borrowed it from Spenser) that no one uses today. But he also, in his
books, qualified that phrase to include what we now describe as
environmentally caused differential reproductive success (rather than
just survival). Note that in my definition, I did not use the term
'genotype' but the term 'phenotype' to describe what is undergoing
selection. 'Phenotype' is what Darwin could see and describe
(although not at the gene level). I do point out that only if
'phenotype' has a hereditary component will there be a change in the
frequencies such hereditary features (which we now call 'genes' and
their 'alleles'). That is because the process of selection does not
care if the deer was born without a leg because of exposure to
thalidomide, lost it in a trap, or had a hereditary defect that caused
the defect. But only in the last case would there be any evolutionary
consequences. Since I did not use 'genes' in my definition, you are
still up shit creek without a paddle trying to find some other excuse
to avoid actually dealing with the process that *does* exist in *real*
nature whether or not you accept some particular 'phrase'.
David Hare-Scott
Did you create this inexact analogy in a pattern sense or a design sense?
What does its failure say about you its creator?
David
backspace
In control theory a "feedback" involves non-linear and linear
responses. IF the transfer function changes as the input changes, the
transfer function is non-linear. To those not skilled in the art
"feedback" is used as a quasi-sophisticated weasel word they hijacked
in the continuation of the Aristotelian tautoligification of society.
What then distinguishes "automatic feedback process" or "feedback
process" ? Since the phrases have no meaning, what could be
distinguished is only the ideas represented with them in a specific
context given the knowledge of the users. With two control engineers
they would involve vivid imagery of Laplace transformations and
toppling robots.
With a little 6-year old Empedoclian having his thinking tautologified
within a black/white dichotomy, it would become yet another pseudo-
sophisticated weasel word like "phenotypic plasticity" that he would
mix with the Aristotelian tautological core: Those constituted weren't
perishable while those not constituted were perishable.
monke...@gmail.com
Words have no meaning so all I read from your response was, "blah blah
blah I'm a stupid douchebag." Was this your intent?
backspace
> He also used the phrase "survival of the fittest" (or, rather,
> borrowed it from Spenser) that no one uses today.
SoF and NS was but different symbols for the same idea. SoF like NS
has no meaning, only the idea represented with the symbols has
meaning. Darwin referred to Spencer:|".... one of the greatest
thinkers in the history of mankind...." Especially Spencer's part
about ".... blacks responding to their white masters like tail wagging
cocker spaniels ....." must have been really intellectually awh
inspiring back then!
> But he also, in his
> books, qualified that phrase to include what we now describe as
> environmentally caused differential reproductive success (rather than
> just survival).
He never said DRS , I see you at least now concede this point.
> Note that in my definition, I did not use the term
> 'genotype' but the term 'phenotype' to describe what is undergoing
> selection.
phenotype like genotype has no meaning, it depends what idea is being
represented with the words.
I do point out that only if
> 'phenotype' has a hereditary component will there be a change in the
> frequencies such hereditary features (which we now call 'genes' and
> their 'alleles'). That is because the process of selection does not
> care if the deer was born without a leg because of exposure to
> thalidomide, lost it in a trap, or had a hereditary defect that caused
> the defect.
Is this process a pattern or design or "design subset of pattern"
process?
> But only in the last case would there be any evolutionary
> consequences.
Is evolutionary consequence a pattern or design?
hersheyh
Not at the present time. And you have been using SoF as if it were a
perfect definition of what biologists mean by NS. It isn't and never
had been. SoF is archaic and has been dropped because of its
confusing and erroneous implications. SoF, taken literally, only
describes some of the features of NS. Like I said, even "survival of
the fitter" is better. But I have given you a better *definition* of
NS; one that is actually in current usage. That is the one you need
to argue against, not game-play with SoF as if it described NS
literally.
>SoF like NS
> has no meaning, only the idea represented with the symbols has
> meaning.
And that is something you have shown no ability to understand because
you are focused solely on the words and not on the idea represented by
the words.
>Darwin referred to Spencer:|".... one of the greatest
> thinkers in the history of mankind...." Especially Spencer's part
> about ".... blacks responding to their white masters like tail wagging
> cocker spaniels ....." must have been really intellectually awh
> inspiring back then!
Evidence?
> > But he also, in his
> > books, qualified that phrase to include what we now describe as
> > environmentally caused differential reproductive success (rather than
> > just survival).
>
> He never said DRS , I see you at least now concede this point.
He never used the exact words DRS. However, he clearly, in his
writings, showed that when he used the phrase "survival of the
fittest" he meant the broader concept of differential reproductive
success. But, then, I tend to read for understanding, unlike you.
You, apparently, want all languages to be 'dead' languages. I am
sorry, but the meanings of words in *living* languages like English do
change over time, and the understanding of what *natural selection* is
can be and has since been stated in clearer language than the phrase
"survival of the fittest", which Darwin did not particularly like (for
exactly the same reasons I think it a flawed definition of NS). That
is why the phrase "survival of the fittest" is no longer used as a
synonym of "natural selection". So forget the archaic phrase SoF and
concentrate on the real *meaning* or the *ideas* behind the phrase
NS. Or admit that you are an ignoramus trying to define words out of
context as if that mattered.
> > Note that in my definition, I did not use the term
> > 'genotype' but the term 'phenotype' to describe what is undergoing
> > selection.
>
> phenotype like genotype has no meaning, it depends what idea is being
> represented with the words.
I see that, whenever there is something you cannot intelligently
respond to, you think saying that "words have no meaning" gets you off
the hook. Instead it merely makes you look like an ass who doesn't
know how to shit (and thus are full of it). If you do not understand
the words, look them up and learn what they mean. I can understand
why a three-year old would think that 'genotype' and 'phenotype' have
no meaning, but you are claiming (falsely) to be an adult serious
critic of evolution. And not just another creationist nut job playing
word games to pretend you know something.
> I do point out that only if
>
> > 'phenotype' has a hereditary component will there be a change in the
> > frequencies such hereditary features (which we now call 'genes' and
> > their 'alleles'). That is because the process of selection does not
> > care if the deer was born without a leg because of exposure to
> > thalidomide, lost it in a trap, or had a hereditary defect that caused
> > the defect.
>
> Is this process a pattern or design or "design subset of pattern"
> process?
As I pointed out, if your definition of "design" requires the
intervention of an intelligent 'designer', then *natural* selection is
not design but *artificial* selection by humans is. The process is
the same in both cases (and both types of selection are 'natural' in
the sense of not, AFAWCT, being directed by a supernatural entity).
> > But only in the last case would there be any evolutionary
> > consequences.
>
> Is evolutionary consequence a pattern or design?
The question shows a lack of comprehension of cause and effect
relationships. As mentioned, if your definition of "design" requires
the intervention of an intelligent 'designer', then *natural*
selection is not design but *artificial* selection by humans is. That
is, the same process of selection can be either pattern or design (if
'pattern' means non-design and 'design requires an intelligent
designer) depending on the evidence that exists for a intelligent
designer's involvement. In the absence of any empirical evidence for
an intelligent designer, one can either call the result a 'pattern' or
one can claim that there is no difference between the terms 'pattern'
or 'design'.
You seem to be intentionally evading the question of what you mean by
'pattern' or 'design' and how one can empirically distinguish between
the two. Am I on the right track that you are making the distinction
a matter of whether or not there is evidence of an intelligent
designer? Or are you making another distinction?
Mitchell Coffey
> On Jun 18, 2:31�am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> SoF and NS was but different symbols for the same idea. SoF like NS
> has no meaning, only the idea represented with the symbols has
> meaning. Darwin referred to Spencer:|".... one of the greatest
> thinkers in the history of mankind...." �Especially Spencer's �part
> about ".... blacks responding to their white masters like tail wagging
> cocker spaniels ....." must have been really intellectually awh
> inspiring back then!
>
You are straight-forwardly lying about Darwin endorsing that alleged
statement by Spencer. I can find no evidence that Spencer said what
you claim he said. I'd like to see if you can produce the source of
the quote. Given that you have been caught numerous times lying about
what people have said, this should be interesting.
But this is just more evidence of your pervasive intellectual
dishonesty. Given your political and religious views, I doubt you can
name many English-speaking intellectuals you admire, living prior to
1900, with more enlightened views of race than Darwin. Try me, I
almost certainly know more of the relevant history than you.
Mitchell Coffey
backspace
> On Jun 18, 2:35 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 18, 2:31 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> > SoF and NS was but different symbols for the same idea. SoF like NS
> > has no meaning, only the idea represented with the symbols has
> > meaning. Darwin referred to Spencer:|".... one of the greatest
> > thinkers in the history of mankind...." Especially Spencer's part
> > about ".... blacks responding to their white masters like tail wagging
> > cocker spaniels ....." must have been really intellectually awh
> > inspiring back then!
>
> You are straight-forwardly lying about Darwin endorsing that alleged
> statement by Spencer.
You misread, Darwin wasn't referring to the blacks wagging their tails
for their white masters specifically, he was speaking in general terms
about the formidable insight and intellectual acumen of Spencer who
sold a million books back then. Spencer was a very big deal in 1870,
he was quoted by John Tyndall and back then SoF and NS was used to
refer to the same concept. This concept included whites being more
superior than the tail wagging blacks. That was the context, it might
not be the context today, the same symbols are used but not the same
racial superiority idea necessarily.
> I can find no evidence that Spencer said what
> you claim he said. I'd like to see if you can produce the source of
> the quote.
All Spencer's works are on gutenberg press, download and do a text
search for "cocker spaniel" or "tail wagging" , you will find it. I
don't have the reference on me now.
backspace
gutenberg press, all the works of spencer are there in text format, do
a search using python.
> > > But he also, in his
> > > books, qualified that phrase to include what we now describe as
> > > environmentally caused differential reproductive success (rather than
> > > just survival).
Who is this we person?
> > He never said DRS , I see you at least now concede this point.
>
> He never used the exact words DRS. However, he clearly, in his
> writings, showed that when he used the phrase "survival of the
> fittest" he meant the broader concept of differential reproductive
> success.
Who has what concept represented with DRS, symbolically?
> ... but the meanings of words in *living* languages like English do
> change over time,
Words have no meaning, only ideas have meaning whether represented
with selectus 2000 years ago or selection today.
> and the understanding of what *natural selection* is
NS is nothing, like quark is nothing, it only represented the idea
with SoF in 1870 by John Tyndall.
> can be and has since been stated in clearer language than the phrase
> "survival of the fittest", which Darwin did not particularly like (for
> exactly the same reasons I think it a flawed definition of NS).
Darwin wrote that "..... SoF is a better expression ......" it was NS
he didn't like preferring Natural preservation as per:
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/EpiCurus
> That
> is why the phrase "survival of the fittest" is no longer used as a
> synonym of "natural selection".
You are assuming that "natural selection" has some sort of meaning, it
doesn't , it only represented an idea ".... absolute empire of
accident ..." in 1863 Charles Kingsley and SoF 1870 John Tyndall.
Today a different , any idea can be represented . Its main purpose is
used in the *Tautologification* of our thinking.
> So forget the archaic phrase SoF and
> concentrate on the real *meaning* or the *ideas* behind the phrase
> NS.
All that matters was the idea with SoF in 1870 by Tyndall and the
influence he had on our thinking. We can't forget this, it is history,
history which is being rewritten on wikipedia.
