The wikipedia selection article
backspace
"...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a
species may be subject to selection...."
Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design
sense.
Burkhard
You may find out the nym of the author when you use the "track
editing" feature in wikipedia. Not that it matters at all who wrote
it.
It is used in the sense of : increasing or decreasing the chances
that the trait is passed on"
Kleuskes & Moos
This is a strange place to ask that question.
1. It belongs, that is if you want it answered, on the discussion page
of Wikipedia.
2. Since the history of the page is public, you can find out for
yourself who wrote it and
3. Do you think t.o. is frequented by any mind readers?
It was added on 17:11, 14 August 2003 by a user referred to as User:
168... This however is a "missing" user. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Missing_Wikipedians for details.
David Hare-Scott
Who cares? Perhaps you do as you are a monomaniac who just can't let go.
We could have a thread that is useful, stimulating, educational or just fun.
But not if you start one of your interminable searches looking for what
everybody else found at age 12 years, not if you are going to try again to
convince the rest of the world that words have no meaning and that this is
why Darwininian evolution cannot be right. We cannot agree on the meaning
of "breath" which is why you asphyxiate all interest.
David
bpuharic
the question is irrelevant.
backspace is stuck in a 3rd century mindset where science is magic,
and magic is science.
because of 'god'.
backspace
So pattern or design?
backspace
> backspace wrote:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection
>
> > "...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a
> > species may be subject to selection...."
> > Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design
> > sense.
>
> Who cares? Perhaps you do as you are a monomaniac who just can't let go.
The people who just won't let go are the Empedoclians running our
universities and government, they have decreed that asking the
question is of limits. You must debate them , reason them with them
but can't because we don't know the intent with the word: pattern or
design.
> We could have a thread that is useful, stimulating, educational or just fun.
> But not if you start one of your interminable searches looking for what
> everybody else found at age 12 years, not if you are going to try again to
> convince the rest of the world that words have no meaning and that this is
> why Darwininian evolution cannot be right.
What is darwinian evolution?
Burkhard
Yellow or triangle? Since this distinction only has meaning for you,
how should I know?The sentence as it is is perfectly intelligible for
a sufficiently competent speaker of English.
Nick Keighley
a shorthand for evolutionary biology. Descent with modification plus
natural selection. Stellar evolution, for instance, isn't Darwinian
Eric Root
Backspace, go jump in a lake. I mean it in the "large body of fresh
water" sense.
Eric Root
Ron O
So we won't be barking about nothing the author should have written
"In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of genes
segregating within a population may be subject to selection...."
Selection in this case only means that the environment might favor
some trait or allele over another. "subject" to selection only means
that the variation may exist, but it doesn't have to be selected for
or against under the conditions that the population exists under.
Ron Okimoto
David Hare-Scott
> On Apr 21, 2:45 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> backspace wrote:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection
>>
>>> "...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a
>>> species may be subject to selection...."
>>> Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design
>>> sense.
>>
>> Who cares? Perhaps you do as you are a monomaniac who just can't let
>> go.
>
> The people who just won't let go are the Empedoclians running our
> universities and government, they have decreed that asking the
> question is of limits.
Typical paranoid conspiracy rubbish. It is used by every nutbar to justify
the fact that nobody of any consequence takes them seriously. Grow up.
You must debate them , reason them with them
> but can't because we don't know the intent with the word: pattern or
> design.
>
Here we go into the looking glass. Are you there Alice? Oh
Aaaaaalice.......
>> We could have a thread that is useful, stimulating, educational or
>> just fun. But not if you start one of your interminable searches
>> looking for what everybody else found at age 12 years, not if you
>> are going to try again to convince the rest of the world that words
>> have no meaning and that this is why Darwininian evolution cannot be
>> right.
>
> What is darwinian evolution?
The same thing it was the last twenty times that you asked. Your groove is
wearing deeper, you are never getting out of it and unlike Schwarzenegger's
Conan turning the millstone you won't end up with big shoulders either.
David
backspace
wrote:
Who did the modifying? Are you using modification in the pattern or
design sense.
backspace
> > "...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a
> > species may be subject to selection...."
> > Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design
> > sense.
> So we won't be barking about nothing the author should have written
> "In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of genes
> segregating within a population may be subject to selection...."
> Selection in this case only means that the environment might favor
> some trait or allele over another.
Are you using favor in the pattern or design sense?
> "subject" to selection only means that the variation may exist, but it doesn't have to be selected for
> or against under the conditions that the population exists under.
Are you using "subject to selection" in the pattern or design sense?
backspace
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection
>
> > "...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a
> > species may be subject to selection...."
> > Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design
> > sense.
>
> So we won't be barking about nothing the author should have written
> "In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of genes
> segregating within a population may be subject to selection...."
The context Darwin had with "evolution" had nothing to do with genes.
You are using the same symbol but to which concept are you referring
to. In 1865 the context was Dr. Fletcher's rudiments of physiology and
Vestiges by Robert Chambers with spiders forming by themselves on
battery terminals - this is what a reader in 1865 understood under the
rubric of "evolution" .
backspace
> > > You may find out the nym of the author when you use the "track
> > > editing" feature in wikipedia. Not that it matters at all who wrote
> > > it.
> > > It is used in the sense of : increasing or decreasing the chances
> > > that the trait is passed on"
> > So pattern or design?
> Yellow or triangle? Since this distinction only has meaning for you,
> how should I know?The sentence as it is is perfectly intelligible for
> a sufficiently competent speaker of English.
It is just as semantically correct as : You have a green light, but
what is the intended meaning as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics.
By intelligible you mean semantically and grammatically intelligible,
but the issue is pragmatics not semantics.
We could have a user that believes the Gaia nature selection force
using its Jedi powers made a decision. Another user used "selection"
in the pattern sense. The symbol selection itself doesn't mean
anything, we can't deduce from just the symbol what is meant.
I take it your belief is the same as Howard: Design is subset of
pattern as per your premise that matter came before mind.
backspace
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_with_modification redirects to
evolution, what would be the difference between DWM and Evolution and
who would say so ?
backspace
Well Wilkins says there is no such thing as Darwinism. But Darwinism
is just another synonym for Darwinian, like mud is the vernacular for
crystals. Ruse for example thinks we came from crystals, Ben Stein
then used the vernacular "mud". Monkey is the vernacular for gorilla,
ape and simian. In one context a common ancestor between fish and land
dwelling species is a "common ancestor" ala Dawkins and in another a
common ancestor fishy thingy - fun this game with words don't you
think?
Burkhard
> On Apr 21, 3:45 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > You may find out the nym of the author when you use the "track
> > > > editing" feature in wikipedia. Not that it matters at all who wrote
> > > > it.
> > > > It is used in the sense of : increasing or decreasing the chances
> > > > that the trait is passed on"
> > > So pattern or design?
> > Yellow or triangle? Since this distinction only has meaning for you,
> > how should I know?The sentence as it is is perfectly intelligible for
> > a sufficiently competent speaker of English.
>
> It is just as semantically correct as : You have a green light, but
> By intelligible you mean semantically and grammatically intelligible,
> but the issue is pragmatics not semantics.
no. What is important is what the reader understands, not what the
writer had in his mind
> We could have a user that believes the Gaia nature selection force
> using its Jedi powers made a decision. Another user used "selection"
> in the pattern sense.
As long as the descriptive account is the same,nobody cares.
> The symbol selection itself doesn't mean
> anything, we can't deduce from just the symbol what is meant.
>
No, but we have as communiy of speakers, and the symbo means whatever
a competent speaker would interpret it.
> I take it your belief is the same as Howard: Design is subset of
> pattern
I, in line with about everyone else here, have no idea whatsoever what
you mean with pattern and design. I do know though that there are
design patterns. Everybody who knits uses them.
> as per your premise that matter came before mind.
Don't know where I made this claim, or how it relates to patterns or
design.
backspace
> On 21 Apr, 13:25, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Apr 21, 3:45 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > You may find out the nym of the author when you use the "track
> > > > > editing" feature in wikipedia. Not that it matters at all who wrote
> > > > > it.
> > > > > It is used in the sense of : increasing or decreasing the chances
> > > > > that the trait is passed on"
> > > > So pattern or design?
> > > Yellow or triangle? Since this distinction only has meaning for you,
> > > how should I know?The sentence as it is is perfectly intelligible for
> > > a sufficiently competent speaker of English.
