creation.com and their confusing a tautology with circularity
backspace
"..... �Natural selection as tautology.� Natural selection is in one
sense a tautology (i.e., Who are the fittest? Those who survive/leave
the most offspring. Who survive/leave the most offspring? The
fittest.). But a lot of this is semantic word-play, and depends on how
the matter is defined, and for what purpose the definition is raised.
There are many areas of life in which circularity and truth go hand in
hand (e.g. What is electric charge? That quality of matter on which an
electric field acts. What is an electric field? A region in space that
exerts a force on electric charge. But no one would claim that the
theory of electricity is thereby invalid and can�t explain how motors
work.) � it is only that circularity cannot be used as independent
proof of something....."
Circular reasoning is assuming the premise in the conclusion it isn't
a tautology. I know this because Wilkins had to explain the difference
to me. Very smart man that Dr. Wilkins , why then is he equivocating
between logical validity's and rhetorical tautologies.
".......To harp on the issue of tautology can become misleading, if
the impression is given that something tautological therefore doesn�t
happen...."
Confuses a logical validity - Tautology1 with a rhetorical tautology3.
"What happens , happens" is a logical validity, our entire existence
is based on assuming it is true, it can't be refuted but neither
verified. But "what happens, happens and therefore my mommy had long
teeth and a tail" is a rhetorical tautology,the conclusion is a non-
sequitur.
".....Of course the environment can �select�, just as human breeders
select....."
Pattern or design? I might as well be reading http://www.evolvingthoughts.net/.
If the creationists start sounding like atheists then our society is
in really big trouble , our mental health is under attack.
".... Of course demonstrating this doesn�t mean that fish could turn
into philosophers by this means � the real issue is the nature of the
variation, the information problem....."
Nope, Aristotle original tautology which darwin reformulated had
nothing to do with cybernetic abstractions per se, it was a
generalized tautology crafted in such a manner that it could explain
everything, past present and future as in the ".... the good algorithm
outwitted the bad one......"
".... Arguments about tautology distract attention from the real
weakness of neo-Darwinism � the source of the new information
required...."
I would beg to differ, any argument that contains a rhetorical
tautology is logically flawed, the conclusion might be correct but
doesn't follow logically from the argument.
".... Given an appropriate source of variation (for example, an
abundance of created genetic information with the capacity for
Mendelian recombination), replicating populations of organisms would
be expected to be capable of some adaptation to a given environment,
and this has been demonstrated amply in practice...."
You are not adapted to your environment as explained at length on my
wiki at scratchpad.
backspace
charge as a quality of matter on which an electric field acts is a
narrative logical form schematic that enables one to grasp electricity
theory at a higher layer of abstraction. An electric field is a region
in space that exerts a force on electric charge, is a Tautology1
verbal schematic that is part of wider theory of electricity and as
such is a stepping stone to understanding the deeper concepts of the
theory. Using these logical forms as stepping stones should be seen in
the same light as children doing the three R's , a process of
automating low level concepts, in which logical validity's will be
repeated for their pedagogical effect. The sentence "...an electric
charge is a quality of matter on which an electric field acts..." by
itself would be meaningless, it is only valid as part of a wider
descriptive scheme, in the same way that axioms such as 1=1 should be
seen as the logical basis of all we do and say.
Erwin Moller
Dear backspace,
Why do you create such a semantic mess for yourself?
Here try this:
1) The creatures that leave the most (fertile) offspring will have more
offspring than creature that leave less (fertile) offspring.
(I think you'll agree to that)
2) From now on, let's call creatures that leave more offpring 'fitter'
than creatures that leave less offspring.
Why? Because the word 'fitter' nicely describes the long sentence above.
So we do that for the same reason we call a dentist a dentist instead of
"a guy/gal that looks into your mouth and sometimes fixes problems in
there".
It is shorter.
It is really very simple.
Let's look at the dentist example from Backspace's point-of-view:
Backspace: "Dentist? Bah! Tautology here, circularity there!"
sane person: "What is the problem Backspace?"
Backspace: "Dentist! Everybody uses that word, but it is totally unclear
what it means. The definition is totally circular!"
sane person: "Why is that? A dentist is a guy/gal that looks into your
mouth and sometimes fixes problems in there"
Backspace: "Is that so? Now tell me then: how do you name 'a guy/gal
that looks into your mouth and sometimes fixes problems in there'?"
sane person: "A dentist?"
Backspace: "Got ya! Circular reasoning again!"
Regards,
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
John Vreeland
<Since_humans_read_this...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
>backspace schreef:
>> http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use
>> "..... �Natural selection as tautology.� Natural selection is in one
>> sense a tautology (i.e., Who are the fittest? Those who survive/leave
>> the most offspring. Who survive/leave the most offspring? The
>> fittest.). But a lot of this is semantic word-play, and depends on how
>> the matter is defined, and for what purpose the definition is raised.
>> There are many areas of life in which circularity and truth go hand in
>> hand (e.g. What is electric charge? That quality of matter on which an
>> electric field acts. What is an electric field? A region in space that
>> exerts a force on electric charge. But no one would claim that the
>> theory of electricity is thereby invalid and can�t explain how motors
>> work.) � it is only that circularity cannot be used as independent
>> proof of something....."
>>
>> Circular reasoning is assuming the premise in the conclusion it isn't
>> a tautology. I know this because Wilkins had to explain the difference
>> to me. Very smart man that Dr. Wilkins , why then is he equivocating
>> between logical validity's and rhetorical tautologies.
>>
>> ".......To harp on the issue of tautology can become misleading, if
>> the impression is given that something tautological therefore doesn�t
>> happen...."