> Or admit that you are an ignoramus trying to define words out of
> context as if that mattered.
Since words have no meaning, I can't therefore define or redefine
them, only refer to the idea they represented in 1870, 1863 and 1812
by Wells the pioneer of NS usage. In 1812 it was used to discuss the
"....skin of white female with negro attributes...."
> > > 'phenotype' has a hereditary component will there be a change in the
> > > frequencies such hereditary features (which we now call 'genes' and
> > > their 'alleles'). That is because the process of selection does not
> > > care if the deer was born without a leg because of exposure to
> > > thalidomide, lost it in a trap, or had a hereditary defect that caused
> > > the defect.
>
> > Is this process a pattern or design or "design subset of pattern"
> > process?
> As I pointed out, if your definition of "design" requires the
> intervention of an intelligent 'designer', then *natural* selection is
> not design but *artificial* selection by humans is.
What naturaled and who did the selecting?
backspace
> sorry, but the meanings of words in *living* languages like English do
> change over time, and the understanding of what *natural selection* is
> can be and has since been stated in clearer language than the phrase
> "survival of the fittest", which Darwin did not particularly like (for
> exactly the same reasons I think it a flawed definition of NS).
Saying "....flawed definition of NS ...." is a different way of saying
NS has some sort of meaning: It doesn't mean anything. It is a symbol
an arbitrary concatenation of "natural means of selection" from
Matthews, the term Darwin lifted from his book he had to read on the
Beagle. Because the purpose of the Beagle was to look for naval
timber. Back then NS or SoF was meant as a means of expression British
superiority over the inferior races, giving them a license to
colonize.
What this idea has got to do with biochemistry is remarkable to say
the least: Why then is the same term being used?
The answer is that we aren't dealing with anything getting "naturaled"
but the underlying Epicurianism and Aristotelianism , their ideas
which is the tautologification of society's thinking skills. NS is the
coda to rehash , repackage Aristotle, to hide what we are actually
dealing with: Democritus, Aristotle, Lucretius etc and their world
view.
Bruce Stephens
[...]
> The answer is that we aren't dealing with anything getting "naturaled"
> [...]
I suggest you stop using the word "naturaled". To me (a native English
speaker) it doesn't mean anything. There are lots of nouns that can be
verbed in such a way that people will understand what you mean, but I
think "natural" isn't one.
("naturalized" means something, but is probably not what you mean.)
(I've nothing against linguistic invention, but in this case it doesn't
seem to be working, IMHO.)
aganunitsi
<mofos be snippin'>
> Saying "....flawed definition of NS ...." is a different way of saying
> NS has some sort of meaning: It doesn't mean anything. It is a symbol
Saying "flawed definition of NS" is a different way of saying that NS
is being used to represent the wrong idea with the wrong meaning.
Your brain's compiler is the worst.
backspace
What then is a natural selection? Since NS doesn't mean anything the
question can only be answered in the context of the symbol's usage in
1870 back then: Absolute empire of accident and SoF. Today we are told
that NS is "non-random3" (used in the design is subset of pattern
sense). NS is not nothing, what is meant is that some "non-
random" (pattern or design?) concept is being represented with the
same symbol as used by John Tyndall by an arbitrary user of an
arbitrary symbol.
NS only represented an idea in a historical context, like the symbol
"phlogiston" was an idea.
Wilkins wrote:
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2008/05/on_ontology_and_metaphysics_su.php
wrote: ".....Ideas, whether "simple" or "complex" exist solely as
semantic relations between individuals in language communities. They
are originated at some time, evolve over time in response to various
conditions and influences, and eventually will become extinct or
atavistic. They have no ontology other than this. This means that
every idea has a history, and only a history......"
The idea with the symbol NS in 1870 was a very specific SoF idea from
Spencer. Such idea might become extinct , it has no other ontology
than this. This means that the idea in 1870 represented with NS has a
history and only a history. NS the symbol no more means "random" or
"non-random" , it can be used to represent either idea symbolically.
In 1874 it was understood to be the Epicurian "chance" idea.
WHAT IS DARWINISM?
BY
CHARLES HODGE,
PRINCETON, N. J.
1874
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19192/19192-h/19192-h.htm
#FNanchor_14_14 p.107 Towards the end of his volume he says: "We
shall conclude by a general observation. Notwithstanding the numerous
objections we have raised against Mr. Darwin's theory, we do not
declare ourselves hostile to a system of which zo�logists are the only
competent judges. We are neither for nor against the transmu[Pg
107]tation of species, neither for nor against the principle of
natural selection. The only positive conclusion of our debate is this:
no principle hitherto known, neither the action of media, nor habit,
nor natural selection, can account for organic adaptations without the
intervention of the principle of finality.
Natural selection, unguided, submitted to the laws of a pure
mechanism, and exclusively determined by accidents, seems to me, under
another name, the chance proclaimed by Epicurus, equally barren,
equally incomprehensible; on the other hand, natural selection guided
beforehand by a provident will, directed towards a precise end by
intentional laws, might be the means which nature has selected to pass
from one stage of being to another, from one form to another, to bring
to perfection life throughout the universe, and to rise by a
continuous process from the monad to man.
Now, I ask Mr. Darwin himself, what interest has he in maintaining
that natural selection is not guided�not directed? What interest has
he in substituting accidental causes for every final cause? I cannot
see. Let him admit that in natural, as well as in artificial
selection, there may be a choice and direction; his principle
immediately becomes[Pg 108] much more fruitful than it was before. His
hypothesis, then, whilst having the advantage of exempting science
from the necessity of introducing the personal and miraculous
intervention of God in the creation of each species, yet would be free
from the banishing out of the universe an all-provident thought, and
of submitting everything to blind and brute chance." (pp. 198, 199)
Professor Janet asks far too much of Mr. Darwin. To ask him to give up
his denial of final causes is like asking the Romanists to give up the
Pope. That principle is the life and soul of his system.
backspace
As Natural Selection which works so slowly is a main element in Mr.
Darwin's theory, it is necessary to understand distinctly what he
means by it. On this point he leaves us no room for doubt. On p. 92,
he says: "This preservation of favorable variations, and the
destruction of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection, or, the
Survival of the Fittest." "Owing to the struggle (for life)
variations, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if they
be in any degree profitable to the individuals of a species, in their
infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to their
physical conditions of life, will tend to the preservation of such
individuals, and will generally be inherited by their offspring. The
offspring also will thus have a better chance of surviving, for, of
the many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a
small number can survive. I have called this principle, by which each
slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural
Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection.
But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer of the Survival
of the Fit[Pg 32]test, is more accurate, and sometimes is equally
convenient." (p. 72).
"Slow though the progress of selection may be, if feeble man can do so
much by artificial selection, I can see no limit to the amount of
change, to the beauty and infinite complexity of the co-adaptations
between all organic beings, one with another, and with their physical
conditions of life, which may be effected in the long course of time
by nature's power of selection, or the survival of the fittest." (p.
125).
"It may be objected that if organic beings thus tend to rise in the
scale, how is it that throughout the world a multitude of the lowest
forms still exist; and how is it that in each great class some forms
are far more highly developed than others?... On our theory the
continuous existence of lowly forms offers no difficulty; for natural
selection, or the survival of the fittest, does not necessarily
include progressive development, it only takes advantage of such
variations as arise and are beneficial to each creature under its
complex relations of life.... Geology tells us that some of the lowest
forms, the infusoria and rhizopods, have remained for an enormous
period in nearly their present state." (p. 145).
"The fact of little or no modifica[Pg 33]tion having been effected
since the glacial period would be of some avail against those who
believe in an innate and necessary law of development, but is
powerless against the doctrine of natural selection, or the survival
of the fittest, which implies only that variations or individual
differences of a favorable nature occasionally arise in a few species
and are then preserved." (p. 149)
hersheyh
That would only give me the words of Spencer, which is not your
claim. Nor does it matter whether or not Darwin referred to Spencer
as ".... one of the greatest thinkers in the history of mankind...",
although I would like to know what you are omitting. Your outrageous
claim is that Darwin, who clearly was an abolitionist and anti-slavery
(that being the relevant 'liberal' position at Darwin's time),
"especially" thought the part of Spencer's writing you claimed was
"intellectually awh [sic] inspiring".
> > > > But he also, in his
> > > > books, qualified that phrase to include what we now describe as
> > > > environmentally caused differential reproductive success (rather than
> > > > just survival).
>
> Who is this we person?
The community of scientists. As opposed to your community of ignorant
idiots.
>
> > > He never said DRS , I see you at least now concede this point.
>
> > He never used the exact words DRS. However, he clearly, in his
> > writings, showed that when he used the phrase "survival of the
> > fittest" he meant the broader concept of differential reproductive
> > success.
>
> Who has what concept represented with DRS, symbolically?
I knew it would only be a short time before you reverted to this
stupidity of demanding "who" rather than dealing with ideas and
meaning.
>
> > ... but the meanings of words in *living* languages like English do
> > change over time,
>
> Words have no meaning, only ideas have meaning whether represented
> with selectus 2000 years ago or selection today.
Words have meaning only when the person using them knows enough to
grasp the ideas they represent. You clearly refuse to do so (but
quite selectively, only doing so when it suits your rhetorical
purposes).
>
> > and the understanding of what *natural selection* is
>
> NS is nothing, like quark is nothing, it only represented the idea
> with SoF in 1870 by John Tyndall.
No. NS is a part of a living language, English, not a dead one. Its
meaning can change, either completely (as 'gift', for example, when it
came to English from 'giftig') or it can become further refined in
meaning or it can have technical meanings that differ from popular
meanings or it can gain new meanings or lose old ones.
> > can be and has since been stated in clearer language than the phrase
> > "survival of the fittest", which Darwin did not particularly like (for
> > exactly the same reasons I think it a flawed definition of NS).
>
> Darwin wrote that "..... SoF is a better expression ......" it was NS
> he didn't like preferring Natural preservation as per:http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/EpiCurus
If true, SFW? I distrust your source, as it has not been vetted by
even the wisdom of a community. The modern meaning (derived from
Darwin's initial idea, but expounded upon by generations of
scientists) of the term is the one you need to argue against.
> > That
> > is why the phrase "survival of the fittest" is no longer used as a
> > synonym of "natural selection".
>
> You are assuming that "natural selection" has some sort of meaning, it
> doesn't , it only represented an idea ".... absolute empire of
> accident ..." in 1863 Charles Kingsley and SoF 1870 John Tyndall.
> Today a different , any idea can be represented . Its main purpose is
> used in the *Tautologification* of our thinking.
Bullshit from an sculptor of bullshit. NS has meaning *because* it
refers to a definable (and all definitions, must, to some extent be
tautologies) idea. In fact, it, in principle and often in fact,
refers to an observable and measureable process.
>
> > So forget the archaic phrase SoF and
> > concentrate on the real *meaning* or the *ideas* behind the phrase
> > NS.
>
> All that matters was the idea with SoF in 1870 by Tyndall and the
> influence he had on our thinking. We can't forget this, it is history,
> history which is being rewritten on wikipedia.
That would only matter to someone studying a dead language. Your
knowledge of language is perhaps even worse than you knowledge of
empirical reality. NS is a phrase that refers to a scientific concept
or idea. Many terms in science become modified or change meaning when
more knowledge is accumulated. Typically, in science, the terms
become more accurate and precise. Such as the term "gene".