>
> > It is just as semantically correct as : You have a green light, but
> > what is the intended meaning as perhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics.
> > By intelligible you mean semantically and grammatically intelligible,
>
> yes
>
> > but the issue is pragmatics not semantics.
>
> no. What is important is what the reader understands, not what the
> writer had in his mind
You can't be serious.
> > The symbol selection itself doesn't mean
> > anything, we can't deduce from just the symbol what is meant.
> No, but we have as communiy of speakers, and the symbo means whatever
> a competent speaker would interpret it.
Words have no meaning.
> > I take it your belief is the same as Howard: Design is subset of
> > pattern
> I, in line with about everyone else here, have no idea whatsoever what
> you mean with pattern and design. I do know though that there are
> design patterns. Everybody who knits uses them.
I am knitting a "design pattern", would represent design even though
it has the word "pattern". Same story with "random":
What does Random mean?
Lets take the common *semantic* understanding with the word "Random".
Semantically its dictionary definition is without purpose. But since
"random" has no meaning it could actually convey purpose depending on
the intent. Under the rubric of "random" we have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sample and many more
concepts.
Place five bags of marbles each labeled q,u,a,r,k respectively, with
each bag containing all the letters of the alphabet. Now do a
"selection at random" or "probability selection" as per
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sample by placing your hand
inside and selecting each marble until the target letter is met. The
phrase "selection at random" now conveys design even though it has the
word "random" in it. This demonstrates that no symbol either
"selection", "pattern", "design" or "random" has any meaning, only
ideas have meaning. And your idea needs to be decoded as you use the
symbols "pattern" and "design" in their relevant contexts given your
premise: Mind before matter or matter before mind. Either premise will
forever be one of faith. http://raherrmann.com/ calls
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness a strong delusion. Pure
randomness doesn't exist in mathematics, it is a metaphysical
position.
> > as per your premise that matter came before mind.
> Don't know where I made this claim, or how it relates to patterns or
> design.
Depends what you mean with pattern and design.
R Brown
"backspace" <steph...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:80bf78a2-f689-4ec4...@b6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
he wants to go with this. So does anyone else in here with half a brain.
Here's a bone for backspace: (gotta feed the creationists if you want to
keep them playing)
Q: Who did the modifying?
A: It was God. Godidit. God is the intelligent designer and originator of
genetic modifications according to his desires. We cannot presume to
understand his desires because we are unworthy scum and need to submit and
not be so arrogant so guys like you can feel good so we'll all get a ticket
to heaven but you'll get a better placement 'cuz you're bringing the
message.
Q: Are you using modification in the pattern or design sense?
A: I'm going to go with "modification in the design sense" for $200 Alex.
Patterns can happen due to the physical condition of material objects. For
example, water molecules can form patterns in snowflakes. The modifications
that God wrought are in the design, not the pattern. We need to make the
athiest understand that there is clear intentionality of the designer being
displayed here, not just patterns.
Made your day, (and saved a lot of wasted bandwidth while you fence with us)
didn't I?
Burkhard
> On Apr 21, 5:42 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 21 Apr, 13:25, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Apr 21, 3:45 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > > You may find out the nym of the author when you use the "track
> > > > > > editing" feature in wikipedia. Not that it matters at all who wrote
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > > It is used in the sense of : increasing or decreasing the chances
> > > > > > that the trait is passed on"
> > > > > So pattern or design?
> > > > Yellow or triangle? Since this distinction only has meaning for you,
> > > > how should I know?The sentence as it is is perfectly intelligible for
> > > > a sufficiently competent speaker of English.
>
> > > It is just as semantically correct as : You have a green light, but
> > > what is the intended meaning as perhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics.
> > > By intelligible you mean semantically and grammatically intelligible,
>
> > yes
>
> > > but the issue is pragmatics not semantics.
>
> > no. What is important is what the reader understands, not what the
> > writer had in his mind
>
> You can't be serious.
>
pragmatics and the theory of meaning by Jeroen Groenendijk and Martin
Stokho, Journal of Pragmatics
Volume 2, Issue 1, March 1978, Pages 49-70
> > > The symbol selection itself doesn't mean
> > > anything, we can't deduce from just the symbol what is meant.
> > No, but we have as communiy of speakers, and the symbo means whatever
> > a competent speaker would interpret it.
>
> Words have no meaning.
>
Words have the meaning the community of speakers assigsn to them
> > > I take it your belief is the same as Howard: Design is subset of
> > > pattern
> > I, in line with about everyone else here, have no idea whatsoever what
> > you mean with pattern and design. I do know though that there are
> > design patterns. Everybody who knits uses them.
>
> I am knitting a "design pattern", would represent design even though
> it has the word "pattern".
and it would represent patterns, as the word says. This is a pattern:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3069/2715012831_00291f5100.jpg
>Same story with "random":
> What does Random mean?
>
> Lets take the common *semantic* understanding with the word "Random".
> Semantically its dictionary definition is without purpose. But since
> "random" has no meaning it could actually convey purpose depending on
> the intent. Under the rubric of "random" we havehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sampleand many more
> concepts.
>
> Place five bags of marbles each labeled q,u,a,r,k respectively, with
> each bag containing all the letters of the alphabet. Now do a
> "selection at random" or "probability selection" as perhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sampleby placing your hand
> inside and selecting each marble until the target letter is met. The
> phrase "selection at random" now conveys design even though it has the
> word "random" in it. This demonstrates that no symbol either
> "selection", "pattern", "design" or "random" has any meaning,
No it doesn't. It is still and remains a random selection.
>only
> ideas have meaning. And your idea needs to be decoded as you use the
> symbols "pattern" and "design" in their relevant contexts given your
> premise: Mind before matter or matter before mind. Either premise will
> forever be one of faith.http://raherrmann.com/callshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomnessa strong delusion. Pure
> randomness doesn't exist in mathematics, it is a metaphysical
> position.
>
And you still haven;t shown how that alleged premise has anything to
do with patterns or design
> > > as per your premise that matter came before mind.
> > Don't know where I made this claim, or how it relates to patterns or
> > design.
>
> Depends what you mean with pattern and design.
Since you brought up these terms, you should explain what you mean
with them, and how you think they relate to mind vs matter, don't you
think
backspace
> "backspace" <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Darwin used it in the pattern sense. He also used "ns acts" in the
pattern sense.
Will in New Haven
This would have been very good, and humane, advice if he had set
himself on fire, as I have asked him to do repeatedly.
--
Will in New Haven
Will in New Haven
And your mother accepted material support from your father. And they
had sex. So the vernacular says that your mom is a whore.
Kermit
> On Apr 21, 3:45 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > You may find out the nym of the author when you use the "track
> > > > editing" feature in wikipedia. Not that it matters at all who wrote
> > > > it.
> > > > It is used in the sense of : increasing or decreasing the chances
> > > > that the trait is passed on"
> > > So pattern or design?
> > Yellow or triangle? Since this distinction only has meaning for you,
> > how should I know?The sentence as it is is perfectly intelligible for
> > a sufficiently competent speaker of English.
>
> It is just as semantically correct as : You have a green light, but
> By intelligible you mean semantically and grammatically intelligible,
> but the issue is pragmatics not semantics.
No, it's not. Why on Earth would you think so?
The article is explaining an idea; it is not trying to manipulate
anybody. There are no ulterior motives that would change its meaning.
>
> We could have a user that believes the Gaia nature selection force
> using its Jedi powers made a decision.
That would not be the mainstream science point of view, and the
Wikipedia staff would correct it.
> Another user used "selection"
> in the pattern sense. The symbol selection itself doesn't mean
> anything, we can't deduce from just the symbol what is meant.
>
Did the user say so, or did you just apply your Procrustean standard?
> I take it your belief is the same as Howard: Design is subset of
> pattern as per your premise that matter came before mind.
Yes. There are many patterns (most of them) which are not intended.
There is no evidence that mind came before, or *can come before,
matter. There are many scientists who believe it did, but they will
tell you that this is not a scientific claim.
Who are you, and what have you done with backspace? You seem to be
making sense.
Kermit
LT
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection
>
> "...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a
> species may be subject to selection...."
> Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design
> sense.
The sentence is self-explanatory. It is prefaced with "In the context
of evolution". So, obviously, selection refers to natural selection,
and neither pattern nor design. What a silly question.
