Guarino defends natural selection

[Ray Martinez]

> Where I can view the alleged phenomenon known as natural selection? If
> I look in my backyard or go hiking in the local forests, how is the
> phenomenon seen and indentified?

"You might have to be pretty patient and very observant. I'd choose a
creature with short generations and change something significant in
their environment. You could visit a lab that specifically works on
drug resistance, or perhaps just get a lot of infections
yourself" (GG).

As priceless as it gets.

So the phenomenon is not seen?

> So acceptance of the existence of (1) variation; (2) inheritance; (2)
> differential reproduction does NOT mean natural selection has
> occurred?

"If we have variation at some trait, differential reproduction
associated with that trait and the "Earthling" system of heredity, we
will have Natural Selection" (GG).

True by definition.

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

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

True by definition.

So you've admitted twice now.

"Backspace likes to reduce it to "what survives, survives". See? He
leaves out the "effect". If we need a brief phrase, perhaps "What
survives shapes future generations" (GG).

For context: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c02ed5500b62e504?hl=en&

Yet Stephan is right. "What survives shapes future generations"
means "what survives, survives."

Ray

[Burkhard]

On 31 Oct, 19:58, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Where I can view the alleged phenomenon known as natural selection? If
> > I look in my backyard or go hiking in the local forests, how is the
> > phenomenon seen and indentified?
>
> "You might have to be pretty patient and very observant. I'd choose a
> creature with short generations and change something significant in
> their environment. You could visit a lab that specifically works on
> drug resistance, or perhaps just get a lot of infections
> yourself" (GG).
>
> As priceless as it gets.
>
> So the phenomenon is not seen?

He just told you where you can see it

>
> > So acceptance of the existence of (1) variation; (2) inheritance; (2)
> > differential reproduction does NOT mean natural selection has
> > occurred?
>
> "If we have variation at some trait, differential reproduction
> associated with that trait and the "Earthling" system of heredity, we
> will have Natural Selection" (GG).
>
> True by definition.

No, true to the contingent facts that there is variation, the
differential reproduction that we observe and the system of heredity
that we observe.
If any of these conditions turns our false, NS is in trouble.

>
> > > > Does acceptance of the existence of variation, inheritance and
> > > > differential reproduction mean natural selection does occur?
> > > Given variation, *particulate* inheritance and differential
> > > reproduction, I can see no easy way to avoid Natural Selection.
>
> True by definition.

No, true to the contingent facts that there is variation, the
differential reproduction that we observe and the system of heredity
that we observe.
If any of these conditions turns our false, NS is in trouble. Is is
the "Given" part that states the contingent, empirical conditions that
is the give-away, truth by definitions are valid regardless of any
empirical conditions. .

> So you've admitted twice now.

No, you've just proven twice that you don't understand what "true by
definition " means, and you don't understand how a scientific theory
is structured.

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

What he said.

Except to add that what he (Burkhard) said is remarkably like what I
already said, and it didn't penetrate that time either. Or the time
before. Or...

Greg Guarino

[Burkhard]

Nor will it this time, I'm sure.

One small disagreement between us btw (or rather, something I'd have
added to be more explicit): Of course, even with the conditions that
you stated , there is no _logical_ guarantee that NS happens.
Something as yet unknown might interfere.So there is a "ceteris
paribus" clause in there in addition, a "as far as we know". The
effect is that it shifts the burden of proof: if you claim NS does not
happen IF these empirical conditions are met, you need to explain why
not. This is not already impossible due to logic, just at the moment,
we know nothing that could stop it. (an example could be that
somewhere in our DNA, there is a "death switch" that ensures that
every species dies out after a set period of time, independent of the
environement)

[Dana Tweedy]

On 10/31/12 1:55 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> Where I can view the alleged phenomenon known as natural selection? If
>> I look in my backyard or go hiking in the local forests, how is the
>> phenomenon seen and indentified?
>
> "You might have to be pretty patient and very observant. I'd choose a
> creature with short generations and change something significant in
> their environment. You could visit a lab that specifically works on
> drug resistance, or perhaps just get a lot of infections
> yourself" (GG).
>
> As priceless as it gets.
>
> So the phenomenon is not seen?

The phenomenon is seen, as Greg mentioned, most readily in populations
with a short generational time, and with a fairly strong selectional
force.