>
> > Or admit that you are an ignoramus trying to define words out of
> > context as if that mattered.
>
> Since words have no meaning, I can't therefore define or redefine
> them, only refer to the idea they represented in 1870, 1863 and 1812
> by Wells the pioneer of NS usage. In 1812 it was used to discuss the
> "....skin of white female with negro attributes...."
Only an ignoramus idiot like you would think that the early usage of
term must be eternally fixed at that time.
>
> > > > 'phenotype' has a hereditary component will there be a change in the
> > > > frequencies such hereditary features (which we now call 'genes' and
> > > > their 'alleles'). That is because the process of selection does not
> > > > care if the deer was born without a leg because of exposure to
> > > > thalidomide, lost it in a trap, or had a hereditary defect that caused
> > > > the defect.
>
> > > Is this process a pattern or design or "design subset of pattern"
> > > process?
> > As I pointed out, if your definition of "design" requires the
> > intervention of an intelligent 'designer', then *natural* selection is
> > not design but *artificial* selection by humans is.
>
> What naturaled and who did the selecting?
By asking "who", you are intentionally conflating pattern and design
(trying, stupidly, to win by definition, hoping someone will be fooled
into thinking that both require a "who" as if there were no empirical
reality outside people). I note that you continue to refuse to state
whether the distinction you are making between 'pattern' and
'design'. I am assuming that you want it to have something to do with
the presence or absence of an "intelligent designer".
Natural, of course, like many words, in different ways in different
contexts. The meaning depends on the idea behind the use of the
word. It can mean "empirical reality" observable directly or
indirectly via machines. By that definition, both "natural" selection
and "artificial" selection are "natural". Or it can mean uninfluenced
by the action of humans, as in a natural forest as opposed to a tree
farm. It is this last distinction that discriminates between
"natural" selection and "artificial" selection.
hersheyh
> On Jun 18, 6:55 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > You, apparently, want all languages to be 'dead' languages. I am
> > sorry, but the meanings of words in *living* languages like English do
> > change over time, and the understanding of what *natural selection* is
> > can be and has since been stated in clearer language than the phrase
> > "survival of the fittest", which Darwin did not particularly like (for
> > exactly the same reasons I think it a flawed definition of NS).
>
> Saying "....flawed definition of NS ...." is a different way of saying
> NS has some sort of meaning: It doesn't mean anything.
It has meaning because it represents an idea (a process in this case)
that can, in principle and often in fact, observed in the real world.
>It is a symbol
> an arbitrary concatenation of "natural means of selection" from
> Matthews, the term Darwin lifted from his book he had to read on the
> Beagle. Because the purpose of the Beagle was to look for naval
> timber. Back then NS or SoF was meant as a means of expression British
> superiority over the inferior races, giving them a license to
> colonize.
Bullshit. You are confusing NS or SoF with "the white man's burden".
The phrases have no similarity. Especially that meaning has no
relevance to the way Darwin used it, referring to animals and plants.
>
> What this idea has got to do with biochemistry is remarkable to say
> the least: Why then is the same term being used?
Almost no one of any intelligence (I exclude a few racists; most
modern racists are creationists and use religious claims to justify
their racism), now uses NS or even SoF to refer solely to the "white
man's burden" to justify colonialism and racism. Deal with the phrase
as it is currently used. Or do you throw away presents because they
are "gifts" and that word is derived from a word meaning "poison"?
> The answer is that we aren't dealing with anything getting "naturaled"
> but the underlying Epicurianism and Aristotelianism , their ideas
> which is the tautologification of society's thinking skills.
The "natural" in natural selection is using the common meaning of "not
directed by humans". Direction by humans is called "artificial"
precisely because of human intervention or manufacture (artifice).
> NS is the
> coda to rehash , repackage Aristotle, to hide what we are actually
> dealing with: Democritus, Aristotle, Lucretius etc and their world
> view.
Pure bullshit. NS's modern meaning is basically "phenotypically
related differential reproductive success" (although, like all
scientific terms, the details sometimes get a bit more complex).
backspace
> > You are assuming that "natural selection" has some sort of meaning, it
> > doesn't , it only represented an idea ".... absolute empire of
> > accident ..." in 1863 Charles Kingsley and SoF 1870 John Tyndall.
> > Today a different , any idea can be represented . Its main purpose is
> > used in the *Tautologification* of our thinking.
> Bullshit from an sculptor of bullshit. NS has meaning *because* it
> refers to a definable (and all definitions, must, to some extent be
> tautologies) idea. In fact, it, in principle and often in fact,
> refers to an observable and measureable process.
You are equivocating between Tautology1 and Tautology3 as per
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Naming_Conventions between a logical
validity and a rhetorical tautology.
backspace
One can only deal with ideas not phrases, phrases are the
representation of an idea, not the idea itself. The ideas from
Empedocles till now is exactly the same, there is nothing new under
the sun, the words change yes, but not the original idea.
Or do you throw away presents because they
> are "gifts" and that word is derived from a word meaning "poison"?
>
> > The answer is that we aren't dealing with anything getting "naturaled"
> > but the underlying Epicurianism �and Aristotelianism , their ideas
> > which is the tautologification of society's thinking skills.
>
> The "natural" in natural selection is using the common meaning of "not
> directed by humans". �Direction by humans is called "artificial"
> precisely because of human intervention or manufacture (artifice).
>
> > NS is the
> > coda to rehash , repackage Aristotle, to hide what we are actually
> > dealing with: Democritus, Aristotle, Lucretius etc and their world
> > view.
> NS's modern meaning is basically "phenotypically related differential reproductive success" > (although, like all scientific terms, the details sometimes get a bit more complex).
phenotypic plasticity is another term, but it has no meaning, only the
idea with it has meaning. Who is this person?
Mitchell Coffey
> On Jun 18, 8:55 pm, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 18, 2:35 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 18, 2:31 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > SoF and NS was but different symbols for the same idea. SoF like NS
> > > has no meaning, only the idea represented with the symbols has
> > > meaning. Darwin referred to Spencer:|".... one of the greatest
> > > thinkers in the history of mankind...." Especially Spencer's part
> > > about ".... blacks responding to their white masters like tail wagging
> > > cocker spaniels ....." must have been really intellectually awh
> > > inspiring back then!
>
> > You are straight-forwardly lying about Darwin endorsing that alleged
> > statement by Spencer.
>
> You misread, Darwin wasn't referring to the blacks wagging their tails
> for their white masters specifically, he was speaking in general terms
> about the formidable insight and intellectual acumen of Spencer who
> sold a million books back then. Spencer was a very big deal in 1870,
> he was quoted by John Tyndall and back then SoF and NS was used to
> refer to the same concept. This concept included whites being more
> superior than the tail wagging blacks. That was the context, it might
> not be the context today, the same symbols are used but not the same
> racial superiority idea necessarily.
I repeat, you are straight-forwardly lying about Darwin endorsing that
alleged statement by Spencer. General praise for someone's work does
not mean endorsement of all particulars. Only a moral idiot like
yourself would claim otherwise.
> > I can find no evidence that Spencer said what
> > you claim he said. I'd like to see if you can produce the source of
> > the quote.
>
> All Spencer's works are on gutenberg press, download and do a text
> search for "cocker spaniel" or "tail wagging" , you will find it. I
> don't have the reference on me now.
As I pointed out, you've been caught lying numerous times. I already
search on your quote; it doesn't exist. Since you won't provide the
source for the quote the default assumption must be that you invented
it or misrepresented it's content.
Mitchell Coffey
backspace
> related differential reproductive success" (although, like all
> scientific terms, the details sometimes get a bit more complex).
In 1874 with Charles Hodge natural selection represented:
"...Natural selection, unguided, submitted to the laws of a pure
mechanism, and exclusively determined by accidents, seems to me, under
another name, the chance proclaimed by Epicurus, equally barren,
equally incomprehensible......"
backspace
The Principles of Biology By Herbert Spencer
"....But this survival of the fittest, implies multiplication of the
fittest. Out of the fittest thus multiplied, there will, as before be
an overthrowing of the moving equilibrium wherever it presents the
least opposing force to the new incident force. And by the continual
destruction of the individuals that are the least capable of
maintaining their equilibria in presence of this new incident force,
there must eventuallv be arrived at an altered type completely in
equilibrium with the altered conditions...."
He applied this logic to the blacks and whites, with the whites the
more sophisticated civilized specimen of humanity. They were more
"Fit" or "suitable" than the less "Fitter" blacks.
This was the idea, such historical detail is nowhere to be seen on
wikpedia fitness article.
backspace
Spencer wrote:
"....That is to say, it cannot but happen that those individuals whos
functions are most out of equilibrium with the modified aggregate of
external forces, will be those to die; and that those will survive
whos functions happen to be most nearly in equilibrium with the
modified aggregate of external forces...."
=== rephrase ===
...those individuals out of equilibrium ..... will ... die; and that
those will survive who are in equilibrium..."
=== rephrase ===
"...those out of equilibrium die while those in equilibrium will
survive..." which reduces to What happens, happens.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
unrelated to Darwin, historians use social darwinism as a reference
explanatory framework of the racism. By reasonable judgement Darwin
was a racist of the most vile sort, and the most vile sort of racist
is the scientific racist. It's one thing to appreciate white skincolor
as more beautiful than black skincolor, althought that can lead to
very superficial unfair judgements. It's quite another thing to assert
that people's values are material and heritable, and natural selection
acts upon them, which is scientific racism.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
for years. I suggest to read Klaus P Fischer book "Nazi Germany, a new
history"
"The rise of pseudo-biological racism is inconceivable without the
intellectual climate of opinion that developed as a result of the
Darwinian revolution"
(Klaus P. Fischer in an email to an evolutionist who was posting on
this forum)
> Mitchell Coffey- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mitchel Coffey has been lying that Darwin was not a significant racist
> for years. I suggest to read Klaus P Fischer book "Nazi Germany, a new
> history"
>
> "The rise of pseudo-biological racism is inconceivable without the
> intellectual climate of opinion that developed as a result of the
> Darwinian revolution"
> (Klaus P. Fischer in an email to an evolutionist who was posting on
> this forum)
>
You did read the words "pseudo-biological", didn't you? Or are you
just too stupid to know what the words mean?
Boikat
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Darwin is the central figure in the history of racism....
<Snip stupidity>
Since you already know that racism pre-existed Darwin, you are
knowingly making a false claim. You are a liar.
Boikat
nando_r...@yahoo.com
spiritual, such as courage, love, hate etc. are treated as material
and heritable. And this is what Darwin and his fellow Darwinists were
promoting, that these things are also just like arms and legs and
whatever, material heritable attributes.
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Pseudo-biological most likely refers to when things that are really
> spiritual,
Sorry, you want to asign *your* nterpretation so someone elses words.
The terms speaks for itself, not you and your private definition.
> such as courage, love, hate etc. are treated as material
> and heritable.
You're an idiot.
> And this is what Darwin and his fellow Darwinists were
> promoting, that these things are also just like arms and legs and
> whatever, material heritable attributes.
You really should entertain the notion that you are full of shit. It
may be ther first step in curing your dementia.