>>
>> Confuses a logical validity - Tautology1 with a rhetorical tautology3.
>> "What happens , happens" is a logical validity, our entire existence
>> is based on assuming it is true, it can't be refuted but neither
>> verified. But "what happens, happens and therefore my mommy had long
>> teeth and a tail" is a rhetorical tautology,the conclusion is a non-
>> sequitur.
>>
>> ".....Of course the environment can �select�, just as human breeders
>> select....."
>> Pattern or design? I might as well be reading http://www.evolvingthoughts.net/.
>> If the creationists start sounding like atheists then our society is
>> in really big trouble , our mental health is under attack.
>>
>> ".... Of course demonstrating this doesn�t mean that fish could turn
>> into philosophers by this means � the real issue is the nature of the
>> variation, the information problem....."
>>
>> Nope, Aristotle original tautology which darwin reformulated had
>> nothing to do with cybernetic abstractions per se, it was a
>> generalized tautology crafted in such a manner that it could explain
>> everything, past present and future as in the ".... the good algorithm
>> outwitted the bad one......"
>>
>> ".... Arguments about tautology distract attention from the real
>> weakness of neo-Darwinism � the source of the new information
Actually, backspace doesn't definitely exist either. He's a
completley unsupprtable circularly-reasoned Moebius-strip of a
tautology. Also, I have him plonked.
--
My years on the mudpit that is Usnenet have taught me one important thing: three Creation Scientists can have a serious conversation, if two of them are sock puppets.
backspace
<Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
> backspace schreef:
>
>
>
> >http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use
> > "..... �Natural selection as tautology.� Natural selection is in one
> > sense a tautology (i.e., Who are the fittest? Those who survive/leave
> > the most offspring. Who survive/leave the most offspring? The
> > fittest.). But a lot of this is semantic word-play, and depends on how
> > the matter is defined, and for what purpose the definition is raised.
> > There are many areas of life in which circularity and truth go hand in
> > hand (e.g. What is electric charge? That quality of matter on which an
> > electric field acts. What is an electric field? A region in space that
> > exerts a force on electric charge. But no one would claim that the
> > theory of electricity is thereby invalid and can�t explain how motors
> > work.) � it is only that circularity cannot be used as independent
> > proof of something....."
>
> > Circular reasoning is assuming the premise in the conclusion it isn't
> > a tautology. I know this because Wilkins had to explain the difference
> > between logical validity's and rhetorical tautologies.
>
> > ".......To harp on the issue of tautology can become misleading, if
> > the impression is given that something tautological therefore doesn�t
> > happen...."
>
> > Confuses a logical validity - Tautology1 with a rhetorical tautology3.
> > "What happens , happens" is a logical validity, our entire existence
> > verified. �But "what happens, happens and therefore my mommy had long
> > teeth and a tail" is a rhetorical tautology,the conclusion is a non-
> > sequitur.
>
> > ".....Of course the environment can �select�, just as human breeders
> > select....."
> > If the creationists start sounding like atheists then our society is
> > in really big trouble , our mental health is under attack.
>
> > ".... Of course demonstrating this doesn�t mean that fish could turn
> > into philosophers by this means � the real issue is the nature of the
>
> > Nope, Aristotle original tautology which darwin reformulated had
> > nothing to do with cybernetic abstractions per se, it was a
> > generalized tautology crafted in such a manner that it could explain
> > everything, past present and future as in the ".... the good algorithm
> > outwitted the bad one......"
>
> > ".... Arguments about tautology distract attention from the real
> > weakness of neo-Darwinism � the source of the new information
> > required...."
>
> > I would beg to differ, any argument that contains a rhetorical
> > tautology is logically flawed, the conclusion might be correct but
> > doesn't follow logically from the argument.
>
> > ".... Given an appropriate source of variation (for example, an
> > abundance of created genetic information with the capacity for
> > Mendelian recombination), replicating populations of organisms would
> > be expected to be capable of some adaptation to a given environment,
> > and this has been demonstrated amply in practice...."
>
> > You are not adapted to your environment as explained at length on my
> > wiki at scratchpad.
>
> Dear backspace,
>
> Why do you create such a semantic mess for yourself?
>
> Here try this:
> 1) The creatures that leave the most (fertile) offspring will have more
> (I think you'll agree to that)
No, I don't it depends who says so. If what you are saying is obvious
then it is a truism but not scientific theory. No scientific theory is
obvious.
> 2) From now on, let's call creatures that leave more offpring 'fitter'
> than creatures that leave less offspring.
Lets rather not, unless you can say who says so and what does he mean
with Spencer's word.
> Why? Because the word 'fitter' nicely describes the long sentence above.
It doesn't, fitter like quark has no meaning, it was used to represent
a specific concept that of whites more suitable than blacks 150 years
ago by Spencer. Without knowing who says fitness we can't deduce the
concept, only people can have concepts - who is this person ?
> It is really very simple.
Which is the problem: No scientific theory is simple.
Burkhard
Say who? Obvious simply means that everybody with average knowledge
and reasoning capacity to understand is tit Lots of theories are
obvious, even though they might not be obvious for some people. That
is an indictment of their knowledge, not a property of the theory.
Being easy to understand doesn't make a theory a truism.
>
> > 2) From now on, let's call creatures that leave more offpring 'fitter'
> > than creatures that leave less offspring.
>
> Lets rather not, unless you can say who says so and what does he mean
> with Spencer's word.
Erwin says so.
>
> > Why? Because the word 'fitter' nicely describes the long sentence above.