>
>> So acceptance of the existence of (1) variation; (2) inheritance; (2)
>> differential reproduction does NOT mean natural selection has
>> occurred?
>
> "If we have variation at some trait, differential reproduction
> associated with that trait and the "Earthling" system of heredity, we
> will have Natural Selection" (GG).
>
> True by definition.

No, true by finding.

>
>>>> Does acceptance of the existence of variation, inheritance and
>>>> differential reproduction mean natural selection does occur?
>
>>> Given variation, *particulate* inheritance and differential
>>> reproduction, I can see no easy way to avoid Natural Selection.
>
> True by definition.

No, true by findings.

>
> So you've admitted twice now.

No, you got it wrong twice now.

>
> "Backspace likes to reduce it to "what survives, survives". See? He
> leaves out the "effect". If we need a brief phrase, perhaps "What
> survives shapes future generations" (GG).
>
> For context: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c02ed5500b62e504?hl=en&
>
> Yet Stephan is right. "What survives shapes future generations"
> means "what survives, survives."

No, it doesn't Ray. Mere survival is not the effect of natural
selection. It's differential survival of particular variants of a
population.


DJT

[prawnster]

On Oct 31, 1:08 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> [...]

> He just told you where you can see it
>
>
>
> > > So acceptance of the existence of (1) variation; (2) inheritance; (2)
> > > differential reproduction does NOT mean natural selection has
> > > occurred?
>
> > "If we have variation at some trait, differential reproduction
> > associated with that trait and the "Earthling" system of heredity, we
> > will have Natural Selection" (GG).
>
> > True by definition.
>
> No, true to the contingent facts that there is variation, the
> differential reproduction that we observe and the system of heredity
> that we observe.

> If any of these conditions turns our [sic] false, NS is in trouble.
>

Yes, a person can watch bacteria beget bacteria unto the 100,000th
generation, and yet they stubbornly just keep making bacteria: they
never move up, down, or sideways on the Great Bush of Being. So
what's your point?
-----------
If any of those conditions turn out false, you don't exist. So what's
your point?

Let me restate your prolix bilge in non-obscurantist terms for ya:
1) Critters fuck.
2) Their offspring don't look exactly like ma and pa.
3) This process, no matter how many times repeated, never leads to
speciation. QED: my first response paragraph above the hyphen line.

So what's your point?

[prawnster]

On Oct 31, 2:33�pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [....]

> No, it doesn't Ray. � Mere survival is not the effect of natural
> selection. �It's differential survival of particular variants of a
> population.
>

Which never has been observed to lead to speciation. So what's your
point?

Next!

[Robert Camp]

On Oct 31, 12:58 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> "Backspace likes to reduce it to "what survives, survives". See? He
> leaves out the "effect". If we need a brief phrase, perhaps "What
> survives shapes future generations" (GG).
>
> For context:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c02ed5500b62e504?hl=en&
>
> Yet Stephan is right.  "What survives shapes future generations"
> means "what survives, survives."

Ray, anyone who can read can discern the difference between the two.

The latter is a tautology, simplistic and unrevealing, applicable to
many things but illustrative of none.

The former entails concepts that explain why we see what we see:
variation, heredity, differential reproductive success. It invokes
cause and effect. It infers connections, it hypothesizes.

Backspace's argument has always been about words, and nothing more. He
seems to think that if he can devalue the language of evolutionary
biology it will change the way we perceive empirical reality.

Your arguments will not be improved by emulating his incoherence.

RLC

[prawnster]

On Oct 31, 2:53�pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [...]

> Ray, anyone who can read can discern the difference between the two.
>
> The latter is a tautology, simplistic and unrevealing, applicable to
> many things but illustrative of none.
>
> The former entails concepts that explain why we see what we see:
> variation, heredity, differential reproductive success. It invokes
> cause and effect. It infers connections, it hypothesizes.
>

Smoking. Gun.

Let's get straight to the money quote:

"It infers connections, it hypothesizes."

And that "connection" betwixt species is evolution. So the entire
hypothesis or series of hypotheses is inferred, not observed, as you
have admitted. Thus you agree, as I have always said, that evolution
is not observed. Therefore, as I'm certain you will and must agree as
a rational man, evolution is not science.

Game. Set. Match.
Check. Mate.
Et. Cetera.

Glad to have you on board, Mr. Camp, as recognizing that evolution
isn't science. Baby steps. Baby steps.