Boikat
nando_r...@yahoo.com
Darwinist irate instence that choosing is a way of calculating, in
light of his pronouncement in his book that predetermination is the
most lethal aspect of Nazi ideology.
hersheyh
Liar! You *refuse* to deal with the ideas behind the phrase. You only
deal with stupid word tricks. I have told you what NS means in current
biology.
> The ideas from
> Empedocles till now is exactly the same, there is nothing new under
> the sun, the words change yes, but not the original idea.
And the ideas that the words represent also can change. You are
claiming that NS, as a phrase, currently means something that it
doesn't. And lying about it repeatedly. That is, you are claiming
that languages are dead and NS can only mean something that is now an
archaic usage. And you do not even try to support such a claim. You
simply toss out a few old philosopher's names without even trying to
connect that with your claims. If you actually believe that there is
literally "nothing new under the sun" with respect to changed or more
precise meanings of phrases or words, then you are a total ignoramus.
> Or do you throw away presents because they
>
> > are "gifts" and that word is derived from a word meaning "poison"?
>
> > > The answer is that we aren't dealing with anything getting "naturaled"
> > > but the underlying Epicurianism and Aristotelianism , their ideas
> > > which is the tautologification of society's thinking skills.
>
> > The "natural" in natural selection is using the common meaning of "not
> > directed by humans". Direction by humans is called "artificial"
> > precisely because of human intervention or manufacture (artifice).
>
> > > NS is the
> > > coda to rehash , repackage Aristotle, to hide what we are actually
> > > dealing with: Democritus, Aristotle, Lucretius etc and their world
> > > view.
> > NS's modern meaning is basically "phenotypically �related differential reproductive success" > (although, like all �scientific terms, the details sometimes get a bit more complex).
>
> phenotypic plasticity is another term, but it has no meaning, only the
> idea with it has meaning.
So deal with the idea, not the phrase. There are plenty of
descriptions, some running for chapters, with multiple examples, that
describe the details of the idea behind the phrase. It is perfectly
obvious that the phrase means different things to different observers
or readers. Some, who have a long history of work in the genetics,
have a highly sophisticated and nuanced understanding of the term.
Others, like most undergraduates that take a required science class,
will have a crude, simple, and unsophisticated understanding of the
term (when they don't wind up getting it wrong). Others, like you,
intentionally remain completely ignorant of the ideas behind the
phrase because learning anything is contrary to your belief system.
Such people wallow in their ignorance, saying stupid things like "What
gets naturaled." or "Who naturalled it."
Who is this person?
Who is what person? See, I was right. You are the last type of
person described. An idiot pseudosavant who thinks he is being
intelligent and witty while merely demonstrating his hillbilly-level
educational status.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
that words do not have. The logical operations in the
computersimulation are what natural selection is.
> educational status.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
hersheyh
And the relevance of this is....? I give you the modern meaning and
you reply with a quote of a person from 1874. And that person was NOT
a biologist, but a Calvinist theologian! One who supported slavery in
the 1830's (although he condemned their mistreatment like most Slavery
supporters of the time, not realizing that the institution itself was
mistreatment). Darwin, of course, was an abolitionist anti-slavery
advocate. And Hodges also *opposed* 'Darwinism' as essentially
'atheism'. So why should we accept his amateur ignorant claims about
what the phrase "natural selection" means as an idea? That would be
as stupid as accepting your ideas or Billy Bob Joe televangelist's
claims.
hersheyh
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SRkRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA444&ci=194,1037,...
>
> The Principles of Biology By Herbert Spencer
>
> "....But this survival of the fittest, implies multiplication of the
> fittest. Out of the fittest thus multiplied, there will, as before be
> an overthrowing of the moving equilibrium wherever it presents the
> least opposing force to the new incident force. And by the continual
> destruction of the individuals that are the least capable of
> maintaining their equilibria in presence of this new incident force,
> there must eventuallv be arrived at an altered type completely in
> equilibrium with the altered conditions...."
That is the quote.
>
> He applied this logic to the blacks and whites, with the whites the
> more sophisticated civilized specimen of humanity. They were more
> "Fit" or "suitable" than the less "Fitter" blacks.
This is the unsubstantiated claim. You need to find the appropriate
quote here as well. I have no doubt that, for a person of his time
and place, he would regard blacks as "less fit" than whites based on
his view that civilization and 'perceived' ideas about intelligence
and 'cultural backwardness' and 'primitiveness' were universal goods
and goals. And scientists certainly are part of their culture. The
above is why people thought that the hominid lineage evolved head-
first (increasing intelligence) rather than feet-first (bipedalism).
The process of science does, eventually, lead to correction of such
erroneous thought. And, in anthropology, that has led to viewing
'primitive' cultures in a more realistic light and not assuming that
it had a basis in human differences. It also led to an understanding
of how little 'racial' differences there are in the human species, a
fact that was not obvious to *any* 19th or even most 20th century
thinkers. Certainly *most* even anti-slavery individuals (including
Abraham Lincoln) held what we would now rightly observe as 'racist'
ideas.
hersheyh
Bullshit. Darwin was an abolitionist and anti-slavery. Unlike most
of the religious thinkers of the time whether they be Muslim,
Christian, Hindi, or Buddhist. You have read the interchange that
occurred between Captain FitzRoy (a fervent Christian) and Darwin on
the issue. If Darwin was a racist, it was no worse than the racism of
Abraham Lincoln.
> Even for racism
> unrelated to Darwin, historians use social darwinism as a reference
> explanatory framework of the racism.
Darwin is not responsible for social darwinism. Herbert Spencer is.
>By reasonable judgement Darwin
> was a racist of the most vile sort, and the most vile sort of racist
> is the scientific racist.
>It's one thing to appreciate white skincolor
> as more beautiful than black skincolor, althought that can lead to
> very superficial unfair judgements.
Here you accuse Darwin of being a racist, while expressing racism
yourself.
> It's quite another thing to assert
> that people's values are material and heritable, and natural selection
> acts upon them, which is scientific racism.
Which 'values' are you talking about?
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> By all means let's email Klaus again, and ask him what he thinks of
> Darwinist irate instence that choosing is a way of calculating, in
> light of his pronouncement in his book that predetermination is the
> most lethal aspect of Nazi ideology.
>
'tard-boy. Also, ask him if the distortion and misuse of a theory
invalidates the theory, jerk-wad.
Boikat
nando_r...@yahoo.com
Darwinists invented in order to facilliate the evolutionary psychology
research program. After the holocaust it became politically
unacceptable to have a research program about heritable intelligence
based on human differences. So they simply asserted all human beings
are the same, based on very little evidence. Scientific racism is
flourishing now in China with help from many Western countries. For
example a company in France was commisioned to put the DNA of the
entire population of China in a database. China has begun killing
heritably diseased foetuses as a matter of national policy at the end
of 90's.
> > wikpedia fitness article.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
nando_r...@yahoo.com
as more beautiful than black skincolor, then that's perfectly alright,
there is nothing wrong with that. Having emotions is not a crime.
> > > Mitchell Coffey- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
hersheyh
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mitchel Coffey has been lying that Darwin was not a significant racist
> for years. I suggest to read Klaus P Fischer book "Nazi Germany, a new
> history"
>
> "The rise of pseudo-biological racism is inconceivable without the
> intellectual climate of opinion that developed as a result of the
> Darwinian revolution"
> (Klaus P. Fischer in an email to an evolutionist who was posting on
> this forum)
That is probably true. The rise of *pseudoscientific* racism probably
did require the discovery of the mechanisms of natural selection. But
Darwin cannot be blamed for *pseudoscientific* misuse of his ideas.
You keep forgetting that *most* racism, especially in the U.S., has
been based in religion and not science. Specificallly, scientific
racism in the U.S. has more in common with the scientific ideas of the
last great creationist scientist, Louis Agassiz. Namely the idea that
blacks were a different *species* of man created by God that was
intentionally made to be inferior and fit for slavery.
The other, even bigger contributor to *pseudoscientific* racism was
the discovery of particulate genetics by Mendel. That led to a huge
amount of simplistic single gene explanations of human differences in
behavior and led much more directly than evolution by *natural*
selection to eugenic ideas (which is clearly *artificial* selection
akin to animal breeding) in the U.S. and later in Germany.
Interestingly enough, those eugenic ideas were often supported by
people who otherwise would be (correctly) regarded as 'liberal' and
'concerned' for the well-being of the deaf (Alexander Graham Bell),
the blind (Dr. Lucian Howe, who also required silver nitrate in
newborns eyes to prevent neonatal blindness), the retarded and
mentally ill (like you), poor women (Margret Sanger) and social
reformers from ministers who advocated public charity while regarding
paupers as being biologically preordained "parasites" (e.g., the Rev.
Oscar McCulloch) to radicals like George Bernard Shaw. They were
confronted by massive problems of poverty and misery (think Dickens'
London) with essentially nothing but "charity" level funding to deal
with it. They were, needless to say, joined by *racist* apologists,
and the wealthy (for whom, the idea of personal superiority -- think
Tony Hayward -- was pleasing, and who thought eugenics might prevent
the need for such socialist ideas as poverty being counteracted by
public policies like welfare).
There is absolutely no question that they were joined by *some*, but
by no means all, biological scientists of the time. E.g., David Starr
Jordan for one, but not Thomas Hunt Morgan. But here, too, the new
Mendelian genetics rather than evolution, per se, appears to be the
major motivating change in the biological sciences that directly led
to eugenics. That is not surprising, because genetics is much more
closely related to *artificial* breeding programs and eugenics than
the natural selection of evolution. Eugenics is nothing if not animal
breeding and *artificial* selection. Eugenics as practiced in America
(where all the Nazi programs except direct extermination -- forced
sterilization, racial identity codes (esp. in VA*), effective
extermination of Southeastern Indians by labelling them 'Negros',
worthless pseudoscientific programs, and intentionally discriminatory
immigration quotas designed to keep Slavs, Jews, and Southern European
riff-raff out# got their start).
*The head of Virginia's Bureau of Vital Statistics in the 1920s,
Walter Plecker, undertook the determination of the race of Virginians,
using the rule that *any* drop of 'Negro blood' made one a Negro. The
goal was the prevention of "mongrelization" of the white race.
#Worth keeping in mind that America's immigration laws have
historically been *designed* to keep certain immigrants out or in an
illegal status, because, it was claimed, they could never be "real"
Americans. From the time of the Know-Nothings on.
hersheyh
> validity and a rhetorical tautology.
I am not equivocating at all. You are simply too ignorant of the
meaning of tautology of any kind to have a voice. Referring to what
appears to be a vanity press page on a scratchpad service is not
meaningful.
hersheyh
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Pseudo-biological most likely refers to when things that are really
> spiritual, such as courage, love, hate etc. are treated as material
> and heritable.
No. It refers to things that appear to be biological science but
aren't.
WRT "courage", "love", "hate", it is difficult to tell what those
concepts mean outside a particular human context. Even different
human cultures mean different things by those terms. For example, in
some societies, ambushing and killing an opponent in the back would
not be considered "courage" while it would be expected in others and
considered "courage". Is a mother deer defending her fawn exhibiting
"love" for the fawn or "courage" in the face of a foe, whereas a doe
without a fawn running away rather than helping the mother is
exhibiting what? What does "love" mean for insects as opposed to
reproduction? Why do different mammals exhibit different degrees of
*paternal* involvement in parenting?
nando_r...@yahoo.com
difference, where one of them goes extinct, just makes people think up
genocidal racist ideas.