>
> It doesn't,
It does. he just gave an explicit defintion.
fitter like quark has no meaning, it was used to represent
> a specific concept that of whites more suitable than blacks 150 years
> ago by Spencer. Without knowing who says fitness we can't deduce the
> concept, only people can have concepts - who is this person ?
>
> > It is really very simple.
>
> Which is the problem: No scientific theory is simple.
Says who? Lots of scientific theories are, s far as I can see.
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>No, I don't it depends who says so. If what you are saying is obvious
>then it is a truism but not scientific theory. No scientific theory is
>obvious.
that certainly fits evolution. it's one reason it took thousands of
years to discover it.
creationism? believed from day 1 by the simplest people on earth
>
>
>
>> It is really very simple.
>
>Which is the problem: No scientific theory is simple.
certainly fits evolution
and creationism? the simplest idea ever invented
RAM
Intentionally mudding the conceptual waters and then declaring the
conceptual waters are muddy. The circularity (tautology) is created
by you to satisfy your need to not to understand that all empirical
concepts in science have simple terms to stand in for the complex
operational definitions.
Fitter (the empirical concept) = The creatures that leave the most
(fertile) offspring will have more offspring than creature that leave
less (fertile) offspring (the operational definition that allows for
measurement).
Any scientist can use the "operational definition" for replication
purposes to assess its reliability and validity.
Backspace (a creationist) = denier of empirical reality (will not
agree to any empirical or operational concept that can demonstrate he
is wrong)
Moist Lipwig
> Obvious simply means that everybody with average knowledge
> and reasoning capacity to understand is tit ....
Burkhard
urrrgh. PUI again, sorry
Greg G.
You should spell it "Chez Watt". It's not a rule, but it is the only
way it can be searched for come ballot time.
backspace
> > It doesn't, fitter like quark has no meaning, it was used to represent
> > a specific concept that of whites more suitable than blacks 150 years
> > ago by Spencer. Without knowing who says fitness we can't deduce the
> > concept, only people can have concepts - who is this person ?
> > > It is really very simple.
> > Which is the problem: No scientific theory is simple.
> Fitter (the empirical concept) = The creatures that leave the most
> (fertile) offspring will have more offspring than creature that leave
> less (fertile) offspring (the operational definition that allows for
> measurement).
Who says so, or is it obvious like a truism.
> Any scientist can use the "operational definition" for replication
> purposes to assess its reliability and validity.
Who established what operational definition where?
Erwin Moller
> On May 18, 3:15 pm, Erwin Moller
> <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
>> backspace schreef:
<snip>
>> Dear backspace,
>>
>> Why do you create such a semantic mess for yourself?
>>
>> Here try this:
>> 1) The creatures that leave the most (fertile) offspring will have more
>> offspring than creature that leave less (fertile) offspring.
>> (I think you'll agree to that)
>
> No, I don't it depends who says so. If what you are saying is obvious
> then it is a truism but not scientific theory. No scientific theory is
> obvious.
>
Hi Backspace.
Are you saying that the truth of a statement depends on who says it?
That is utter nonsense.
If a certain statement is *clearly conveying an idea* it doesn't matter
who says it.
So, for example, if you claim the sky is blue it is true, and when I do
so it isn't? Or vice versa?
How is such a thing possible?
Can you comment on that?
Secondly, why do you think a scientific Theory can not be obvious?
A lot of science is obvious. Think Archimedes who happily shouted
Eureka! when he saw the level of water rising after stepping into it.
(I am aware of the fact that many things seem obvious once you
understand them. So it is hard to tell if Archimedes discovery is really
that obvious, but it seems VERY obvious to me.)
And of course, a lot of science is not obvious. Like quantummechanics.
But science is not difficult/unobvious by definition.
>
>> 2) From now on, let's call creatures that leave more offpring 'fitter'
>> than creatures that leave less offspring.
>
> Lets rather not, unless you can say who says so and what does he mean
> with Spencer's word.
I was trying to explain to you how you could leave the semantic
confusion you are deliberately creating for yourself.
I don't give a rat's ass if we call the above 'fitter' or 'greener' or
'blubzwoch', as long as we communicate clearly what we mean by the word.
Hence my approach:
1) First describe the idea (more fertile offspring)
2) Pick a word to describe the idea (fitter). For brievety.
Why brievety?
Imagine everybody was as insane as you are: Then instead of saying
"Einstein's General Theory of Relativity", we should repeat his complete
papers, word by word.
Right?
And after that, we start a discussion what Einstein meant by each word
he used.
Right?
And after that we start discussing how that word is defined in different
period in time by different dictionaries.
Right?
Seriously, that IS insane.
That is time wasted, which would be much better spent by studying
Einstein's actual ideas.
Please comment to that, Backspace.
--> Don't get me wrong Backspace: I think it is VERY important to have a
clear understanding of the meaning of words used in a discussion, but
you are taking it way too far.
You think you can invalidate Darwin's ideas with a dictionary.
That is like saying Newton was wrong because he used a slightly
different interpretation of the word 'falling' then could be found in
the dictionary.
>
>> Why? Because the word 'fitter' nicely describes the long sentence above.
>
> It doesn't, fitter like quark has no meaning, it was used to represent
> a specific concept that of whites more suitable than blacks 150 years
> ago by Spencer. Without knowing who says fitness we can't deduce the
> concept, only people can have concepts - who is this person ?
If you are unable to pick up information from context, yes, then you are
right.
Remember Backspace, if we all had your inflexibility we couldn't even
have this discussion.
I would start a whole discussion over the first word you used.
Asking you what it mean.