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

On Oct 31, 5:38 pm, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 31, 1:08 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > [...]
> > He just told you where you can see it
>
> > > > So acceptance of the existence of (1) variation; (2) inheritance; (2)
> > > > differential reproduction does NOT mean natural selection has
> > > > occurred?
>
> > > "If we have variation at some trait, differential reproduction
> > > associated with that trait and the "Earthling" system of heredity, we
> > > will have Natural Selection" (GG).
>
> > > True by definition.
>
> > No, true to the contingent facts that there is variation, the
> > differential reproduction that we observe and the system of heredity
> > that we observe.
> > If any of these conditions turns our [sic] false, NS is in trouble.
>
> Yes, a person can watch bacteria beget bacteria unto the 100,000th
> generation, and yet they stubbornly just keep making bacteria: they
> never move up, down, or sideways on the Great Bush of Being.  So
> what's your point?

Intelligent people can discuss concepts separately. Ray and I were
discussing Natural Selection; he says it does not exist, and that it
is a tautology. I disagree; *given certain conditions*, it must
occur,and as it is dependent on conditions, it can't be "true by
definition".

You must know this too, thus the attempt to slither over to a new
question, and the poorer-even-than-backspace rephrase.

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

On Oct 31, 3:58�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

What's with this "new thread to avoid all the uncomfortable bits in
the old thread" jazz? That's Tony's schtick, and we all laugh at him
for it. It's an even weaker tactic in the roadshow version.

> > Where I can view the alleged phenomenon known as natural selection? If
> > I look in my backyard or go hiking in the local forests, how is the
> > phenomenon seen and indentified?
>
> "You might have to be pretty patient and very observant. I'd choose a
> creature with short generations and change something significant in
> their environment. You could visit a lab that specifically works on
> drug resistance, or perhaps just get a lot of infections
> yourself" (GG).
>
> As priceless as it gets.
>
> So the phenomenon is not seen?

It is, most easily in hospitals and labs, but elsewhere as well.

> > So acceptance of the existence of (1) variation; (2) inheritance; (2)
> > differential reproduction does NOT mean natural selection has
> > occurred?
>
> "If we have variation at some trait, differential reproduction
> associated with that trait and the "Earthling" system of heredity, we
> will have Natural Selection" (GG).
>
> True by definition.

How could it be with the word "if" in the sentence? Three "ifs",
actually.

> > > > Does acceptance of the existence of variation, inheritance and
> > > > differential reproduction mean natural selection does occur?
> > > Given variation, *particulate* inheritance and differential
> > > reproduction, I can see no easy way to avoid Natural Selection.
>
> True by definition.

How could it be, with the word "given" in the sentence? 3 "givens" are
required.

> So you've admitted twice now.
>
> "Backspace likes to reduce it to "what survives, survives". See? He
> leaves out the "effect". If we need a brief phrase, perhaps "What
> survives shapes future generations" (GG).
>
> For context:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c02ed5500b62e504?hl=en&
>
> Yet Stephan is right. �"What survives shapes future generations"
> means "what survives, survives."

Explain.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 14:38:44 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com>:

>On Oct 31, 2:33 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [....]
>> No, it doesn't Ray.   Mere survival is not the effect of natural
>> selection.  It's differential survival of particular variants of a
>> population.

>Which never has been observed to lead to speciation.

Speciation has been observed multiple times, in the lab and
in nature. Analysis of the species involved revealed that
the new species frequently had characteristics or abilities
not present in the parent species, and conferring a benefit
in the environment in question; a textbook example of
differential survival leading to speciation.

> So what's your
>point?

Funny, I was going to ask you that, since your assertion was
incorrect...but then I realized that as usual you have none.

>Next!

No need.
--

Bob C.

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

- McNameless

[Ray Martinez]

On Oct 31, 2:53�pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Oct 31, 12:58 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > "Backspace likes to reduce it to "what survives, survives". See? He
> > leaves out the "effect". If we need a brief phrase, perhaps "What
> > survives shapes future generations" (GG).
>
> > For context:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c02ed5500b62e504?hl=en&
>
> > Yet Stephan is right. "What survives shapes future generations"
> > means "what survives, survives."
>
> Ray, anyone who can read can discern the difference between the two.
>

Since you can read, and since you believe there is a difference, your
claim is false. The concept of "survival" survives in "What survives
shapes future generations."

What is it, then, that you don't understand? The inability of the evo
mind to understand, I have explained. Your mind has been initiated
into nonsense (= Materialism), unlike mine. Natural selection (fully
material causation agent) is nonsense. Those who don't understand
natural selection as nonsense don't understand natural selection.