The main motor behind racism is that you don't look at the spirit of a
person, but only to their material attributes. And 0 Darwinists here
acknowledge the spiritual. All their racism is now covered with
political correctness, but really they are still essentially the same
as before.
> > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
nando_r...@yahoo.com
all spiritual things. So when Darwinists such as yourself are
asserting the heritability of these things they are engaging in pseudo-
biological science. Asserting it is biological and a matter of
objective scientific fact, while it is spritual and a matter of
subjective judgement.
> > > Boikat- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
TomS
<2f930c0a-52f2-4b82...@z8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, hersheyh
stated..."
One other significant factor in the pseudoscientific support for
racism was the germ theory of disease.
Hitler likened himself to Koch.
One typical aspect of racism to say that the despised group of people
are carriers of dreaded diseases.
--
---Tom S.
Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold,
with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead
The Crime of Galileo (1976) by Giorgio De Santillana, p. 167
backspace
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Computersimulations of natural selection can give the clarity required
> that words do not have. The logical operations in the
> computersimulation are what natural selection is.
How do you simulate a logical fallacy on a computer?
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Distinghuising groups of people according to a slight heritable
> difference, where one of them goes extinct, just makes people think up
> genocidal racist ideas.
>
> The main motor behind racism is that you don't look at the spirit of a
> person, but only to their material attributes. And 0 Darwinists here
> acknowledge the spiritual. All their racism is now covered with
> political correctness, but really they are still essentially the same
> as before.
>
So, in your deluded world view, religious discrimination does not
exist. You really need to send reality a telegram to let it know
where you're hiding.
Boikat
backspace
> On Jun 20, 1:55 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 19, 7:40 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > NS's modern meaning is basically "phenotypically
> > > related differential reproductive success" (although, like all
> > > scientific terms, the details sometimes get a bit more complex).
>
> > In 1874 with Charles Hodge natural selection represented:
>
> > "...Natural selection, unguided, submitted to the laws of a pure
> > mechanism, and exclusively determined by accidents, seems to me, under
> > another name, the chance proclaimed by Epicurus, equally barren,
> > equally incomprehensible......"
> And the relevance of this is....?
Henry Fairfield Osborn wrote New York Times 1922, 5 Aug. "....Waagen's
observations that species do not originate by chance as Darwin had
once supposed, but through a continues and well ordered process has
since been confirmed, has since been confirmed by an overwhelming
volume of testimony, so that we are now able to assemble and place in
order line after line of animals in their true evolutionary
succession, extending , in the case of what I have called the edition
de luxe of the horses , over millions of years. ..... Evolution takes
the place with the gravitation law of Newton ......"
In that entire article he avoided NS , the same is done by PZ Myers
who also wants to know what got naturaled. Natural selection back then
was the coda for "chance" or "result of accident".
JohnBurroughs ,1922 in his book The Last Harvest(1922) interpreted
Darwin as: "....Try to think of that wonderful organ, the eye, with
all its marvelous powers and adaptations, as the result of what we
call chance or Natural Selection. Well may Darwin have said that the
eye made him shudder when he tried to account for it by Natural
Selection. Why, its adaptations in one respect alone, minor though
they be, are enough to stagger any number of selectionists...."
bpuharic
>Darwin is the central figure in the history of racism
really? the spanish murdered 1/3 of all jews before expelling
them...in 1492, claiming they were cleansing the blood.
creationistsw were writing racist defenses of slavery long before
darwin. and every american slave owner was a creationist since slavery
ended in the US in 1863.
so you're lying
.. Even for racism
>unrelated to Darwin, historians use social darwinism as a reference
>explanatory framework of the racism
social darwinims has nothing to do with darwin. so you're lying
.. By reasonable judgement Darwin
>was a racist of the most vile sort,
really? he was an abolitionist. and it took the bloodiest war in US
history to end slavery...and all american slave owners were
creationists
so you're lying
and the most vile sort of racist
>is the scientific racist. It's one thing to appreciate white skincolor
>as more beautiful than black skincolor, althought that can lead to
>very superficial unfair judgements. It's quite another thing to assert
>that people's values are material and heritable, and natural selection
>acts upon them, which is scientific racism.
why not read peter gourevitch's book on the rwandan genocide?
creationists had a key role there,telling the tutsis they were higher
in god's eyes because they were whiter than the dark skinned hutus.
800,000 people died in africa's most christian country.
and darfur? muslims have murdered hundreds of thousands. somalia? tens
of thousands.
and evolution isn't inovlved
islam is.
bpuharic
>The idea that all human beings are the same is just a lie which
>Darwinists invented in order to facilliate the evolutionary psychology
>research program
uh what? evolution is built on VARIATIONS within populations...
.. After the holocaust it became politically
>unacceptable to have a research program about heritable intelligence
>based on human differences.
what does evolution have to do with the holocaust? it's islam today
which calls for the murder of jews. islam is the most antisemimtic
religion on the planet
So they simply asserted all human beings
>are the same, based on very little evidence. Scientific racism is
>flourishing now in China with help from many Western countries. For
>example a company in France was commisioned to put the DNA of the
>entire population of China in a database. China has begun killing
>heritably diseased foetuses as a matter of national policy at the end
>of 90's.
they could do what the saudis do. imprison women for being women.
murder homosexuals. kill christians and jews.
that what you got in mind?
Geode
> On Jun 20, 9:41 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
>
> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Pseudo-biological most likely refers to when things that are really
> > spiritual, such as courage, love, hate etc. are treated as material
> > and heritable.
>
> No. It refers to things that appear to be biological science but
> aren't.
>
> WRT "courage", "love", "hate", it is difficult to tell what those
> concepts mean outside a particular human context.
these concepts are in need of analysis, for they are very vague
concepts. They are mostly related the behavior of a person. unless
you are able of establishing some metrics for these concepts, of
courage, love and hate, you could not understand it. But if you
change the chip, and start to study courage, from the point of view of
the behavior of someone, with the help of some statistics, you would
not understand the concept.
Then we should first to try to determine what are the signs of someone
behaving as showing courage, or someone behaving as showing signs of
being in love, or just hating.
Then, this behavioral signs can be of two classes. One class are the
external signs that can be easily observed and remarked. Then as such
external signs, you can have an objective counting, some magnitude, to
call it in am meaningful way.
But the "internal signs" of behavior cannot be observed. A person can
be feeling hate, or love, or whatever, but he is not showing any sign
of his conduct. Then, this inner behavior you cannot watch it, then
you have not any idea of his magnitude.
Something similar occurs in a fault. Some stress is accumulating
between both plates but we cannot see them, we cannot measure them.
The only signs we got from this fault is when there is some tremor or
small quake, or simple when there is a big quake and the floor slips
out on both sides of the fault.
Then the inner behavior X cannot be observed, not yet, till the
individual acts in a way that denotes he is acting in a behavior X.
Perhaps in the future, we would be able to see what a person is
thinking or feeling, but not yet.
Geode
.
Geode
> On Jun 20, 5:51 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 20, 1:55 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 19, 7:40 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > NS's modern meaning is basically "phenotypically
> > > > related differential reproductive success" (although, like all
> > > > scientific terms, the details sometimes get a bit more complex).
>
> > > In 1874 with Charles Hodge natural selection represented:
>
> > > "...Natural selection, unguided, submitted to the laws of a pure
> > > mechanism, and exclusively determined by accidents, seems to me, under
> > > another name, the chance proclaimed by Epicurus, equally barren,
> > > equally incomprehensible......"
> > And the relevance of this is....?
>
> Henry Fairfield Osborn wrote New York Times 1922, 5 Aug. "....Waagen's
> observations that species do not originate by chance as Darwin had
> once supposed, but through a continues and well ordered process has
> since been confirmed,
The origin of changes are accidents in the genetic coping and
artifacts caused by the action of some virus, or a chemical.
In Japan recently a scientist had seen how a chemical, the
thalidomide, blocked the action of a gene controlling the formation of
the limbs of some fetus. He did that with fetus of rats and other
animals.
The this is in part the proof that there is a random effect in
altering the genome of the living beings. Then, the environment would
tolerate or reject the living being with some genetic alterations.
So, random mutations can play a role in the changes that can cause the
divergence of a species from the old model.
Geode
.
Mitchell Coffey
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SRkRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA444&ci=194,1037,...
>
> The Principles of Biology By Herbert Spencer
>
> "....But this survival of the fittest, implies multiplication of the
> fittest. Out of the fittest thus multiplied, there will, as before be
> an overthrowing of the moving equilibrium wherever it presents the
> least opposing force to the new incident force. And by the continual
> destruction of the individuals that are the least capable of
> maintaining their equilibria in presence of this new incident force,
> there must eventuallv be arrived at an altered type completely in
> equilibrium with the altered conditions...."
>
> more sophisticated civilized specimen of humanity. They were more
> "Fit" or "suitable" than the less "Fitter" blacks.
>
> wikpedia fitness article.
Your claim was that Spencer wrote ".... blacks responding to their
white masters like tail wagging cocker spaniels .....". You are
evidently unable to substantiate your Spencer quote, having been asked
twice to do so, but are too dishonest to admit it.
You made some kind of further claim that Darwin held some sort of
responsibility or opprobrium because he'd praised Spencer in general,
though you have admitted that Darwin had not enforced the quote from
Spencer. Only a moral idiot thinks that one enforces every particular
of someone else's work when one gives general praise for it. You
evidently have some sense that you are being unethicall on this,
because you won't respond to my challenge: "[...] I doubt you can name
many English-speaking intellectuals you admire, living prior to 1900,
with more enlightened views of race than Darwin."
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> By all means let's email Klaus again, and ask him what he thinks of
> Darwinist irate instence that choosing is a way of calculating, in
> light of his pronouncement in his book that predetermination is the
> most lethal aspect of Nazi ideology.
>
Oh, please, please, I bet you! PLEASE email Klaus and ask him what he
thinks of Darwinist irate instance that choosing is a way of
calculating, in light of his pronouncement in his book that
predetermination is the most lethal aspect of Nazi ideology!
nando_r...@yahoo.com
choosing. All things which do the job of choosing categorically cannot
be known objectively, just as we categorically cannot know which way
any decision will turn out before it's made.
> > > whatever, material heritable attributes.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
Geode
choosing, taken as meaning someone does something, (he can execute one
among different behaviors he is able to perform, is rarely the result
of a calculation. Most often is the repetition of some past behavior
he had done often. In other cases, the individual who acts is simple
imitating something other people is doing. This is a good way to
explain not only fashions and fads, but also political changes and
revolutions, that can be seen as such, a fad, or a fashion of some
sort. Then, this theory about the choice is mostly the result of some
pressure related to what other people is is doing of believing.
In regard to the customary behavior of someone, a person is able to
repeat any past behavior that has had some pleasant effect on his
mind. This can explain a lot of things, like drug addiction, or just
eating or copulating, etc. The person does this or that expecting some
sort of reward. That is the way some people get overweight by
example.
To me all this shit some conservatives call a choice is a
misunderstood for the action of some individual than sometimes can be
unpredictable. It looks a random action for that reason.