Then asking you who says so.
Then asking you why I should follow that definition.
etc.etc.
Child's play...
>
>> It is really very simple.
>
> Which is the problem: No scientific theory is simple.
>
Were did you get that idea?
Simplicity is something that is cherished by most scientists. The
simpler the idea, the better, as long as it fits the evidence.
Ever heard of Occam's razor?
Erwin Moller
PS: And why didn't you comment on my dentist definition?
Erwin Moller
> On May 18, 11:40 pm, RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> It doesn't, fitter like quark has no meaning, it was used to represent
>>> a specific concept that of whites more suitable than blacks 150 years
>>> ago by Spencer. Without knowing who says fitness we can't deduce the
>>> concept, only people can have concepts - who is this person ?
>
>>>> It is really very simple.
>
>>> Which is the problem: No scientific theory is simple.
>
>> Fitter (the empirical concept) = The creatures that leave the most
>> (fertile) offspring will have more offspring than creature that leave
>> less (fertile) offspring (the operational definition that allows for
>> measurement).
>
> Who says so, or is it obvious like a truism.
What do you mean by 'truism'?
And who says that truism means that?
And why believe that definition?
What does 'obvious' mean?
Who are you?
Who says so?
etc.etc.
Child's play, Backspace. Just child's play.
>
>> Any scientist can use the "operational definition" for replication
>> purposes to assess its reliability and validity.
>
> Who established what operational definition where?
>
Clearly not you.
If you were in charge of defining words we would still be pondering how
to call that thingy between your legs, instead of using it, and we would
all go extinct.
One can ALWAYS ask what a word means.
Then comes an answer.
Then you simply ask what those words mean.
At a certain point somebody will use a word again, and there you go with
your "circularity! Tautology!"
Wake up Backspace, to use words and to communicate we should expect a
certain level of intelligence and common ground.
If that lacks, communication ends.
bpuharic
it's such a waste of time discussing science with creationists. they
have a 3rd century mentality. the physical world makes no sense to
them at all. their language skills aren't up to it
backspace
but still contain the "natural selection" isn't a tautology argument.
With which I agree, it isn't even a sentence. The idea though that
DArwin lifted from Patrick Matthews "natural means of selection" was a
tautology.
http://www.answersingenesis.org removed the section that natural
selection is a tautology shouldn't be removed but didn't tell anybody
and aren't clarifying their position on the issue. The NS tautology is
a hot topic from Jerry Fodor etc. currently in biology, yet the YEC
are either not discussing the issue or are even more confused than the
atheists are. We thus have an iron triangle of ignorance between Ham,
Dembski and Dawkins: They are all wrong in their argumentation scheme
yet either conclusion still must be true, either God exists or he
doesn't .
backspace
> Say who? Obvious simply means that everybody with average knowledge
> and reasoning capacity to �understand is tit Lots of theories are
> obvious, even though they might not be obvious for some people. That
> is an indictment of their knowledge, not a property of the theory.
> Being easy to understand doesn't make a theory a truism.
> > > 2) From now on, let's call creatures that leave more offpring 'fitter'
> > > than creatures that leave less offspring.
> > Lets rather not, unless you can say who says so and what does he mean
> > with Spencer's word.
>
> Erwin says so.
Wikipedia has a No original research policy. You can't concoct your
own theories, open a brand new page called "The Erwin view of how the
universe originated" One can only interpret previous authors, because
there is nothing new under the sun as the Bible says. "fitness" is the
coda, the means of inserting the Sumerian battle for survival myth
into genes as a cybernetic abstraction because "fitness" has no
meaning, only the idea, the Babilonian fire/water , Gods/seamonster
and bad atom-good atom dichotomy from Democritus has meaning. Spencer
reformulated the ancient myths and represented it with "suitable" the
then understood meaning represented with "Fitness" in their context.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29
".....Fitness (often denoted w in population genetics models) is a
central idea in evolutionary theory. It describes the capability of an
individual of certain genotype to reproduce, and usually is equal to
the proportion of the individual's genes in all the genes of the next
generation. If differences in individual genotypes affect fitness,
then the frequencies of the genotypes will change over generations;
the genotypes with higher fitness become more common. This process is
called natural selection...."
"....It describes the capability of an individual of certain genotype
to reproduce, and usually is equal to the proportion of the
individual's genes in all the genes of the next generation....."
Which alludes to the battle between bad and good atoms from
Democritus, after the good atom/god/fire/gene outwitted the bad gene/
seamonster/water it got born(Herculus) into the next generation of
(gods/genes/good atoms).
You will note that there is no citation for the opening paragraph,
nobody can tell us who says so or who is being interpreted. Because
Democritus is being interpreted in reality. The culture 2000 years ago
was steeped in pagan mythology, nothing has changed there is nothing
new under the sun. As wilkins pointed out the catholic mass was really
aristotelian metaphysics. Popper remarked how the natural selection
theory was a reflection of Empedocles.
For http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_approximation Wikipedia has a
disclaimer that states it lacks citations:
Who said "...the number of fitness function evaluations needed to
obtain a good solution dominates the optimization cost. In order to
obtain efficient optimization algorithms, it is crucial to use
information gained during optimization process,...." ?
Burkhard
> On May 18, 10:10�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > Say who? Obvious simply means that everybody with average knowledge
> > and reasoning capacity to �understand is tit Lots of theories are
> > obvious, even though they might not be obvious for some people. That
> > is an indictment of their knowledge, not a property of the theory.
> > Being easy to understand doesn't make a theory a truism.
> > > > 2) From now on, let's call creatures that leave more offpring 'fitter'
> > > > than creatures that leave less offspring.