LT
Kermit
> On Apr 21, 5:42 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 21 Apr, 13:25, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Apr 21, 3:45 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > > You may find out the nym of the author when you use the "track
> > > > > > editing" feature in wikipedia. Not that it matters at all who wrote
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > > It is used in the sense of : increasing or decreasing the chances
> > > > > > that the trait is passed on"
> > > > > So pattern or design?
> > > > Yellow or triangle? Since this distinction only has meaning for you,
> > > > how should I know?The sentence as it is is perfectly intelligible for
> > > > a sufficiently competent speaker of English.
>
> > > It is just as semantically correct as : You have a green light, but
> > > what is the intended meaning as perhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics.
> > > By intelligible you mean semantically and grammatically intelligible,
>
> > yes
>
> > > but the issue is pragmatics not semantics.
>
> > no. What is important is what the reader understands, not what the
> > writer had in his mind
>
> You can't be serious.
I share you concern, but in science and encyclopedia articles,
pragmatics is almost always a silly distraction. In fact, I would
suggest that you drop it altogether; your obsession with it makes it
impossible for you to read simple statements.
>
> > > The symbol selection itself doesn't mean
> > > anything, we can't deduce from just the symbol what is meant.
> > No, but we have as communiy of speakers, and the symbo means whatever
> > a competent speaker would interpret it.
>
> Words have no meaning.
Ah, here's the backspace I know.
>
> > > I take it your belief is the same as Howard: Design is subset of
> > > pattern
> > I, in line with about everyone else here, have no idea whatsoever what
> > you mean with pattern and design. I do know though that there are
> > design patterns. Everybody who knits uses them.
>
> I am knitting a "design pattern", would represent design even though
> it has the word "pattern". Same story with "random":
> What does Random mean?
Quite a few things, related to a common thread, and usually involving
"unintended" or "unpredictable".
Because of its cluster of related meanings, in evolutionary biology we
frequently say "[mutations are] random with regard to the organism's
needs". We usually don't deem it necessary to say this more than once
per conversation or chapter.
>
> Lets take the common *semantic* understanding with the word "Random".
> Semantically its dictionary definition is without purpose. But since
> "random" has no meaning it could actually convey purpose depending on
> the intent. Under the rubric of "random" we havehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sampleand many more
> concepts.
>
> Place five bags of marbles each labeled q,u,a,r,k respectively, with
> each bag containing all the letters of the alphabet. Now do a
> "selection at random" or "probability selection" as perhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sampleby placing your hand
> inside and selecting each marble until the target letter is met. The
> phrase "selection at random" now conveys design even though it has the
> word "random" in it. This demonstrates that no symbol either
> "selection", "pattern", "design" or "random" has any meaning, only
> ideas have meaning. And your idea needs to be decoded as you use the
> symbols "pattern" and "design" in their relevant contexts given your
> premise: Mind before matter or matter before mind. Either premise will
> forever be one of faith.http://raherrmann.com/callshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomnessa strong delusion. Pure
> randomness doesn't exist in mathematics, it is a metaphysical
> position.
You work awfully hard to not understand simple statements.
It's not faith to claim that mutations are random with regard to the
needs of the organism. For instance, whether the climate is turning
warmer or colder, a newborn rabbit is as likely to be born with a
heavier fur coat than its parents. If the weather is generally colder,
it will be advantageous, if the weather is generally warmer, it will
be disadvantageous.
This is demonstrably true; these are verifiable facts. You cannot
disprove evolution by misunderstanding it. More articulate people than
you have tried and failed.
>
> > > as per your premise that matter came before mind.
> > Don't know where I made this claim, or how it relates to patterns or
> > design.
>
> Depends what you mean with pattern and design.
What difference does it make? Even if the universe were a dream of
Brahma, evolutionary science would be just as legitimate. If you don't
like it, ignore it, or address the evidence. You can't pretend to
claim that nobody means what they plainly say (and what everybody else
agrees they mean) and accomplish anything other than appearing sadly
obsessive and confused.
Kermit
Kermit
> On Apr 21, 2:45 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > backspace wrote:
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection
>
> > > "...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a
> > > species may be subject to selection...."
> > > Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design
> > > sense.
>
> > Who cares? Perhaps you do as you are a monomaniac who just can't let go.
>
> The people who just won't let go are the Empedoclians running our
> universities and government,
Most of them neither know nor care who Empedocles was.
> they have decreed that asking the
> question is of limits. You must debate them ,
Why the hell should we debate them if they are not asking a question
you are obsessed with, and which we have no trouble with?
> reason them with them
> but can't because we don't know the intent with the word: pattern or
> design.
Sure we do. The dictionary describes how sane English speakers use
those words. I any event, evolutionary science still stands. It works
in Mandarin as well as German. Are you prepared to obsess with primary
school grammar in all spoken languages? Because evolutionary science
is clear and valid in all of them.
>
> > We could have a thread that is useful, stimulating, educational or just fun.
> > But not if you start one of your interminable searches looking for what
> > everybody else found at age 12 years, not if you are going to try again to
> > convince the rest of the world that words have no meaning and that this is
> > why Darwininian evolution cannot be right.
>
> What is darwinian evolution?
Check Wikipedia.
Or buy a book.
Or ask someone you haven't asked a hundred times already.
Or - and this is a radical idea - take some classes. For you, however,
I offer unusual advice: don't ask questions, just listen.
Kermit
Kermit
He is correct. It's doubtful there ever was.
> But Darwinism is just another synonym for Darwinian,
No, it's not.
The former is a non-existent noun, the latter is an adjective
referring to a process which was originally described by Darwin, but
the understanding of which has since grown.
> like mud is the vernacular for crystals.
Ah. And money is the vernacular for cinnamon buns, and wheelbarrow is
the vernacular for dentist.
> Ruse for example thinks we came from crystals,
OK. So? Abiogenesis is not yet settled; not all researchers in the
field agree with him, but where does he say that crystals are the same
as mud?
> Ben Stein then used the vernacular "mud".
Ben Stein is an ass, an idiot, a propagandist, and poorly educated, so
I see his attraction for you as an authority. How does his disparaging
use of the word mud in his strawman misrepresentation of science
establish its vernacular usage for crystals?
If you say Empedocles was Greek, and I said he was Roman, would that
establish that "Roman" is the vernacular for "Greek"?
Or, you say Jesus was God, as an atheist I say he was human.
Therefore, the vernacular for "human" is "God".
> Monkey is the vernacular for gorilla,
> ape and simian.
By illiterates, or those playing with language, it can be.
What does this have to do with science or reality?
> In one context a common ancestor between fish and land
> dwelling species is a "common ancestor" ala Dawkins and in another a
> common ancestor fishy thingy - fun this game with words don't you
> think?
No. You don't play it well; you are ponderous, obsessive, and
dishonestly seeking a conclusion that you can support with neither
argumentation nor evidence.
Kermit
Kermit
> On Apr 21, 4:09 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > "...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a
> > > species may be subject to selection...."
> > > Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design
> > > sense.
> > So we won't be barking about nothing the author should have written
> > "In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of genes
> > segregating within a population may be subject to selection...."
> > Selection in this case only means that the environment might favor
> > some trait or allele over another.
>
> Are you using favor in the pattern or design sense?
No.
>
> > "subject" to selection only means that the variation may exist, but it doesn't have to be selected for
> > or against under the conditions that the population exists under.
>
> Are you using "subject to selection" in the pattern or design sense?
No.
But the results affect the design (in the metaphorical sense, not the
literal sense), which is also a pattern, and also the phenotypic
expression of the genomes of the offspring interacting with the
environment during development.
Kermit
Kermit
> On Apr 21, 4:09 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 21, 4:11 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection
>
> > > "...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a
> > > species may be subject to selection...."
> > > Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design
> > > sense.
>
> > So we won't be barking about nothing the author should have written
> > "In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of genes
> > segregating within a population may be subject to selection...."
>
> The context Darwin had with "evolution" had nothing to do with genes.
Of course it did; he just didn't know it.
> You are using the same symbol but to which concept are you referring
> to.
Genes. Look it up.
> In 1865 the context was Dr. Fletcher's rudiments of physiology and
> Vestiges by Robert Chambers with spiders forming by themselves on
> battery terminals - this is what a reader in 1865 understood under the
> rubric of "evolution" .