Then the Nazis were probably predicting the predetermination of a
superior race, they called the Aryans. I fancy name for the Germanic
people, as if the Germanic people were a very homogeneous race or
something. Hitler was predicting the rise of an empire they called the
III Reich. But this was not other than a piece of political bullshit
as often happens in politics. The Nazis had to invent a reason to
explain the grave state of crisis they were suffering in Germany. And
any undesirable crisis needs an explanation, they blame the Jews for
the miseries of Germany at the time.
Then, I ended thinking that there is a lot of bullshit in politics.
Not only in politics, also in other cultural artifacts, like religions
and als.
Geode
.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
events in our view of the holocaust, will support the people who
insist on decisions being predetermined.
Mike Lyle
[...]
>
> JohnBurroughs ,1922 in his book The Last Harvest(1922) interpreted
> Darwin as: "....Try to think of that wonderful organ, the eye, with
> all its marvelous powers and adaptations, as the result of what we
> call chance or Natural Selection. Well may Darwin have said that the
> eye made him shudder when he tried to account for it by Natural
> Selection. Why, its adaptations in one respect alone, minor though
> they be, are enough to stagger any number of selectionists...."
You don't actually know who John Burroughs /was/, do you? You really
must stop this pernicious habit of digging out quotations from writers
you know nothing about... particularly when the author was equally
ill-informed.
--
Mike.
hersheyh
NS is not a logical fallacy, despite your word games.
hersheyh
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yes idiot, courage, and love, and such are known subjectively, like
> all spiritual things.
Courage and love are words used to describe human feelings. Trying to
ascribe the same feelings to animals is tricky and often leads to
false anthropomorphism (witness the 'mother love' of the parasitic
wasp or the frequency of cannibalism of one's own young). [Alas, I
need to remind *you* that rocks tend not to express any emotion at
all, despite your belief that they do.] To the extent that such
feelings are purely subjective [aka, personal], they are not subject
to scientific study. To the extent that such feelings or emotions are
*common* to a group of people and expressed in the same way or at
least with common statistical biases within that group, they can be
studied. But one must keep in mind that different people can express
the same feeling or emotion in quite different ways (e.g., the
expression of love by the masochist differs from the expression of
live by the sadist or cross-dresser) . Emotions, of course, do have a
biological basis even for humans. Fear is a feeling (and an even more
important one than courage).
> So when Darwinists such as yourself are
> asserting the heritability of these things they are engaging in pseudo-
> biological science.
Not necessarily. We can certainly study people who lack these
emotions. For example, sociopaths tend not to feel empathy or what
you might call 'love for others'. It would be engaging in
pseudoscience to pretend that these higher level features do not have
some biological basis, as rocks and inanimate objects lack these
emotions (I don't know what emotions to attribute to bacteria, fungi,
or plants). [NOTE: Having a biological basis is not the same as having
a genetic or hereditary basis.] Claiming simple single-gene effects
with no environmental input would also be pseudoscience. These are
complex organismal features that do differ from species to species.
So they necessarily have a biological component that differs from
species to species and that cannot be all due to environmental causes
or 'spiritual' mumbo-jumbo. Thus there is some heritable component to
'emotions'.
> Asserting it is biological and a matter of
> objective scientific fact, while it is spritual and a matter of
> subjective judgement.
Only if you think rocks feel love.
hersheyh
> On Jun 20, 5:51 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 20, 1:55 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 19, 7:40 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > NS's modern meaning is basically "phenotypically
> > > > related differential reproductive success" (although, like all
> > > > scientific terms, the details sometimes get a bit more complex).
>
> > > In 1874 with Charles Hodge natural selection represented:
>
> > > "...Natural selection, unguided, submitted to the laws of a pure
> > > mechanism, and exclusively determined by accidents, seems to me, under
> > > another name, the chance proclaimed by Epicurus, equally barren,
> > > equally incomprehensible......"
> > And the relevance of this is....?
Gee! How did you manage to delete, without attribution, the fact that
Hodge was a theologian, not a biologist. Must have been an honest
accident, just like the Deep Horizon had.
>
> Henry Fairfield Osborn wrote New York Times 1922, 5 Aug. "....Waagen's
> observations that species do not originate by chance as Darwin had
> once supposed,
Sorry, but this is NOT what Darwin wrote. Osborn is completely
wrong. Darwin's NS *specifically* includes the non-chance word
"selection". Any process that uses selection is not a process
occurring by pure "chance". Selection *is* the key feature of
Darwin's writing. You are confused because you do not understand the
distinction between Osborn's belief in 'orthogenesis', the hypothesis
that life has an innate tendency to move in a unilinear fashion due to
some internal or external "driving force". That is in contrast to the
Darwinian idea that the *source* of change was due to chance even if
the differential preservation of those features is due to selection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogenesis
> but through a continues and well ordered process has
> since been confirmed, has since been confirmed by an overwhelming
> volume of testimony, so that we are now able to assemble and place in
> order line after line of animals in their true evolutionary
> succession, extending , in the case of what I have called the edition
> de luxe of the horses , over millions of years. ..... Evolution takes
> the place with the gravitation law of Newton ......"
>
> In that entire article he avoided NS , the same is done by PZ Myers
> who also wants to know what got naturaled. Natural selection back then
> was the coda for "chance" or "result of accident".
Again, you seem to be trying to pretend that English is a dead
language. Even if this were true (and I would like to see this PZ
Myerz citation because I think you are lying about that), 1922 is not
2010.
>
> JohnBurroughs ,1922 in his book The Last Harvest(1922) interpreted
> Darwin as: "....Try to think of that wonderful organ, the eye, with
> all its marvelous powers and adaptations, as the result of what we
> call chance or Natural Selection. Well may Darwin have said that the
> eye made him shudder when he tried to account for it by Natural
> Selection. Why, its adaptations in one respect alone, minor though
> they be, are enough to stagger any number of selectionists...."
Indeed his "last harvest", as he died in 1921. But he was a *popular*
writer on natural history, not a particularly well trained scientist.
The above actually is an indication that he had not read (or not
understood) Darwin. Darwin's discussion of the evolution of the eye
is one of the strengths of "The Origin of Species" showing that there
is, in nature, many useful intermediate states possible.
But, again, both of these are merely indications that these particular
authors did not read or did not understand or had a fundamental
disagreement with the concepts of change through *selection*, which
they misname *chance*. The only element of *chance* in Darwin's
*selection* process is wrt the source of the change upon which nature
acts. These are not modern ideas (1922 is not 2010, not even 1940)
nor are they accurate descriptions of Darwin's ideas.
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You bet that the guy who insisted on including the freedom in the
> events in our view of the holocaust, will support the people who
> insist on decisions being predetermined.
>
Do you believe in an *all knowing* God, that is incapable of being
wrong?
Boikat
backspace
Of course not, it isn't even a sentence, but the following is a
logical fallacy:
(Aristotle, in his "Physicae Auscultationes" (lib.2, cap.8, s.2)
OoS:".............So what hinders the different parts (of the body)
from having this merely accidental relation in nature? as the teeth,
for example, grow by necessity, the front ones sharp, adapted for
dividing, and the grinders flat, and serviceable for masticating the
food; since they were not made for the sake of this, but it was the
result of accident. And in like manner as to other parts in which
there appears to exist an adaptation to an end. Wheresoever,
therefore, all things together (that is all the parts of one whole)
happened like as if they were made for the sake of something, these
were preserved, having been appropriately constituted by an internal
spontaneity; and whatsoever things were not thus constituted, perished
and still perish.........."
After quoting Aristotle Darwin wrote: ".... we can see here the
principle of natural selection shadowed forth...."
Spencer, James Hutton, Buffon, Lamarck also reformulated Aristotle,
but they had a slight different take on the CA idea. What Dembski did
was waste years of his life to finally prove that "...result of
accident..." won't lead to even an amino acid given eternity. He
seemingly missed the tautological core of Aristotle's narrative.
Darwin's entire book was taking the Aristotelian core rehashing the
same idea in hundreds of different ways, saying the same essential
thing over and over: ".... the dinosaurs died because they were less
improved...."
backspace
> On Jun 20, 1:41 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 20, 5:51 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 20, 1:55 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 19, 7:40 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > NS's modern meaning is basically "phenotypically
> > > > > related differential reproductive success" (although, like all
> > > > > scientific terms, the details sometimes get a bit more complex).
>
> > > > In 1874 with Charles Hodge natural selection represented:
>
> > > > "...Natural selection, unguided, submitted to the laws of a pure
> > > > mechanism, and exclusively determined by accidents, seems to me, under
> > > > another name, the chance proclaimed by Epicurus, equally barren,
> > > > equally incomprehensible......"
> > > And the relevance of this is....?
>
> Gee! How did you manage to delete, without attribution, the fact that
> Hodge was a theologian, not a biologist. Must have been an honest
> accident, just like the Deep Horizon had.
>
>
>
> > Henry Fairfield Osborn wrote New York Times 1922, 5 Aug. "....Waagen's
> > observations that species do not originate by chance as Darwin had
> > once supposed,
>
> Sorry, but this is NOT what Darwin wrote. Osborn is completely
> wrong. Darwin's NS *specifically* includes the non-chance word
> "selection".
Selection has no meaning remember, it can be used to denote chance or
non-chance, like a hammer can be used to drive nails or massage a
muscle.
> Any process that uses selection is not a process
> occurring by pure "chance". Selection *is* the key feature of
> Darwin's writing.
Well , actually it was preservation, his preferred term,he had to
stick to selection for PR reasons.
> > JohnBurroughs ,1922 in his book The Last Harvest(1922) interpreted
> > Darwin as: "....Try to think of that wonderful organ, the eye, with
> > all its marvelous powers and adaptations, as the result of what we
> > call chance or Natural Selection. Well may Darwin have said that the
> > eye made him shudder when he tried to account for it by Natural
> > Selection. Why, its adaptations in one respect alone, minor though
> > they be, are enough to stagger any number of selectionists...."
> Indeed his "last harvest", as he died in 1921. But he was a *popular*
> writer on natural history, not a particularly well trained scientist.
> The above actually is an indication that he had not read (or not
> understood) Darwin. Darwin's discussion of the evolution of the eye
> is one of the strengths of "The Origin of Species" showing that there
> is, in nature, many useful intermediate states possible.
>
> But, again, both of these are merely indications that these particular
> authors did not read or did not understand or had a fundamental
> disagreement with the concepts of change through *selection*, which
> they misname *chance*. The only element of *chance* in Darwin's
> *selection* process is wrt the source of the change upon which nature
> acts.
You are confusing "randomness" with "probability sampling" and coming
very close to committing the "Not True Scotsman fallacy"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sample
This is why I lifted the idea of subscripts from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry%27s_paradox
and wrote:
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Naming_Conventions
so that even if we use "Random" or "selection" , by denoting
subscripts we get to the actual idea behind the word in the context
and time era. So we don't have endless futile discussions about the
meaning of "selection" - it has no meaning.
1) A tornado struck the town, but selected the houses on the left
leaving the others standing.
The tornado had no intent,it was a pattern
2) The man "selected" the house on the left, instead of buying the
house on the right.
The man had intent it was a design.
You reject the above dichotomy. In order then to avoid confusion we
would denote your usage of "pattern" with "pattern3" and my usage as a
YEC with "pattern1". This "defangs" the debate between people with
different world views, so we can label the world views and not
challenge the world view. Challenging is for a different time, or
debates break down into acrimony.