> > > Lets rather not, unless you can say who says so and what does he mean
> > > with Spencer's word.
>
> > Erwin says so.
>
> Wikipedia has a No original research policy.
This may come as a shock, but there is a whole world outside wikipedia
Besides, Erwin gave an explicit explanationn of a term, since it is
an explanation and illustration, that would meet even wikipedia's
standards
>You can't concoct your
> own theories, �open a brand new page called "The Erwin view of how the
> universe originated" One can only interpret previous authors, because
> there is nothing new under the sun as the Bible says.
Every theory was new at some point.
because it is a staemnt about nature, not an author
Because
> Democritus is being interpreted in reality. The culture 2000 years ago
> was steeped in pagan mythology, nothing has changed there is nothing
> new under the sun. As wilkins pointed out the catholic mass was really
> aristotelian metaphysics. Popper remarked how the natural selection
> theory was a reflection of Empedocles.
>
> Forhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_approximationWikipedia has a
backspace
Quoting OoS:
"..... In the first place, varieties, even strongly-marked ones,
though having somewhat of the
character of species--as is shown by the hopeless doubts in many cases
how
to rank them--yet certainly differ far less from each other than do
good
and distinct species. Nevertheless according to my view, varieties
are
species in the process of formation, or are, as I have called them,
incipient species. How, then, does the lesser difference between
varieties
become augmented into the greater difference between species? That
this
does habitually happen, we must infer from most of the innumerable
species
throughout nature presenting well-marked differences; whereas
varieties,
the supposed prototypes and parents of future well-marked species,
present
slight and ill-defined differences....."
Gilson writes:
"...Every attentive reader of Darwin is familiar with the expressions
''good species'' or ''true species,
the good species implicitly contrasted with the bad, the true species
with the false...."
We can see here the good/bad dichtomy from Gandalf the tribal wizard,
Sumerian pagan fire/water fight religions,
Empedocles and Democritus with his good bad atoms, reformulated for us
differently by Darwin with his good rabbit adapted to the environment.
It seems I finally figured out what "you are adapted to your
environment" means. After the fight between the good and bad atoms,
the good atom was adapted to its environment. Which just shows that no
sentence has a meaning , only the ideas Democritus projected with
"adapted" had meaning.
Erwin Moller
> On May 18, 10:10 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Say who? Obvious simply means that everybody with average knowledge
>> and reasoning capacity to understand is tit Lots of theories are
>> obvious, even though they might not be obvious for some people. That
>> is an indictment of their knowledge, not a property of the theory.
>> Being easy to understand doesn't make a theory a truism.
>
>
>>>> 2) From now on, let's call creatures that leave more offpring 'fitter'
>>>> than creatures that leave less offspring.
>
>>> Lets rather not, unless you can say who says so and what does he mean
>>> with Spencer's word.
>> Erwin says so.
>
> Wikipedia has a No original research policy.
So has my dog.
Your point being?
I didn't offer you any 'original research' by myself.
I gave you a very short simple definition for fitness.
(My 'original research' concerning ToE and AI is surely not fit to
discuss with you, so I won't even try.)
But I can see now where this all falls apart.
I was confusing you with a thinking individual. A guy who could follow a
thought that spans a few lines. You proved me wrong.
Somehow I thought you would be able to discuss ideas without giving 20
references per word used.
You know, mr Backspace, some people can exchange ideas, teach each other
new concepts, even disagree, do thought experiments, etc without your
insane approach.
I have seen this problem before with fundamentalists: they are unable to
actually think for themselfs. Make up their own mind.
I expect they think somehow like me.
But the problem is not that they have different ideas, which is totally
fine, the problem is they don't think for themself.
Listen Backspace, if you are unable to defend you own ideas in your own
words, you have no ideas worth mentioning.
And besides: My use of the word 'fitter' was in concert with ToE. No
original research required.
I snipped the rest: you and me have a few other places in this very
thread where you disappeared.
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>You will note that there is no citation for the opening paragraph,
>nobody can tell us who says so or who is being interpreted.
you talking about genesis?
Because
>Democritus is being interpreted in reality. The culture 2000 years ago
>was steeped in pagan mythology
as was the culture of genesis.
, nothing has changed there is nothing
>new under the sun. As wilkins pointed out the catholic mass was really
>aristotelian metaphysics. Popper remarked how the natural selection
>theory was a reflection of Empedocles.
except natural selection has a mechanism.
creationism? in 2000 years? nothing. it's dead
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Gilson writes:
>"...Every attentive reader of Darwin is familiar with the expressions
>''good species'' or ''true species,
>the good species implicitly contrasted with the bad, the true species
>with the false...."
>
>We can see here the good/bad dichtomy from Gandalf the tribal wizard,
>Sumerian pagan fire/water fight religions,
well,no
as you yourself admit, i've been pointing out the inadequacies of your
linguistic skills
your language abilities have been crippled by religion, to wit,
creationism. you are unable to understand science scientific
methodology, or the use of language in science
'good' or 'bad' can be used in science quite differently than you use
them. because you are crippled, you use out of context quotes and try
to warp them into a structure that has meaning for your 3rd century,
magical, wizard of oz like view of the world
it's why creationism has made no progress in 2000 years
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>http://www.creation.com split from http://www.answersingenesis.org
>but still contain the "natural selection" isn't a tautology argument.