Not if they had read "On the Origin of Species", nor if they had never
heard of Fletcher or Chambers, nor if they had other reasons to use it
differently.
Kermit
backspace
Meaning is pragmatics , a meaning is a social convention, its symbolic
representation itself has no meaning. Quark doesn't mean anything.
odin
True. Stellar evolution isn't really Darwinian in that stars do not
replicate or get naturally selected. Just like embryological
development is not Darwinian. However, on a larger "time" scale (we do
not have a word that works so we use "time" outside of cosmological
time here), the universe of all universes may be a Darwinian process,
as Smolin points out. Also, on a different take on reality, all
physical process may actually be Darwinian at the fundamental string
level. In that case, stellar life cycle and embryological development
and climate may indeed be intrinsically Darwinian processes as well.
But that is not well understood by any stretch of the imagination, and
is probably not a practical way of seeing those processes. But it does
mean that perhaps nothing at all in reality makes sense except in the
light of evolution, to take Dobzhansky up one notch. BTW, human
thought may be a Darwinian process, and therefore design is a natural
process, unintentional, and perhaps intelligence is an illusion. So
ideas beget ideas with modification, and the frontal lobe simulator
puts it through its selective paces.
-Loki
Christopher Denney
Did you look up the word monomaniac?
Do you understand the meaning we have in mind when we say you are one?
backspace
You don't seem to like me very much.
backspace
> > Monkey is the vernacular for gorilla,
> > ape and simian.
> By illiterates, or those playing with language, it can be.
> What does this have to do with science or reality?
Ask John Harshman and John Wilkins , they insist that our ancestor was
a flea scratching baboon hanging by its tail in the trees.
backspace
You can't really interact with your environment in the same sense
that you are not adapted to your environment in the sense that Linux
isn't adapted to its environment or condition of existence. My
premise is that mind came before matter, that my body and grey matter
is a symbolic representation of my soul - the real me, which can't
die. My soul is like a complex Linux idea neither here nor there and
just like "Linux is adapted to its environment" makes no sense so is
saying that you are adapted to your environment meaningless. Saying
your interact with your environment is somewhere between a truism and
meaningless....... because you can't do anything but interact with
your condition of existence, which is described by your attributes.
---------------------
Note that the above seems a bit confusing I would be happy to amend it
but it seems a failure of language to find the correct words. See this
post for clarity
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology#Wikipedia.27s_Fitness_article_uses_John_Tyndall.27s_interpetation_of_Democritus
backspace
> On Apr 21, 6:11 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection
>
> > "...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a
> > species may be subject to selection...."
> > Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design
> > sense.
> The sentence is self-explanatory. It is prefaced with "In the context
> of evolution".
But the context with the symbol evolution(which has no meaning) was
Vestiges by Robert Chambers and Dr. Fletcher's Rudiments of physiology
with his embrios argument(flawed) in the time era of 1865. Back then
those authors were interpreted to understand OoS by a reader: Which
author are you interpreting? Because PZ Merkel German chancellor at
scienceblogs.com has stated that he isn't talking about Darwin when
using the symbol evolution.
Heir griphen Furer PZ wrote:
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/berlinski_i_cant_believe_im_wasting_time_on_this_guy
"...One we should get out of way immediately is this "Darwin's theory"
nonsense. We are not dealing with "Darwin's theory" anymore, but a
much greater body of knowledge and concepts that has accumulated in
the past century and a half, which includes one huge revision (the
incorporation of genetics and population genetics) in the past, and
which is being constantly updated right now. It is absolutely idiotic
to criticize the modern study of life on the basis of one's
misunderstanding of a preliminary proposal published in 1859. But this
is the strategy that the IDiots have taken. It is insane...."
> So, obviously, selection refers to natural selection, and neither pattern nor design. What a silly question.
Everything anything we observe or say or do is either a pattern or
design. Either the universe made itself or it was made. Pattern or
design are your only options, there isn't a third.
backspace
> True. Stellar evolution isn't really Darwinian in that stars do not
> replicate or get naturally selected. Just like embryological
> development is not Darwinian. However, on a larger "time" scale (we do
> not have a word that works so we use "time" outside of cosmological
> time here), the universe of all universes may be a Darwinian process,
> as Smolin points out. Also, on a different take on reality, all
> physical process may actually be Darwinian at the fundamental string
> level.
Darwin couldn't do string theory: How did he solve a problem he
couldn't define.
> BTW, human
> thought may be a Darwinian process,
Who defined what a darwinian process is.
> and therefore design is a natural
> process, unintentional, and perhaps intelligence is an illusion.
The sentence was made by your intelligence which means the sentence
itself is an illusion and thus what you wrote is an illusion, which
means we shouldn't believe what you say.
During the 19th Tremaux (http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/
00003806/01/Tremaux-on-species.pdf) differed with the belief held then
that the mind is an illusion. If a person says: "My mind is an
illusion created by the brain" then that very sentence itself is an
illusion because it was formulated by his mind. In addition why should
one believe a word he says if he thinks everything he says is the
result of illusions in his head?
Will in New Haven
> On Apr 21, 7:02�am, Will in New Haven
How can you tell? All you have to go by are words. And words have no
meaning.
Will in New Haven
> On Apr 21, 8:13�am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Monkey is the vernacular for gorilla,
> > > ape and simian.
> > By illiterates, or those playing with language, it can be.
> > What does this have to do with science or reality?
>
> Ask John Harshman and John Wilkins , they insist that our ancestor was
> a flea scratching baboon hanging by its tail in the trees.
Didn't you used to spell it "flee-scratching," or was that some other
fucking moron?
Baboons are not on our direct line of ancestry. And neither Harshman
nor Wilkins say they are. Baboons spend less time in trees than not.
Get one thing right in a row. And _then_ light yourself on fire.
--
Will in New Haven
>
>
Baron Bodissey
I'm curious: How do you function on a day to day basis? This is a
serious question.
Baron Bodissey
When science is on the march, nothing stands in its way.
– Amazon Women on the Moon
Burkhard
backspace
Well lets see now if nobody had any interest in what I had to say
then ..... sure what am I going on about the whole time over this
natural selection business.
Go Google and type in "Aristotle tautology" and note the pages that
come up 1 to 5 out 78000.
backspace
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 11:54 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 21, 8:13 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Monkey is the vernacular for gorilla,
> > > > ape and simian.
> > > By illiterates, or those playing with language, it can be.
> > > What does this have to do with science or reality?
>
> > Ask John Harshman and John Wilkins , they insist that our ancestor was
> > a flea scratching baboon hanging by its tail in the trees.
>
> Didn't you used to spell it "flee-scratching," or was that some other
> Baboons are not on our direct line of ancestry. And neither Harshman
> nor Wilkins say they are. Baboons spend less time in trees than not.
JH and Wilkins state that monkey, baboon are the vernacular for
simian, bonobo or any other primate symbol you would wish to use. IF
you use simian or ape or "ape like ancestor" instead of monkey you
have replaced one vernacular for another.
Will in New Haven
Monkey is a general term. Baboons are a few species of monkeys that
are not on the direct line to the apes and thus not on that branch of
the human family tree, if you will excuse the expression. You have
probably misunderstood the two gentlemen in question, which isn't your
fault. You aren't really bright enough to discuss these matters with
them. With them or with my Labrador retriever.
David Hare-Scott
David Hare-Scott
> On Apr 21, 7:02 am, Will in New Haven
Did you ever have a collection of music on black vinyl records? When a spot
of dirt got in the groove in the right way the needle would backtrack so
that the same circuit would be repeated indefinitely. Did you like that
music very much or could you listen to it by the hour?
To fix it you would give the cabinet a sharp smack.
You have been in need of such for years. I mean strictly mentally. If you
cannot get out of this groove in time all you will get is smacks.
David
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 21, 2:45 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> backspace wrote:
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection
>>
>> > "...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a
>> > species may be subject to selection...."
>> > Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design
>> > sense.
>>
>> Who cares? Perhaps you do as you are a monomaniac who just can't let go.