Prof. Herrmann at http://www.serve.com/herrmann/omni.htm wrote
".....A language, as we know it, if improperly applied along with
classical logic can lead to meaningless statements when meaningful
phrases are employed....The fact that there exists millions of
meaningless statements in the sense of classical logic is relevant in
that it shows that the descriptive power of any human language is
limited...".
backspace
Charles Kinsley 1863, Osborn 1898, John Tyndall 1870, John Burroughs
1921, Charles Hodge 1874 interpreted Darwin's work in the light of the
Epicurian chance doctrine. This is a historical fact, it might not be
the idea today with the same terms , but it was back then.
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Selection has no meaning remember, it can be used to denote chance or
>non-chance, like a hammer can be used to drive nails or massage a
>muscle.
nothing has meaning absent context. 'natural selection' has a meaning
to biologists.
you can't understand it because you're a religious fanatic whose
language skills have been compromised by religion.
it's funny you think the bible has meaning when it's one of the most
useless books ever written. it was used to both justify AND abolish
slavery.
how's THAT for plastic language? yet you insist it's literally true.
why does no one agree with you?
>Prof. Herrmann at http://www.serve.com/herrmann/omni.htm wrote
>".....A language, as we know it, if improperly applied along with
>classical logic can lead to meaningless statements when meaningful
>phrases are employed....The fact that there exists millions of
>meaningless statements in the sense of classical logic is relevant in
>that it shows that the descriptive power of any human language is
>limited...".
yep. apply this logic to the bible. then use the bible to wrap fish
nando_r...@yahoo.com
To ascribe love, courage and such, is an art not a science. It is free
not forced. In civil society it is ruled by "reasonable judgement",
which is a big set of all sorts of conventions. Besides that every
person has their individual judgement, and so on , and so on. It is
simply erronuous to say that rocks have no love as a matter of fact,
because, you total unhuman idiot, it's a subjective issue, it's not a
matter of fact at all.
You should simply not be allowed in open society etc. people should
kick and punch you for the inherently racist pseudoscientific bullshit
that you write.
> > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
Eric Root
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Darwin is the central figure in the history of racism.
Yes, he was active in the anti-slavery movement.
> Even for racism
> unrelated to Darwin,
All racism is unrelated to Darwin: he was an opponent.
> historians use social darwinism as a reference
> explanatory framework of the racism.
No, they do not. Social Darwinism has nothing to do with racism.
It's the claim that those who do best in society, the rich and
powerful, are the rightful rulers because they are _better_ than
everyone else.
> By reasonable judgement Darwin
> was a racist of the most vile sort,
To not recognize that he was much less racist than the average
Victorian is to be a hate-twisted sicko of the vilest sort, and to
make your claim publicly is to be a liar of the vilest sort.
(snip)
>
> On 18 jun, 19:55, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 18, 2:35 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 18, 2:31 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > SoF and NS was but different symbols for the same idea. SoF like NS
> > > has no meaning, only the idea represented with the symbols has
> > > meaning. Darwin referred to Spencer:|".... one of the greatest
> > > thinkers in the history of mankind...." Especially Spencer's part
> > > about ".... blacks responding to their white masters like tail wagging
> > > cocker spaniels ....." must have been really intellectually awh
> > > inspiring back then!
>
> > You are straight-forwardly lying about Darwin endorsing that alleged
> > statement by Spencer. I can find no evidence that Spencer said what
> > you claim he said. I'd like to see if you can produce the source of
> > the quote. Given that you have been caught numerous times lying about
> > what people have said, this should be interesting.
>
> > But this is just more evidence of your pervasive intellectual
> > dishonesty. Given your political and religious views, I doubt you can
> > name many English-speaking intellectuals you admire, living prior to
> > 1900, with more enlightened views of race than Darwin. Try me, I
> > almost certainly know more of the relevant history than you.
>
> > Mitchell Coffey
What Coffey said.
Eric Root
nando_r...@yahoo.com
Darwin would have wanted to exclude racism from his theory, he could
have easily done that in Descent of Man. He did the opposite.
> Eric Root- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
hersheyh
Where does you disingenuous and dishonest quote "...the dinosaurs died
because they were less improved...." come from? A Google search
(using quotation marks around the phrase) only comes up with you as
the source. Given the source's profound retardation when it comes to
understanding tautologies and natural selection, I can see why you
didn't cite your source.
Aristotle's core is different from Darwin's by being a teleological
statement. Darwin proposed a natural mechanism. I have provided you
with a modern definition and understanding. You refuse to actually
deal with current knowledge and keep on citing old theologians (who,
not incidentally, supported slavery), naturalist journalists of the
early 20th century, and a paleontologist who rejected natural
selection (at least the idea that the change that undergoes selection
is due to chance) in favor of orthogenesis (the belief that the source
of change is due to some internal 'desire'; not coincidentally, he
based his eugenic ideas on his orthogenic ideas, not Darwinian
evolution). Two of your quotes, then, are from people who are not
interested in understanding Darwin's ideas, but rather in refuting
them even at the expense of distorting and lying about those ideas.
Make that three of your quotes, since I should also include the
apparent author of ".... the dinosaurs died because they were less
improved...."
backspace
Darwin's words were something to the effect that ancient animals,
who's bones we have, died because they were "less improved". The exact
passage I quoted somewhere. No, he didn't use the word "dinosaur" ,
"dinosaur" I believe is a more modern invention after Darwin referring
though to the same bones idea as Darwin.
In any case I am still intrigued by this whole "differential
reproductive success" business. What I can't understand is that if the
Fred frog is a reproductive success then why isn't Fred a happy frog?
hersheyh
IOW, I was correct and it was your quote. Since I stand by the
obvious fact that you do not understand the ideas behind NS, a quote
from someone who has a history of misattribution, disingenous
argumentation, and who is opposed to something he doesn't understand
is not exactly much of an argument.
>
> In any case I am still intrigued by this whole "differential
> reproductive success" business.
No. You keep trying to avoid the whole "differential reproductive
success" which, by the way, is a shortening of the more accurate
"differential reproductive success causally related to phenotype".
The last three words require, empirically, that there be a
statistically significant differential in the level of reproductive
success as well as a testable difference in phenotype (which can be
anything from coat color to a single nucleotide difference observed by
restriction enzyme analysis of DNA).
> What I can't understand is that if the
> Fred frog is a reproductive success then why isn't Fred a happy frog?
Reproductive success doesn't require that individual happiness be the
result. Ask the reproductively successful black widow male or the
reproductively successful salmon (or some marriages among humans, for
that matter). But you seem to be forgetting the all-important word
"differential" in any case. NS effects upon individuals, but is
observed in populations. If there is no comparison or if the amount
of reproductive success is due to pure chance, there may still be a
difference in the level of reproductive success (e.g., the drunkard's
walk of chance drift), but there is no natural selection.
Think of a linear scale measured from -100% to +100%. The minus side
of the scale represents selection against your phenotype relative to
another phenotype (-100% representing cases where your phenotype is
lethal or sterile). The plus side represents selection for your
phenotype relative to another phenotype (+100% representing cases
where the other phenotype is lethal or sterile). The zero point in
the middle +/- a variance represents cases in which you cannot
distinguish your result from 0 represents no differential reproductive
success, but merely chance deviation from the other phenotype. In
*any* comparison with an alternative phenotype, your result must be
*somewhere* on this scale. NS is empirically determined as
representing those cases that are not, statistically at a particular
confidence level, indistinguishable from zero.
hersheyh
No. I am a rational and sane person. You are not. You believe rocks
can love.
> To ascribe love, courage and such, is an art not a science. It is free
> not forced. In civil society it is ruled by "reasonable judgement",
> which is a big set of all sorts of conventions. Besides that every
> person has their individual judgement, and so on , and so on. It is
> simply erronuous to say that rocks have no love as a matter of fact,
> because, you total unhuman idiot, it's a subjective issue, it's not a
> matter of fact at all.
That is, to say the least, completely unresponsive and unreasoned.
How do you test whether rocks have love?
>
> You should simply not be allowed in open society etc. people should
> kick and punch you for the inherently racist pseudoscientific bullshit
> that you write.
Says a person who thinks rocks feel love.
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You understand absolutely nothing. You are an unhuman.
>
> To ascribe love, courage and such, is an art not a science. It is free
> not forced. In civil society it is ruled by "reasonable judgement",
> which is a big set of all sorts of conventions. Besides that every
> person has their individual judgement, and so on , and so on. It is
> simply erronuous to say that rocks have no love as a matter of fact,
> because, you total unhuman idiot, it's a subjective issue, it's not a
> matter of fact at all.
What evidence do you have that rocks experience any emotions, much
less love?
>
> You should simply not be allowed in open society etc. people should
> kick and punch you for the inherently racist pseudoscientific bullshit
> that you write.
As opposed to your bullshit? Hell, you should be locked away and fed
through the key hole.
Boikat
>
Boikat
> On Jun 21, 6:48 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
>
> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > You understand absolutely nothing. You are an unhuman.
>
> No. I am a rational and sane person. You are not. You believe rocks
> can love.
>
> > To ascribe love, courage and such, is an art not a science. It is free
> > not forced. In civil society it is ruled by "reasonable judgement",
> > which is a big set of all sorts of conventions. Besides that every
> > person has their individual judgement, and so on , and so on. It is
> > simply erronuous to say that rocks have no love as a matter of fact,
> > because, you total unhuman idiot, it's a subjective issue, it's not a
> > matter of fact at all.
>
> That is, to say the least, completely unresponsive and unreasoned.
> How do you test whether rocks have love?
>
>
>
> > You should simply not be allowed in open society etc. people should
> > kick and punch you for the inherently racist pseudoscientific bullshit
> > that you write.
>
> Says a person who thinks rocks feel love.
>
Nando thinks rocks love him because none of them has decided to jump
up and slam him up side the head.
Boikat
nando_r...@yahoo.com
pseudoscientist.
The test is what your heart says, in freedom. If the case is that your
heart says that rocks do indeed have goodness of themselves, then
that's what you are supposed to say out loud, so everybody can
ridicule you, obviously.
Scott Balneaves
> As a direct consequence of Darwin's choices racism flourished. If
> Darwin would have wanted to exclude racism from his theory, he could
> have easily done that in Descent of Man. He did the opposite.
As a direct result of the commodification of the automobile, 10's of millions
of injuries and millions of deaths have occurred worldwide since the 1920's.
If Henry Ford wanted to reduce human suffering, he would have never invented
the assembly line. He did the opposite, and as a result, is the worlds
greatest monster.
As well, the cars THEMSELVES are evil, since they, of course, choose to follow
the commands of their drivers, and run over little children. Since inanimate
objects can turn out one way or the other, they could always choose to ignore
the commands sent to them by the steering wheel and accellerator.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
properties. Put the theory in the mind, and it will work according to
it's logic, throwing up ideas in the environment of your mind like a
machine. And what ideas a theory produces that says you are in a
struggle for survival and slight differences will determine if you
have offspring or not, are commonly.....genocidal......racist....
sexist.... atheist... ruthless... selfish.....
On 21 jun, 23:27, Scott Balneaves <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote:
bpuharic
>As a direct consequence of Darwin's choices racism flourished.
gee...another lie among many from the creationist
racist views were present LONG before darwin. european christians
started the african slave trade in 1404. the first racist views of
blacks came shortly thereafter
and chrisitans were killing jews long before this, based on race
hatred.