>With which I agree, it isn't even a sentence.
it's a mechanism. that's what you don't understand. in science, the
whole purpose of theories is to define a testable mechanism
THAT sentence can not be parsed in your crippled, feeble creationist
language. creationist thought was current....2000 years ago. it has
made no progress in that time, so the idea of 'theory' or of
'mechanism'. is simply glossed over by you as being incomprehensible.
your view of the world collapsed 2000 years ago. you're a zombie; a
walking dead man....a vampire who lives in the night of i gnorance
created by your religious beliefs
Moist Lipwig
> Under "Miscellaneous Anatomy Lessons"
>
>> Obvious simply means that everybody with average knowledge
>> and reasoning capacity to understand is tit ....
>
>
Corrected subject line.
RAM
There you go again. You intentionally can't parse even a simple
sentence. You wish to obfuscate, distort or change the subject in
order to avoid dealing with ideas that you recognize will demolish
your creationist weltanschauung.
It must really hurt that your religious ideology is so poorly
supported and supportable that you have to intentionally play word
games to avoid admitting creationism is a crap hole of stinking half
truths.
backspace
<Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
> backspace schreef:
>
> > On May 18, 3:15 pm, Erwin Moller
> > <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
> >> backspace schreef:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Dear backspace,
>
> >> Why do you create such a semantic mess for yourself?
>
> >> Here try this:
> >> 1) The creatures that leave the most (fertile) offspring will have more
> >> � offspring than creature that leave less (fertile) offspring.
> >> (I think you'll agree to that)
>
> > No, I don't it depends who says so. If what you are saying is obvious
> > then it is a truism but not scientific theory. No scientific theory is
> > obvious.
>
> Hi Backspace.
> Are you saying that the truth of a statement depends on who says it?
The meaning that a symbol like common ancestor represents depends on
who used the symbol. Like a hammer has no intent to strike, so common
ancestor has no intent. The symbol CA can be used to convey any idea
like a hammer can be used to strike or used as a paper weight.
> That is utter nonsense.
> If a certain statement is *clearly conveying an idea* it doesn't matter
> who says it.
When Dawkins says common ancestor he clarifies that it wasn't a monkey
scratching his ass while fondling his nuts 10mil years ago.
When JH and Wilkins says common ancestor they are referring to a
monkey thingy with long teeth and a tail. Same term - different
concepts.
Erwin Moller
> On May 19, 10:37 am, Erwin Moller
> <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
>> backspace schreef:
>>
>>> On May 18, 3:15 pm, Erwin Moller
>>> <Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
>>>> backspace schreef:
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> Dear backspace,
>>>> Why do you create such a semantic mess for yourself?
>>>> Here try this:
>>>> 1) The creatures that leave the most (fertile) offspring will have more
>>>> offspring than creature that leave less (fertile) offspring.
>>>> (I think you'll agree to that)
>>> No, I don't it depends who says so. If what you are saying is obvious
>>> then it is a truism but not scientific theory. No scientific theory is
>>> obvious.
>> Hi Backspace.
>
>> Are you saying that the truth of a statement depends on who says it?
>
> The meaning that a symbol like common ancestor represents depends on
> who used the symbol. Like a hammer has no intent to strike, so common
> ancestor has no intent. The symbol CA can be used to convey any idea
> like a hammer can be used to strike or used as a paper weight.
>
Yes, of course Backspace.
You can use a hammer for both paper weigtht and to hammer nails.
So when you are discussing the hammer you have several possibilities:
1) It is TOTALLY clear for sane people what use is intended *from
context*. For example: two carpenters talking hammering down nails.
2) When in doubt: Simply clarify. This is no big deal. If you are using
the hammer as paper weight, simply add that, since it is not the obvious
use for a hammer for most people.
>
>> That is utter nonsense.
>> If a certain statement is *clearly conveying an idea* it doesn't matter
>> who says it.
>
> When Dawkins says common ancestor he clarifies that it wasn't a monkey
> scratching his ass while fondling his nuts 10mil years ago.
>
> When JH and Wilkins says common ancestor they are referring to a
> monkey thingy with long teeth and a tail. Same term - different
> concepts.
>
Kind of hard to comment on that.
CA of what?
Of modern humans and some snail (take your pick which one)?
Or CA of dogs and roses?
Or CA of all life on Earth?
But I am quite sure that JH, Wilkins and Dawkins will have little
trouble understanding and discussing the concept without creating a
semantic mess.
CA is a concept. When in doubt the other party understands it fully,
simply check this. But CA is such a common concept in evolution that you
can reasonably expect every trained biologists knows what you are
talking about.
So WHAT is your problem/point with 'fitter'?
I keep missing it.
Can you spell it out for me reeaally slow, please?
Erwin Moller
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>The meaning that a symbol like common ancestor represents depends on
>who used the symbol. Like a hammer has no intent to strike, so common
>ancestor has no intent. The symbol CA can be used to convey any idea
>like a hammer can be used to strike or used as a paper weight.
well...no
the reason is that the idea of 'common ancestor' has another idea that
stands in opposition to it: separate creation.
since they both can not be true, common ancestor MUST have a meaning
you're just crippled in you language skills due to being a creationist
backspace
> On Thu, 20 May 2010 03:11:11 -0700 (PDT), backspace
>
>
> >The meaning that a symbol like common ancestor represents depends on
> >who used the symbol. Like a hammer has no intent to strike, so common
> >ancestor has no intent. The symbol CA can be used to convey any idea
> >like a hammer can be used to strike or used as a paper weight.
>
> well...no
>
> the reason is that the idea of 'common ancestor' has another idea that
> stands in opposition to it: separate creation.
the symbols "*^&" and "CA" mean? ^%^& like CA can be used to represent
an idea - which idea by whom within what context.