>
>The people who just won't let go are the Empedoclians running our
>universities and government, they have decreed that asking the
>question is of limits. You must debate them , reason them with them
>but can't because we don't know the intent with the word: pattern or
>design.
well, no. no one cares who wrote that. what they DO care about is that
taliban chrisitans...like yourself...think science is to be tossed out
in favor of a 4th century view of nature
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>You can't really interact with your environment in the same sense
>that you are not adapted to your environment in the sense that Linux
>isn't adapted to its environment or condition of existence. My
>premise is that mind came before matte
for a guy who's anal retentive on language, you seem to require of
everyone else what you ignore yourself: exactitude
what the hell is 'mind'?
r, that my body and grey matter
>is a symbolic representation of my soul
what the hell is 'soul'? who first defined it? what are its
pragmatics?
>---------------------
>Note that the above seems a bit confusing I would be happy to amend it
>but it seems a failure of language to find the correct words
'soul' has no meaning at all. it represents something that does not
exist
and we have NEVER seen 'minds' apart from brains. ever. not once
..
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 21, 8:13 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > Monkey is the vernacular for gorilla,
>> > ape and simian.
>
>> By illiterates, or those playing with language, it can be.
>
>> What does this have to do with science or reality?
>
>Ask John Harshman and John Wilkins , they insist that our ancestor was
>a flea scratching baboon hanging by its tail in the trees.
>
they were.
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 21, 8:58 am, odin <odinoo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> True. Stellar evolution isn't really Darwinian in that stars do not
>> replicate or get naturally selected. Just like embryological
>> development is not Darwinian. However, on a larger "time" scale (we do
>> not have a word that works so we use "time" outside of cosmological
>> time here), the universe of all universes may be a Darwinian process,
>> as Smolin points out. Also, on a different take on reality, all
>> physical process may actually be Darwinian at the fundamental string
>> level.
>
>Darwin couldn't do string theory: How did he solve a problem he
>couldn't define.
>
>> BTW, human
>> thought may be a Darwinian process,
>Who defined what a darwinian process is.
who's buried in grant's tomb?
Ron O
> On Apr 21, 4:09 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > species may be subject to selection...."
> > > Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design
> > > sense.
> > "In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of genes
> > segregating within a population may be subject to selection...."
> > Selection in this case only means that the environment might favor
> > some trait or allele over another.
>
Whatever does better in a certain environment gets selected for. If
it isn't as good as most of what is around it gets selected against.
I don't know what kind of pattern or design sense you are talking
about.
>
> > "subject" to selection only means that the variation may exist, but it doesn't have to be selected for
> > or against under the conditions that the population exists under.
>
> Are you using "subject to selection" in the pattern or design sense?
Probably neither.
Ron Okimoto
Will in New Haven
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 09:03:41 -0700 (PDT), backspace
>
>
> >You can't really interact with your environment in the same sense
> >that you are not adapted to your environment in the sense that Linux
> >isn't adapted to its environment or condition of existence. My
> >premise is that mind came before matte
>
> for a guy who's anal retentive on language, you seem to require of
> everyone else what you ignore yourself: exactitude
>
> what the hell is 'mind'?
>
> r, that my body and grey matter
>
> >is a symbolic representation of my soul
>
> what the hell is 'soul'? who first defined it? what are its
> pragmatics?
>
> >---------------------
> >Note that the above seems a bit confusing I would be happy to amend it
> >but it seems a failure of language to find the correct words
>
> 'soul' has no meaning at all. it represents something that does not
> exist
"Soul" is a quality of music or, in a more banal sense, a _category_
of music. The meaning can be extended to a quality of an actor's
performance or even further. In it's core meaning, Soul is not about a
category but a quality. Hank Sr. had soul.
--
Will in New Haven
>
John Wilkins
<wf...@comcast.net> wrote:
No. Baboons have non-prehensile tails that could never have supported
their weight in trees. They undoubtedly had a tree dwelling ancestor,
since all primates, including us, do, but whether any actual baboon or
ancestor had a prehensile tail is something I rather doubt, as the
primates with prehensile tails are all New World monkeys, and baboons
are Old World.
bpuharic
wrote:
'tis true. but he was making a point, i suppose...creationist attempt
at humor...or something like that.
besides, i keep hoping prehensile tails make a comeback...
bpuharic
<bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>On Apr 21, 7:23 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 09:03:41 -0700 (PDT), backspace
>>
>>
>> 'soul' has no meaning at all. it represents something that does not
>> exist
>
>"Soul" is a quality of music or, in a more banal sense, a _category_
>of music.
if you're as plump as i am (though i'm dieting and have lost 40 lbs),
you also think of soul in terms of food...
of course, when you're dieting you ALWAYS think of food...
Moist Lipwig
news:hqnuln$3pr$1...@news.albasani.net...
second
John Wilkins
<wf...@comcast.net> wrote:
They never went away, if you are a platyrrhine. But unless there's
something you aren't telling us, you are a catarrhine.
Inez
Good lord! Did you finally realize that you're a bore?! There's some
evidence for God if I ever saw it; surely no one less magical could
get through to you.
backspace
> On Apr 21, 7:11 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 21, 4:09 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > "...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a
> > > > species may be subject to selection...."
> > > > Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design
> > > > sense.
> > > So we won't be barking about nothing the author should have written
> > > "In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of genes
> > > segregating within a population may be subject to selection...."
> > > Selection in this case only means that the environment might favor
> > > some trait or allele over another.
>
> > Are you using favor in the pattern or design sense?
> Whatever does better in a certain environment gets selected for.
Or as Wilkins put it ".... whatever works better gets retained, that's
selection in biology...." Both sentences are a "double tautology"
can be used in both the pattern or design sense, depending on the
user. From the sentence itself one can't deduce whether pattern or
design, in the same way that You have a green light doesn't tell us
what is meant.
> If
> it isn't as good as most of what is around it gets selected against.
> I don't know what kind of pattern or design sense you are talking
> about.
> > > "subject" to selection only means that the variation may exist, but it doesn't have to be selected for
> > > or against under the conditions that the population exists under.
> > Are you using "subject to selection" in the pattern or design sense?
> Probably neither.
Who are you interpreting Darwin perhaps? And you must make a choice
between pattern and design - there is no third option. If you can't
say then your sentence isn't even wrong.
David Hare-Scott
> On Apr 21, 4:09 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> "...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a
>>> species may be subject to selection...."
>>> Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design
>>> sense.
>
>> So we won't be barking about nothing the author should have written
>> "In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of genes
>> segregating within a population may be subject to selection...."
>
>> Selection in this case only means that the environment might favor
>> some trait or allele over another.
> Are you using favor in the pattern or design sense?
Neither. This has been explained many times but all you do is put your
fingers in your ears and yell LA LA LA.
>
>> "subject" to selection only means that the variation may exist, but
>> it doesn't have to be selected for or against under the conditions
>> that the population exists under.
>
> Are you using "subject to selection" in the pattern or design sense?
Once again neither. Why don't just give up. You will never understand
this. Go and live in your silly world where words mean anything and nothing
and where actually communicating with other people has no value.
David
backspace
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 7:23 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 09:03:41 -0700 (PDT), backspace
>
> > <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >You can't really interact with your environment in the same sense
> > >that you are not adapted to your environment in the sense that Linux
> > >isn't adapted to its environment or condition of existence. My
> > >premise is that mind came before matte
>
> > for a guy who's anal retentive on language, you seem to require of
> > everyone else what you ignore yourself: exactitude
>
> > what the hell is 'mind'?
>
> > r, that my body and grey matter
>
> > >is a symbolic representation of my soul
>
> > what the hell is 'soul'? who first defined it? what are its
> > pragmatics?
>
> > >---------------------
> > >Note that the above seems a bit confusing I would be happy to amend it
> > >but it seems a failure of language to find the correct words
>
> > 'soul' has no meaning at all. it represents something that does not
> > exist
>
> "Soul" is a quality of music or, in a more banal sense, a _category_
> of music.
Correct because "soul" like "quark" has no meaning, only ideas have
meaning and the idea whether patter or design is only something a user
wielding the tools of semantics can have. Like a hammer has no
intention to strike so a word like soul has no intention: Only you can
have intention, only you can tell us patter or design.
The meaning can be extended to a quality of an actor's
> performance or even further. In it's core meaning, Soul is not about a
> category but a quality. Hank Sr. had soul.
Very good explanation for why no word or sentence has a meaning.
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 21, 5:41 pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Apr 21, 7:11 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 21, 4:09 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > "...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a
>> > > > species may be subject to selection...."
>> > > > Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design
>> > > > sense.
>> > > So we won't be barking about nothing the author should have written
>> > > "In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of genes
>> > > segregating within a population may be subject to selection...."