If
>Darwin would have wanted to exclude racism from his theory, he could
>have easily done that in Descent of Man. He did the opposite.
let me know when you start telling the truth
and, by the way...what about the muslim view of DHIMMITUDE??
muslims belive non believers are 2nd class citizens and must pay
jizya... a special tax.
tell us about that, nando. tell us about how the jews and christians
have been forced out of muslim countries.
bpuharic
>That's right a theory is just like a car in that it has automotive
>properties. Put the theory in the mind, and it will work according to
>it's logic, throwing up ideas in the environment of your mind like a
>machine. And what ideas a theory produces that says you are in a
>struggle for survival and slight differences will determine if you
>have offspring or not, are commonly.....genocidal......racist....
>sexist.... atheist... ruthless... selfish.....
we're not talking about your pathetic genodical religion, nando.
a relgion that preaches all non muslims are dhimmis.
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Demanding scientific tests for love makes you 1 unhuman 2 a
> pseudoscientist.
Demanding that rocks feel emotions, and refusing to support that claim
makes you insane, or fucked up on drugs.
>
> The test is what your heart says, in freedom. If the case is that your
> heart says that rocks do indeed have goodness of themselves, then
> that's what you are supposed to say out loud, so everybody can
> ridicule you, obviously.
but the only people who would accept that are those who are abusing
mind-altering drugs and are also demented at the same time.
Boikat
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 18, 6:55 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> You, apparently, want all languages to be 'dead' languages. I am
>> sorry, but the meanings of words in *living* languages like English do
>> change over time, and the understanding of what *natural selection* is
>> can be and has since been stated in clearer language than the phrase
>> "survival of the fittest", which Darwin did not particularly like (for
>> exactly the same reasons I think it a flawed definition of NS).
>
>
>What this idea has got to do with biochemistry is remarkable to say
>the least: Why then is the same term being used?
>
we chemists think it makes sense. we speak the language of science
you? you speak the language of 13th century medievalism. that's why it
makes no sense to you.
>The answer is that we aren't dealing with anything getting "naturaled"
>but the underlying Epicurianism and Aristotelianism , their ideas
>which is the tautologification of society's thinking skills.
babble.babble. babble. nothing here at all. you have no definition of
tautology which is related to modern science. none.
NS is the
>coda to rehash , repackage Aristotle, to hide what we are actually
>dealing with: Democritus, Aristotle, Lucretius etc and their world
>view.
i'm sure you think this way. it's because your thinking pattern
stopped developing at the level of about 2500 years ago.
as i've pointed out, daniel diner has identified the problem you
creationists and fundamenatlists have. your language skills are
crippled.
backspace
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 08:31:47 -0700 (PDT), "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
>
> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >As a direct consequence of Darwin's choices racism flourished.
>
> gee...another lie among many from the creationist
>
> racist views were present LONG before darwin. european christians
> started the african slave trade in 1404. the first racist views of
> blacks came shortly thereafter
>
> and chrisitans were killing jews long before this, based on race
> hatred.
Actually they were Thomists , people who incorporated Aristotle, it
was the Catholic church who kept us in the dark ages for 1000 years.
The Anababtists were even killed by Luther and Calvyn.
Around 1650 , the time if King James an Anababtist family died of
hunger and cold by the Kings decree, left to die by fellow
protestants. Today the same thing, if you don't say "natural
selection" in you course to become a doctor, you won't become one.
Saying "natural selection" is the same as saying "Aristotle is Lord".
One must confess Christ, Ken Ham and Dembski are deceivers.
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 22, 1:46 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 08:31:47 -0700 (PDT), "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
>>
>> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >As a direct consequence of Darwin's choices racism flourished.
>>
>> gee...another lie among many from the creationist
>>
>> racist views were present LONG before darwin. european christians
>> started the african slave trade in 1404. the first racist views of
>> blacks came shortly thereafter
>>
>> and chrisitans were killing jews long before this, based on race
>> hatred.
>
>Actually they were Thomists
AKA 'christians'
, people who incorporated Aristotle, it
>was the Catholic church who kept us in the dark ages for 1000 years.
yeah. just like creationists want to do today. what's the difference
between someone 600 years ago who wanted to keep us in the dark ages
and you?
>The Anababtists were even killed by Luther and Calvyn.
>Around 1650 , the time if King James an Anababtist family died of
>hunger and cold by the Kings decree, left to die by fellow
>protestants. Today the same thing, if you don't say "natural
>selection" in you course to become a doctor, you won't become one.
meaningless assertion. you're babbling again.
>Saying "natural selection" is the same as saying "Aristotle is Lord".
you keep showing us how creationism...religious
fanaticism...compromises language
to scientists 'natural selection' has a meaning. to you, it can't. the
experimental method doesnt exist in your world. only biblical
literalism does
and it has killed your reasoning skills.
see dan diner's recent excellent work on the influence of religion on
language
nando_r...@yahoo.com
believe only the first racist in history was guilty of racism.
On 22 jun, 06:01, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:49:39 -0700 (PDT), backspace
>
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It your ass backwards cause and effect thinking which leads you to
> believe only the first racist in history was guilty of racism.
>
Did racism exist prior to Darwin, Yes or no? If yes, why do you keep
citing Darwin when yo want to squink about racism?
You may now evade the question, as usual.
Boikat
haiku jones
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As a direct consequence of Darwin's choices racism flourished. If
> Darwin would have wanted to exclude racism from his theory, he could
> have easily done that in Descent of Man. He did the opposite.
So, Nando advocates the destruction of knowledge
about evolution?
HJ
hersheyh
Not by any definition of "selection" in the English language I know
of. In the English language, "chance" and "selection" are effectively
antonyms, not synonyms. So now, in addition to claiming that English
is a dead language, you engage in post-modernist re-definition worthy
of Humpty Dumpty in "Through the Looking Glass". Words mean whatever
you (and only you) want them to mean, which, of course, precludes
their use as a means of communication between people.
> > Any process that uses selection is not a process
> > occurring by pure "chance". Selection *is* the key feature of
> > Darwin's writing.
>
> Well , actually it was preservation, his preferred term,he had to
> stick to selection for PR reasons.
Well, then you seem to think that, for Darwin, "preservation" for
cause is the same thing as random chance. I don't see how anyone
knowledgeable in the English language could or would think that unless
they were playing Humpty Dumpty's post-modernist word games.
>
> > > JohnBurroughs ,1922 in his book The Last Harvest(1922) interpreted
> > > Darwin as: "....Try to think of that wonderful organ, the eye, with
> > > all its marvelous powers and adaptations, as the result of what we
> > > call chance or Natural Selection. Well may Darwin have said that the
> > > eye made him shudder when he tried to account for it by Natural
> > > Selection. Why, its adaptations in one respect alone, minor though
> > > they be, are enough to stagger any number of selectionists...."
> > Indeed his "last harvest", as he died in 1921. But he was a *popular*
> > writer on natural history, not a particularly well trained scientist.
> > The above actually is an indication that he had not read (or not
> > understood) Darwin. Darwin's discussion of the evolution of the eye
> > is one of the strengths of "The Origin of Species" showing that there
> > is, in nature, many useful intermediate states possible.
>
> > But, again, both of these are merely indications that these particular
> > authors did not read or did not understand or had a fundamental
> > disagreement with the concepts of change through *selection*, which
> > they misname *chance*. The only element of *chance* in Darwin's
> > *selection* process is wrt the source of the change upon which nature
> > acts.
>
> You are confusing "randomness" with "probability sampling" and coming
> very close to committing the "Not True Scotsman fallacy
> "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomnesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sample
No. I am using my understanding of the nature of mutation and
selection to point out that mutation occurs at random with respect to
the need for the mutant. That has been tested experimentally and
(with a few minor exceptions) has been confirmed again and again and
again. There are simple statistical tests of whether or not two
variables occur at random wrt each other. In this case the two
variables are occurrence (or not) of a useful mutation and need (or
not) for that useful mutation. This, specifically, is a test for the
Darwinian idea that evolutionarily useful properties are 'chance'
events rather than the orthogentic idea that they are due to some
internal force or need for such properties (and a test of whether or
not inheritance is Lamarckian or not). The clear conclusion of the
many experiments done is that inheritance is particulate and Mendelian
and that orthogenesis is wrong.
> This is why I lifted the idea of subscripts fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry%27s_paradox
>
> and wrote:
>
> http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Naming_Conventions
> so that even if we use "Random" or "selection" , by denoting
> subscripts we get to the actual idea behind the word in the context
> and time era. So we don't have endless futile discussions about the
> meaning of "selection" - it has no meaning.
>
> 1) A tornado struck the town, but selected the houses on the left
> leaving the others standing.
> The tornado had no intent,it was a pattern
> 2) The man "selected" the house on the left, instead of buying the
> house on the right.
> The man had intent it was a design.
Again, I will repeat, given the above analysis of what you apparently
mean by the difference between 'pattern' and 'design', *natural*
selection is a pattern and *artificial* selection is design. Both, of
course, involve the same process of *selection* and both are *natural*
in the sense of not involving any supernatural actors. The
distinction you make above is between a selection that occurs in the
absence of any known intelligent causation (the tornado) and a
selection that occurs because of the actions of an intelligent natural
actor (a man). Is that what you mean in making this distinction?
> You reject the above dichotomy.
No I don't. I have specifically made the point in your tornado
example above several times myself and asked if that was what you
meant by the difference between "pattern" and "design". You refused
to answer that question directly. My guess is that you will
intentionally delete my response above and refuse to make an
intelligent reply yet again.
> In order then to avoid confusion we
> would denote your usage of "pattern" with "pattern3" and my usage as a
> YEC with "pattern1".
Neither of these are described on your vanity press web page. I am
assuming that your meaning for the word 'pattern' is derivable from
the two examples you gave and I phrased my answer with your apparent
meanings in mind. That is, I tried to use 'pattern' and 'design' in
the same sense as indicated by your examples.
> This "defangs" the debate between people with
> different world views, so we can label the world views and not
> challenge the world view. Challenging is for a different time, or
> debates break down into acrimony.
Humans are not equivalent to supernatural designers. An unsupported
claim that an untestable invisible intelligent something did something
somehow sometime somewhere is NOT a valid way of claiming that
something is "design" rather than "pattern". It can be a religious
article of faith, but that article of faith essentially means that
making the distinction between "design" and "pattern" is an arbitrary
and meaningless exercise because there is no basis for making the
distinction other than personal assertion.
> Prof. Herrmann athttp://www.serve.com/herrmann/omni.htm wrote
> ".....A language, as we know it, if improperly applied along with
> classical logic can lead to meaningless statements when meaningful
> phrases are employed....The fact that there exists millions of
> meaningless statements in the sense of classical logic is relevant in
> that it shows that the descriptive power of any human language is
> limited...".
Yes. And if you insist on claiming that whatever you choose to call
"design" "design" because you want that something to be "designed" by
a supernatural entity, then you are erasing any practical or
meaningful difference between the words "pattern" and "design". In
your example, it is possible to make a reasonable distinction between
"pattern" and "design" only because the actor you chose as the actor
in indicating "design" is human, a detectable natural intelligent
agent of knowable capabilities, and not an invisible and undetectable
magical supernatural actor.