> since they both can not be true, common ancestor MUST have a meaning
Right there is your problem , CA like "fralkdjfla;ksjfl;sakdjf" - has
no meaning.
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On May 20, 11:21�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 03:11:11 -0700 (PDT), backspace
>>
>> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >The meaning that a symbol like common ancestor represents depends on
>> >who used the symbol. Like a hammer has no intent to strike, so common
>> >ancestor has no intent. The symbol CA can be used to convey any idea
>> >like a hammer can be used to strike or used as a paper weight.
>>
>> well...no
>>
>> the reason is that the idea of 'common ancestor' has another idea that
>> stands in opposition to it: separate creation.
>CA is a symbol not an idea,
hmmm...so you say
so you're wrong.
if the last human on earth dies what would
>the symbols "*^&" and "CA" mean? ^%^& like CA can be used to represent
>an idea - which idea by whom within what context.
i can't help it your language skills have been destroyed. the more i
read of creationists, the more i'm becoming convinced it's a
metaphysical application of language that's the problem. you all talk
as if the real physical world does not exist, but that some form of
doubletalk, divorced from reality, is the only way you can save your
pathetic religious beliefs.
confronted by the utter destruction of your religious beliefs by
science, you attempt to save them by inventing an application of
language filled with meaningless phrases strung together.
>
>> since they both can not be true, common ancestor MUST have a meaning
>
>Right there is your problem , CA like "fralkdjfla;ksjfl;sakdjf" - has
>no meaning.
to you it doesn't. that's the problem. your language skills have been
rendered meaningless by the advance of knowledge and time.
that's what happens to creationists.
Dave Oldridge
0feef3...@z33g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
Do you honestly expect anyone to take this for "logic?" What do they
teach in its place in your institutions? Amphigory?
Common ancestry has a well-defined meaning. If I state that my cousins
and I all share a common ancestor (a grandparent), then every rational
person will understand what I mean. If I state that you and I share a
more remote common ancestor, the same will hold true. If I state that the
condition of the GULO genes in you and the chimp in the zoo strongly
implies an even more remote common ancestry, you understand EXACTLY what
I mean. You just don't like the implication for some personal, chilish
emotional motive, but you understand the implication.
So, by playing word games as you have been doing, you are simply trying to
perpetrate a LIE about your own reaction to the evidence and your motives
for not wanting to deal with it rationally.
This, actually, is why crationism is not only bad science, but also bad
religion. It suborns perjury and false witness, often defended as a
service to God (thus compounding the sin of false witness with the sin of
blasphemy). Latter-day creationism and orthodox Christianity are not even
compatible.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 454777283
backspace
wrote:
> backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote in news:d8738e65-e93e-490c-96e5-
> 0feef368f...@z33g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
> > On May 20, 11:21�pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 20 May 2010 03:11:11 -0700 (PDT), backspace
>
> >> <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >The meaning that a symbol like common ancestor represents depends on
> >> >who used the symbol. Like a hammer has no intent to strike, so common
> >> >ancestor has no intent. The symbol CA can be used to convey any idea
> >> >like a hammer can be used to strike or used as a paper weight.
>
> >> well...no
>
> >> the reason is that the idea of 'common ancestor' has another idea that
> >> stands in opposition to it: separate creation.
> > CA is a symbol not an idea, if the last human on earth dies what would
> > the symbols "*^&" and "CA" mean? ^%^& like CA can be used to represent
> > an idea - which idea by whom within what context.
>
> >> since they both can not be true, common ancestor MUST have a meaning
>
> > Right there is your problem , CA like "fralkdjfla;ksjfl;sakdjf" - has
> > no meaning.
>
> Do you honestly expect anyone to take this for "logic?" �What do they
> teach in its place in your institutions? �Amphigory?
> Common ancestry has a well-defined meaning.
Dawkins stated that the CA between a fish and first land dwelling
creature wasn't a fish but a CA. Wouldn't this CA 400mil years ago to
an observer back then have looked like a fishy thingy? Since "fish"
and "CA" don't mean anything we must determine the intended idea
projected with CA , fish or monkey and their vernacular synonyms.
>�If I state that my cousins
> and I all share a common ancestor (a grandparent), then every rational
> person will understand what I mean. �If I state that you and I share a
> more remote common ancestor, the same will hold true. �If I state that the
> condition of the GULO genes in you and the chimp in the zoo strongly
> implies an even more remote common ancestry, you understand EXACTLY �what
> I mean. �
Would this common ancestor have had a long tail? Are you referring to
genes as a molecule or genes a cybernetic abstraction. For, while and
Do loops in Basic or Python are repetitive symbols in physical space
but in cybernetic space they are building blocks for an idea, found in
all programs. In the same way we have the universal concept of non-
linearity in transfer functions from control theory. A system is non-
linear if the transfer function changes with changing input resulting
in unpredictable output. It is an abstraction that applies to
hydraulics , mechanics and electronics. It represents a specific
technical concept in control theory symbolically.
The term was also used in the http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/weinberg.html
sokal hoax where Sokal showed how the word non-linear can have no
clearly defined concept represented within a sociology context.
Dave Oldridge
news:2d43ac5a-546d-4801...@a2g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
Since the first land-dwelling creature was most likely an arthropod,
Dawkins is almost certainly correct.
>
>>�If I state that my cousins
>> and I all share a common ancestor (a grandparent), then every
>> rational person will understand what I mean. �If I state that you and
>> I share a more remote common ancestor, the same will hold true. �If I
>> state that the condition of the GULO genes in you and the chimp in
>> the zoo strongly implies an even more remote common ancestry, you
>> understand EXACTLY �what I mean. �
>
> Would this common ancestor have had a long tail? Are you referring to
Probably not the last common ancestor of chimps and humans, since no apes
have long tails.