>> > > Selection in this case only means that the environment might favor
>> > > some trait or allele over another.
>>
>> > Are you using favor in the pattern or design sense?
>
>> Whatever does better in a certain environment gets selected for.
>Or as Wilkins put it ".... whatever works better gets retained, that's
>selection in biology...." Both sentences are a "double tautology"
i hope you realize everyone agrees you don't know what 'tautology'
means.
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Correct because "soul" like "quark" has no meaning, only ideas have
>meaning and the idea whether patter or design is only something a user
>wielding the tools of semantics can have.
so 'god' has no meaning
yep. makes sense to me.
Steelclaws
> Well lets see now if nobody had any interest in what I had to say
> then
Since you never say anything, nobody can have interest.
John Wilkins
<wf...@comcast.net> wrote:
That's true by definition...
backspace
> On Apr 21, 5:11 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 21, 4:09 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > "...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a
> > > > species may be subject to selection...."
> > > > Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design
> > > > sense.
> > > So we won't be barking about nothing the author should have written
> > > "In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of genes
> > > segregating within a population may be subject to selection...."
> > > Selection in this case only means that the environment might favor
> > > some trait or allele over another.
>
> > Are you using favor in the pattern or design sense?
>
>
>
>
> > > "subject" to selection only means that the variation may exist, but it doesn't have to be selected for
> > > or against under the conditions that the population exists under.
>
>
> No.
>
> But the results affect the design (in the metaphorical sense, not the
> literal sense),
Because the symbol "design" has no meaning we deduce that design in
this context is a proxy for pattern. A design in the metaphorical
sense is a pattern. Ultimately for you everything is just a pattern
and design an illusion, which means we can't believe anything you tell
us.
> which is also a pattern, and also the phenotypic
Correct as deduced above.
> expression of the genomes of the offspring interacting with the
> environment during development.
Interact here is also being used in the pattern sense.
Burkhard
It shows that they have multiple meanings. Makes languages easier to
learn, _slightly_ less easy to decipher, though competent speakers of
a language are normally able to do so in most, but not all contexts.
Nick Keighley
> On Apr 21, 3:50 am, NickKeighley<nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
> > On 21 Apr, 11:38, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 21, 2:45 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > > > We could have a thread that is useful, stimulating, educational or just fun.
> > > > But not if you start one of your interminable searches looking for what
> > > > everybody else found at age 12 years, not if you are going to try again to
> > > > convince the rest of the world that words have no meaning and that this is
> > > > why Darwininian evolution cannot be right.
>
> > > What is darwinian evolution?
>
> > a shorthand for evolutionary biology. Descent with modification plus
> > natural selection. Stellar evolution, for instance, isn't Darwinian
>
> Who did the modifying?
modification doesn't require a who. The coast is modified by erosion.
No "who" involved.
> Are you using modification in the pattern or
> design sense.
to the best of my knowledge, neither. Could you define what you by
"modification in the design sense"? Who first stated this definition
and what was their justification for it?
Ron O
> On Apr 21, 5:41�pm, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 7:11�am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 21, 4:09�am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > "...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a
> > > > > species �may be subject to selection...."
> > > > > Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design
> > > > > sense.
> > > > So we won't be barking about nothing the author should have written
> > > > "In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of genes
> > > > segregating within a population may be subject to selection...."
> > > > Selection in this case only means that the environment might favor
> > > > some trait or allele over another.
>
> > > Are you using favor in the pattern or design sense?
> > Whatever does better in a certain environment gets selected for. �
>
> Or as Wilkins put it ".... whatever works better gets retained, that's
> selection in biology...." � Both sentences are a "double tautology"
> can be used in both the pattern or design sense, depending on the
> user. From the sentence itself one can't deduce whether pattern or
> design, in the same way that You have a green light doesn't tell us
> what is meant.
It may be a tautology to you, but all you have to do is go out into
nature and measure it yourself and observe that it is true, and that
it isn't even true for all traits. Some traits or alleles are
"neutral" and drift in the population until environmental conditions
change and they might be selected for or against. When it can be
determined when something is happening and when it is not, your notion
of tautology doesn't matter and you know it.
>
> > If
> > it isn't as good as most of what is around it gets selected against.
> > I don't know what kind of pattern or design sense you are talking
> > about.
> > > > �"subject" to selection only means �that the variation may exist, but it doesn't have to be selected for
> > > > or against under the conditions that the population exists under.
> > > Are you using "subject to selection" in the pattern or design sense?
> > Probably neither.
>
> Who are you interpreting Darwin perhaps? �And you must make a choice
> between pattern and design - there is no third option. If you can't
> say then your sentence isn't even wrong.-
No, it is just an observation based on your basket case track record.
Ron Okimoto
backspace
Measure what exactly?
> Some traits or alleles are "neutral" and drift in the population until environmental conditions
> change and they might be selected for or against.
"selected against " - pattern or design sense?
> When it can be
> determined when something is happening and when it is not, your notion
> of tautology doesn't matter and you know it.
When something happens or not can be either a pattern or design -
which concept are you referring to with "selection".
backspace
They don't have a single meaning, only ideas have meaning. The the
idea with "natural selection" , evolution, descent with modification
was ".... absolute empire of accident...." by Charles Kingsley. Today
different ideas, yet same terminology is being used.
backspace
wrote:
> On 21 Apr, 13:08, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 21, 3:50 am, NickKeighley<nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
> > > On 21 Apr, 11:38, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 21, 2:45 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > > We could have a thread that is useful, stimulating, educational or just fun.
> > > > > But not if you start one of your interminable searches looking for what
> > > > > everybody else found at age 12 years, not if you are going to try again to
> > > > > convince the rest of the world that words have no meaning and that this is
> > > > > why Darwininian evolution cannot be right.
>
> > > > What is darwinian evolution?
>
> > > a shorthand for evolutionary biology. Descent with modification plus
> > > natural selection. Stellar evolution, for instance, isn't Darwinian
>
> > Who did the modifying?
>
> modification doesn't require a who. The coast is modified by erosion.
> No "who" involved.
modification can be used in pattern or design sense. You used it in
the pattern sense, thus you are saying evolution happens by chance.
> > Are you using modification in the pattern or
> > design sense.
> to the best of my knowledge, neither. Could you define what you by
> "modification in the design sense"? Who first stated this definition
> and what was their justification for it?
If you don't know the difference between a pattern and design you are
mentally ill.
Burkhard
Your use of the term idea is as idiosyncratic as your use of the term
pattern an design. In some linguistic theories, "ideas" _are_ the
meaning of sentences, but they don't "have" meaning.
Examples are e.g Frege, and all those analytic philosophers like
Dummett that followed him.
see e.g. l, Claire Ortiz, 1991. Word and Object in Husserl, Frege and
Russell: The Roots of Twentieth-Century Philosophy. Athens OH: Ohio
University Press., Hill, and Rosado Haddock, G. E., 2000. Husserl or
Frege: Meaning, Objectivity, and Mathematics. Open Court.
Whether or not one subscribes to this notion is another question, but
at least it makes sense, Unlike your notion that ideas have meaning,
which might make sense to you, but is not something proposed in any
theory of meaning that I could think of, so you would have to explain
what you mean by this, and why you think it is a correct theory.
LT
> On Apr 21, 7:43 am, LT <LTfle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 21, 6:11 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection
>
> > > "...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a
> > > species may be subject to selection...."
> > > sense.
> > The sentence is self-explanatory. It is prefaced with "In the context
> > of evolution".
>
> But the context with the symbol evolution(which has no meaning) was
> Vestiges by Robert Chambers and Dr. Fletcher's Rudiments of physiology
> with his embrios argument(flawed) in the time era of 1865. Back then
> those authors were interpreted to understand OoS by a reader: Which
> author are you interpreting? Because PZ Merkel German chancellor at
> scienceblogs.com has stated that he isn't talking about Darwin when
> using the symbol evolution.
Your writing is very hard to follow. Evolution does indeed have a
meaning here, and it is the meaning we use today, in the sentence in
your OP. It is used in that sentence in the modern context of
biological evolution. I don't know where you come off just declaring
words have no meaning. It baffles the mind.
> Heir griphen Furer PZ wrote:http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/berlinski_i_cant_believe_...