> genes as a molecule or genes a cybernetic abstraction. For, while and
> Do loops in Basic or Python are repetitive symbols in physical space
> but in cybernetic space they are building blocks for an idea, found in
> all programs. In the same way we have the universal concept of non-
> linearity in transfer functions from control theory. A system is non-
> linear if the transfer function changes with changing input resulting
> in unpredictable output. It is an abstraction that applies to
> hydraulics , mechanics and electronics. It represents a specific
> technical concept in control theory symbolically.
So what is the engineering purpose of the human-chimp GULO gene?
>
> The term was also used in the
> http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/weinberg.html sokal hoax
> where Sokal showed how the word non-linear can have no clearly
> defined concept represented within a sociology context.
Stop obfuscating and deal with the actual evidence of the GULO gene.
If a common ancestor of humans and chimps exists (and I claim the GULO
gene provides evidnce for that beyond reasonable doubt), then it follows
logically that all the present differences between the two groups are the
result of divergent evolution.
Do you have any other REASONABLE explanation of the condition of the GULO
gene in chimps and humans?
Burkhard
> sokal hoax where Sokal showed how �the word non-linear can have no
> clearly defined concept represented within a sociology context.
Nonsense. The word non-linear has the same meaning in sociology as it
has in the other sciences, and more empirically oriented sociologists
use it all the time. See for an example "The Impact of Density: The
Importance of Nonlinearity and Selection on Flight and Fight
Response, by Wendy C. Regoeczi, in Social Forces 81, 2002, pp.
505-530"
What Sokal showed was simply that important individual people in the
filed were lacking the knowledge to know what it means, and rather
then admitting their ignorance and ask colleague, were bluffed into
believing his spoof article had merit.
backspace
non-linear has no meaning only an idea has meaning such as
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinearity_%28disambiguation%29
Show me the wikipedia page as a reference for your view
> and more empirically oriented sociologists
> use it all the time.
Use what idea represented with non-linear all the time. Show me the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinearity_%28disambiguation%29 page.
See for an example "The Impact of Density: The
> Importance of Nonlinearity and Selection on Flight and Fight
> Response, by Wendy C. Regoeczi, in Social Forces 81, 2002, pp.
> 505-530"
> and rather
> then admitting their ignorance and ask colleague, were bluffed into
> believing his spoof article had merit.
Or the concept that non-linear has no meaning was demonstrated, it
only represents an idea.
bpuharic
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
..
>
>Or the concept that non-linear has no meaning was demonstrated, it
>only represents an idea.
if it represents an idea then its meaning is that it represents an
idea.
your statement is wrong.
Erwin Moller
Backspace,
Your lack of intelligence is the origin of all this confusion.
You are unable to understand overlap and difference between symbols and
ideas, so don't bother.
Your fascination with authority (or wikipedia references) is another
problem, that probably had its origin in the above mentioned lack of
intelligence.
How can anybody discuss evolution/creationism with you if you refuse to
accept common ground intelligent humans share when exchanging ideas? (Or
should I say exchange symbols?)
My conclusion: You are doing this on purpose, so you can convince
yourself all those Evolutionists(c) are too stupid to understand the
pearls of wisdom your are presenting them.
Erwin Moller
Kermit
That would be correct. Arthropods do not have any vertebrate
ancestors.
> Wouldn't this CA 400mil years ago to
> an observer back then have looked like a fishy thingy?
No. It would have looked more like a worm.
> Since "fish" and "CA" don't mean anything
Of course they do. But they do not mean the same thing. The two
classes of objects they refer to are overlapping but distinct sets.
> we must determine the intended idea
> projected with CA , fish or monkey and their vernacular synonyms.
You mean... find out what they mean?
>
> >�If I state that my cousins
> > and I all share a common ancestor (a grandparent), then every rational
> > person will understand what I mean. �If I state that you and I share a
> > more remote common ancestor, the same will hold true. �If I state that the
> > condition of the GULO genes in you and the chimp in the zoo strongly
> > implies an even more remote common ancestry, you understand EXACTLY �what
> > I mean. �
>
> Would this common ancestor have had a long tail?
No. We could call the last CA between chimps and humans an ape, but it
would not have had an external tail.
> Are you referring to
> genes as a molecule or genes a cybernetic abstraction.
Genes are not molecules. At no time are they abstractions. Cybernetic
abstractions might provide insights into genes, but sometimes it seems
that whenever a poster in this newsgroup starts comparing the genome
to programming, he quickly degenerates into silliness.
> For, while and
> Do loops in Basic or Python are repetitive symbols in physical space
> but in cybernetic space they are building blocks for an idea, found in
> all programs. In the same way we have the universal concept of non-
> linearity in transfer functions from control theory. A system is non-
> linear if the transfer function changes with changing input resulting
> in unpredictable output. It is an abstraction that applies to
> hydraulics , mechanics and electronics. It represents a specific
> technical concept in control theory symbolically.
Genes can only exist and function in the context of the real world.
They are not abstractions. They are at no time independent of multiple
influences (other genes, temperature, biochemical environment, their
own molecular integrity, etc.).
>
> The term was also used in thehttp://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/weinberg.html
> sokal hoax where Sokal showed how �the word non-linear can have no
> clearly defined concept represented within a sociology context.
No, he showed up some of the silliness in social sciences. "Non-
linear" certainly can have meaning, and does for some sociologists.
Kermit