> "...One we should get out of way immediately is this "Darwin's theory"
> nonsense. We are not dealing with "Darwin's theory" anymore, but a
> much greater body of knowledge and concepts that has accumulated in
> the past century and a half, which includes one huge revision (the
> incorporation of genetics and population genetics) in the past, and
> which is being constantly updated right now. It is absolutely idiotic
> to criticize the modern study of life on the basis of one's
> misunderstanding of a preliminary proposal published in 1859. But this
> is the strategy that the IDiots have taken. It is insane...."
What PZ Myers (as most of us know him) is saying is not what you think
he's saying. Today the ToE is much, much more than just "Darwin's
Theory". What he is merely saying is that the term "evolution" refers
to much more than what Darwin came up with in 1859. Since words have
meaning, comprehending them becomes important when trying to
understand what someone says. PZ is being unambiguously clear, and
your read of it is obviously wrong.
> > So, obviously, selection refers to natural selection, and neither pattern nor design. What a silly question.
>
> Everything anything we observe or say or do is either a pattern or
> design. Either the universe made itself or it was made. Pattern or
> design are your only options, there isn't a third.
Pattern and design are synonyms - one defines the other. Both imply
some sort of mind behind it. So pattern/design is one option (i.e.
Creationism/ID - and it can have an unlimited number of
'explanations', depending on what god or gods you want, and whatever
description you like about how they did this or that). The other
option is naturalistic, which could be considered, I suppose, the
Universe making itself. This option is based on evidence, and the
evidence points at this time to one explanation for the origin of
species - the Theory of Evolution. There's no other naturalistic
explanation that even comes close. The origin of the Universe is a
whole different ball of wax, and once again there is an unlimited
number of 'explanations' on the Creationism/ID side, but very, very
few on the naturalistic/scientific side.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the Universe making itself was
done following some sort of pattern or design, but going back to
option one above (Creationism/ID), you can say whatever you want.
Since it's not science, it can't be falsified, and is only so much
blowhardery.
LT
Stephen
> On Apr 21, 7:43 am, LT <LTfle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 21, 6:11 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection
> >
> > > "...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a
> > > species may be subject to selection...."
> > > Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design
> > > sense.
>
> > The sentence is self-explanatory. It is prefaced with "In the
> > context of evolution".
>
> But the context with the symbol evolution(which has no meaning) was
> Vestiges by Robert Chambers and Dr. Fletcher's Rudiments of physiology
> with his embrios argument(flawed) in the time era of 1865. Back then
> those authors were interpreted to understand OoS by a reader: Which
> author are you interpreting? Because PZ Merkel German chancellor at
> scienceblogs.com has stated that he isn't talking about Darwin when
> using the symbol evolution.
>
You know, you really do have the perfect nym: you backspace over
informative content others provide for you, and in its place leave ...
nothing.
> Heir griphen Furer PZ wrote:
> http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/berlinski_i_cant_believe_i
> m_wasting_time_on_this_guy "...One we should get out of way
> immediately is this "Darwin's theory" nonsense. We are not dealing
> with "Darwin's theory" anymore, but a much greater body of knowledge
> and concepts that has accumulated in the past century and a half,
> which includes one huge revision (the incorporation of genetics and
> population genetics) in the past, and which is being constantly
> updated right now. It is absolutely idiotic to criticize the modern
> study of life on the basis of one's misunderstanding of a preliminary
> proposal published in 1859. But this is the strategy that the IDiots
> have taken. It is insane...."
>
>
> > So, obviously, selection refers to natural selection, and neither
> > pattern nor design. What a silly question.
>
> Everything anything we observe or say or do is either a pattern or
> design. Either the universe made itself or it was made. Pattern or
> design are your only options, there isn't a third.
... leave nothing.
--
backspace
> Today the ToE is much, much more than just "Darwin's
> Theory".
solving a problem that can't even be defined: Life itself. Nobody
knows what Life is in terms of materialism.
I am not going to repeat myself, everything is over here:
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology. It explain why words have
no meaning.
> What he is merely saying is that the term "evolution" refers
Evolution refers to nothing because it means nothing, only you can
refer to something.
monke...@gmail.com
> On Apr 22, 8:10 am, LT <LTfle...@hotmail.com> wrote:> Today the ToE is much, much more than just "Darwin's
> > Theory".
>
> What is the ToE today?
"Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of
organisms through successive generations."
Futuyma, Douglas J. (2005). Evolution. Sunderland, Massachusetts:
Sinauer Associates, Inc.
>Show me the journal paper the nobel prize for
> solving a problem that can't even be defined: Life itself. Nobody
> knows what Life is in terms of materialism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/life
> I am not going to repeat myself, everything is over here:http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology. It explain why words have
> no meaning.
Everything in that link is a bunch of gibberish.
backspace
> I am not going to repeat myself, everything is over here:http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology. It explain why words have
> no meaning.
> > What he is merely saying is that the term "evolution" refers
> Evolution refers to nothing because it means nothing, only you can
> refer to something.
Let me clarify: Evolution like ninja and love or quark is a symbol ,
an agreed upon code between signal sender and receiver so that when
the symbol is used both parties have hopefully the same idea. The
problem from 1858 was that absolute empire of accident was meant but
symbols that usually were used in the volitional sense was used to
convey chance intent. The issue is what are you trying to say with
natural selection. Note that this so baffles Jerry Fodor that ......
well .... nobody knows what fodor is trying to say.
monke...@gmail.com
No, just like "ninja and love or quark," natural selection has an
agreed upon meaning "between signal sender and receiver so that when
the symbol is used both parties have hopefully the same idea."
We know exactly what "the symbol string" natural selection
"represents" because a population of speakers has an agreed upon
definition.
backspace
wrote:
Who are they , because Jerry Fodor is at a loss as to what NS is
supposed to represent.
haiku jones
> On Apr 22, 8:51 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am not going to repeat myself, everything is over here:http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology. It explain why words have
> > no meaning.
> > > What he is merely saying is that the term "evolution" refers
> > Evolution refers to nothing because it means nothing, only you can
> > refer to something.
>
> Let me clarify: Evolution like ninja and love or quark is a symbol ,
> an agreed upon code between signal sender and receiver so that when
> the symbol is used both parties have hopefully the same idea. The
> problem from 1858 was that absolute empire of accident was meant but
> symbols that usually were used in the volitional sense was used to
> convey chance intent.
And yet no one except you appears to have
any problem understanding what is meant,
any more than anyone gets confused when
I puzzle over "What is my program thinking
at this point?"
Why do you think that might be?
Haiku Jones
archie dux
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection
>
> "...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a
> species may be subject to selection...."
> Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design
> sense.
What? Neither. The word is being used in the
tristophyrlogian sense.
I assumed everyone tacitly realizes that.
Apparently not.
archie
monke...@gmail.com
Well, for the most part, this population of speakers would be
scientists. Also, I highly doubt you can understand anything Jerry
Fodor has said on the subject, considering that you can't even
understand simple newsgroup responses.
backspace
"....In order to make it clear how, as I believe,*natural selection
acts*, I must beg permission to give one or two imaginary
illustrations. Let us take the case of a wolf, which preys on various
animals, securing some by craft, some by strength, and some by
fleetness; and let us suppose that the fleetest prey, a deer for
instance, had from any change in the country increased in numbers, or
that other prey had decreased in numbers, during that season of the
year when the wolf was hardest pressed for food. Under such
circumstances the swiftest and slimmest wolves have the best chance of
surviving, and so be '''preserved or selected''', provided always that
they retained strength to master their prey at this or some other
period of the year, when they were compelled to prey on other
animals....."
".....best chance of surviving, and so be '''preserved or
selected'''....."
surviving and preserved says the same thing twice. Lets rephrase a
bit:
'''rephrase:'''"....In order to make it clear how, as I
believe,*natural selection acts*, I an illustration.
Let us take the case of a wolf, securing by fleetness prey; and let us
suppose that the fleetest prey, a deer for instance, had increased in
numbers, during that season of the year when the wolf was hardest
pressed for food. Under such circumstances the swiftest wolves have
the best chance of surviving, and so be '''preserved or
selected'''..."
'''rephrase:'''"...*natural selection acts* as in the case of a wolf,
securing by fleetness prey; and let us suppose that the fleetest prey,
a deer for instance, had increased in numbers, during that season of
the year when the wolf was hardest pressed for food. Under such
circumstances the swiftest wolves have the best chance of surviving,
and so be '''preserved or selected'''..."
'''rephrase:'''"...*natural selection acts* as in the case of a wolf,
securing by fleetness ,prey. The swiftest wolves have the best chance
of surviving, and so be '''preserved or selected'''..."
'''rephrase:'''"...*natural selection acts* by enabling the swiftest
wolves to be '''preserved or selected'''..."
'''rephrase:'''"...*natural selection acts* is the process that
preserves the swiftest.
'''rephrase:'''"...natural selection is the process that preserves the
swiftest.
'''rephrase, strip out NS red herring:'''"...The swiftest are
preserved...and therefore we are result of accident."
preserved and swiftest says the same thing twice , it is a rhetorical
tautology. Today the same tautology is used by a different conclusion:
"...The swiftest are preserved...and therefore we are result of divine
intervention..." . Any conclusion from the tautology is a non-
sequitur.
Burkhard
No they don't:
swift:dj. swift·er, swift·est
1. Moving or capable of moving with great speed; fast. See Synonyms at
fast1.
2. Coming, occurring, or accomplished quickly; instant: a swift
retort.
3. Quick to act or react; prompt: swift to take steps.
adv.
Swiftly. Often used in combination:
preserved:
pre·serve (pr-zûrv)
v. pre·served, pre·serv·ing, pre·serves
v.tr.
1. To maintain in safety from injury, peril, or harm; protect.
2. To keep in perfect or unaltered condition; maintain unchanged.
3. To keep or maintain intact: tried to preserve family harmony. See
Synonyms at defend.
4. To prepare (food) for future use, as by canning or salting.
5. To prevent (organic bodies) from decaying or spoiling.
6. To keep or protect (game or fish) for one's private hunting or
fishing.
v.intr.
1. To treat fruit or other foods so as to prevent decay.
2. To maintain a private area stocked with game or fish.
n.
1. Something that acts to preserve; a preservative.
2. Fruit cooked with sugar to protect against decay or fermentation.
Often used in the plural.
3. An area maintained for the protection of wildlife or natural
resources.
4. Something considered as being the exclusive province of certain
persons: Ancient Greek is the preserve of scholars.
Not even a remote overlap in meaning
backspace
semantically no, but pragmatically they allude to the same fact.
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 22, 8:10 am, LT <LTfle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Today the ToE is much, much more than just "Darwin's
>> Theory".
>What is the ToE today? Show me the journal paper the nobel prize for
>solving a problem that can't even be defined: Life itself. Nobody
>knows what Life is in terms of materialism.
if we dont know what life is
then we dont know what organisms that have life believe.
and that includes god. so god is meaningless
you have a problem here.
>
>I am not going to repeat myself, everything is over here:
>http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology. It explain why words have
>no meaning.
>
>> What he is merely saying is that the term "evolution" refers
>
>Evolution refers to nothing because it means nothing, only you can
>refer to something.
sorry. scientists disagree. 'tongues' babbling fundies dont get to
define what science is
bpuharic
and in the past 150 years we got that straightened out
too bad that, in 2000 years, religion can't make the same statement
Burkhard
Nope. Or maybe in _your_ semantic of the word "pragmatics", which is
different fro the way everybody else is using it.No conversational
implicature, no indication of the intend of the author, no speech act
performance in the text you cited indicate that the terms have
anything whatsoever toi do with each other.
Ron O
Natural selection in nature. It has been done, and even a guy like
you could do it if you wanted to actually learn something.
>
> > Some traits or alleles are "neutral" and drift in the population until environmental conditions
> > change and they might be selected for or against.
>
> "selected against " - pattern or design sense?
Bonehead.
>
> > When it can be
> > determined when something is happening and when it is not, your notion
> > of tautology doesn't matter and you know it.
>
> When something happens or not can be either a pattern or design -
> which concept are you referring to with "selection".-
Take it for what it is instead of trying to make it what you want it
to be.
Ron Okimoto
John Wilkins
<d4418248-ccb8-4436...@h27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, LT
<LTfl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Because PZ Merkel German chancellor at
> > scienceblogs.com has stated that he isn't talking about Darwin when
> > using the symbol evolution.
>
> Your writing is very hard to follow. Evolution does indeed have a
> meaning here, and it is the meaning we use today, in the sentence in
> your OP. It is used in that sentence in the modern context of
> biological evolution. I don't know where you come off just declaring
> words have no meaning. It baffles the mind.
>
> > Heir griphen Furer PZ
> > wrote:http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/berlinski_i_cant_believe_..
> > .
> > "...One we should get out of way immediately is this "Darwin's theory"
> > nonsense. We are not dealing with "Darwin's theory" anymore, but a
> > much greater body of knowledge and concepts that has accumulated in
> > the past century and a half, which includes one huge revision (the
> > incorporation of genetics and population genetics) in the past, and
> > which is being constantly updated right now. It is absolutely idiotic
> > to criticize the modern study of life on the basis of one's
> > misunderstanding of a preliminary proposal published in 1859. But this
> > is the strategy that the IDiots have taken. It is insane...."
>
> What PZ Myers (as most of us know him)...
Backwards is using a joke between me and Paul - I make a point of not
spelling his name right, to the point where it is obvious to my readers
that I am straining really hard to find another way to type his name.
Recently I used the "Merkel" comment on my blog.
http://evolvingthoughts.net/2010/04/17/tired-debates/
It's nice that backpassage reads my blog, but I never, nor should he,
have moved from the use of the German chancellor's name to the Hitler
connection, unless he now wants to declare that all Germans are ipso
facto Nazis, let alone smear Paul with that. Backbrain needs to chill a
bit.
Desertphile
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection
>
> "...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a
> species may be subject to selection...."
> Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design
> sense.
There is no such thing as a "design sense" in biology.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
John Wilkins
<deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 02:11:59 -0700 (PDT), backspace
> <steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection
> >
> > "...In the context of evolution, certain traits or alleles of a
> > species may be subject to selection...."
> > Who wrote that and did he use selection in the pattern or design
> > sense.
>
> There is no such thing as a "design sense" in biology.
Sure there is. What humans do, when they, as biological organisms,
design something, is the "design sense"... some other species may also
design things in that way, probably corvids.
Will in New Haven
> In article <8tp1t5507vrbdu58t4ikvocnpkvqi5n...@4ax.com>, Desertphile
Both of our parrots seem to have the ability to design. That their
designs tend to maximize disorder and chaos from the human PoV simply
shows the inadequacy of the alleged primate mind.
--
Will in New Haven
David Hare-Scott
It's the place he retreats to when cornered.
David
David Hare-Scott
> On Apr 22, 1:04 am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 21 Apr, 13:08, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 21, 3:50 am, NickKeighley<nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
>>>> On 21 Apr, 11:38, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 21, 2:45 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>>> We could have a thread that is useful, stimulating, educational
>>>>>> or just fun. But not if you start one of your interminable
>>>>>> searches looking for what everybody else found at age 12 years,
>>>>>> not if you are going to try again to convince the rest of the
>>>>>> world that words have no meaning and that this is why
>>>>>> Darwininian evolution cannot be right.
>>
>>>>> What is darwinian evolution?
>>
>>>> a shorthand for evolutionary biology. Descent with modification
>>>> plus natural selection. Stellar evolution, for instance, isn't
>>>> Darwinian
>>
>>> Who did the modifying?
>>
>> modification doesn't require a who. The coast is modified by erosion.
>> No "who" involved.
>
> modification can be used in pattern or design sense. You used it in
> the pattern sense, thus you are saying evolution happens by chance.
>
Nonsense. Contain a pattern does not imply happens chance by any normal use
of the words. If you want to redefine it please specify such before you
start.
>
>>> Are you using modification in the pattern or
>>> design sense.
>
>> to the best of my knowledge, neither. Could you define what you by
>> "modification in the design sense"? Who first stated this definition
>> and what was their justification for it?
>
> If you don't know the difference between a pattern and design you are
> mentally ill.
Nice deflection, now answer the question. What do mean by "modification in
the design sense"?
There are times when you seem honest but non-rational, that is incapable of
communicating. There are other times when you dodge and weave and obfuscate
when you don't look honest, that is you look unwilling to communicate.
David
David Hare-Scott
Backspace this is really gibbersish even by your standards, go and clear
your head, get some sleep or something but this is just too psychedelic.
David