There is no such phenomenon operating in the wild. It is not seen in
my backyard or the local forrest lands where I live.

Robert: How do species appear in Central Park? Did you know that
abundant wild life exists in the middle of New York City? Where did it
come from?

> The latter is a tautology, simplistic and unrevealing, applicable to
> many things but illustrative of none.
>
> The former entails concepts that explain why we see what we see:
> variation, heredity, differential reproductive success. It invokes
> cause and effect. It infers connections, it hypothesizes.
>

"What survives shapes future generations."

The only relevant concept in the sentence is the concept of
"survival."

"Shapes future generations"----what shapes future generations? Answer:
survival ("what survives survives"). So what conceptS are you talking
about? Your comments make a lot of claims in behalf of 5 words.

> Backspace's argument has always been about words, and nothing more. He
> seems to think that if he can devalue the language of evolutionary
> biology it will change the way we perceive empirical reality.
>
> Your arguments will not be improved by emulating his incoherence.
>
> RLC

"Devalue the language"?

We take the language of natural selection literally, because
scientific explication is to be taken literally, unlike the Bible,
remember?

But when we do so, you get upset.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Oct 31, 1:08�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

Since I plainly falsified your claim that inference-free observation
does not exist, and since you refuse to acknowledge, I will not waste
another minute reading or answering any of your messages. What would
be the point? Your presence is completely fraudulent.

Ray (anti-evolutionist)

[Ray Martinez]

For the record:

Evolution authorities, in their publications, clearly and plainly
acknowledge the fact that evolution is inferred, not directly
observed. Robert Camp should be viewed as existing among and within
evo scholars. He does not attempt to say evolution is observed like
some ordinary evos here at Talk.Origins. Moreover, evo scholars
maintain inference infinitely more reliable than observation. Since
they have no choice, that is, since evolution can only be inferred,
their reliability claim is undermined.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

Ray, you have not falsified anything. You have not given any actual
examples of inference free observations.

> and since you refuse to acknowledge,

Why should anyone acknowledge something that did not happen?

> I will not waste
> another minute reading or answering any of your messages.

This means you know you've been beaten, and are running away.

> What would
> be the point? Your presence is completely fraudulent.

The point is you are wrong. Declaring the other person a "non person"
doesn't make that person's points go away.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 11/1/12 1:42 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Oct 31, 2:53 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 31, 12:58 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> "Backspace likes to reduce it to "what survives, survives". See? He
>>> leaves out the "effect". If we need a brief phrase, perhaps "What
>>> survives shapes future generations" (GG).
>>
>>> For context:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c02ed5500b62e504?hl=en&
>>
>>> Yet Stephan is right. "What survives shapes future generations"
>>> means "what survives, survives."
>>
>> Ray, anyone who can read can discern the difference between the two.
>>
>
> Since you can read, and since you believe there is a difference, your
> claim is false.

That doesn't follow, Ray.

> The concept of "survival" survives in "What survives
> shapes future generations."

Whatever the "concept of survival" does, the fact remains that "shapes
future generations" is not the same as just surviving.

>
> What is it, then, that you don't understand?

He does understand, it's you who is wrong.

> The inability of the evo
> mind to understand, I have explained. Your mind has been initiated
> into nonsense (= Materialism), unlike mine.

Ray, as has been explained to you over, and over, the only "materialism"
that is required is the same "materialism" one uses to fix a car engine,
or to stop a leak in a drain. There's no need to assume that nothing
beyond the material exists to understand natural selection, and how it
works.

> Natural selection (fully
> material causation agent) is nonsense.

That's your assertion, which you have failed to support. Merely
repeating your assertion doesn't make it true.

> Those who don't understand
> natural selection as nonsense don't understand natural selection.

Again, this is mere assertion of your wishful thinking, to avoid having
to admit you are wrong.

>
> There is no such phenomenon operating in the wild. It is not seen in
> my backyard or the local forrest lands where I live.

When you refuse to look, you can avoid seeing whatever actually happens.
Natural selection is going on in the wild, in your back yard, and in
forest lands everywhere.

>
> Robert: How do species appear in Central Park?

Species "appear" in Central Park the same way they "appear" anywhere
else, by new populations branching off from older populations.

> Did you know that
> abundant wild life exists in the middle of New York City? Where did it
> come from?

It came from earlier existing species. This process can be observed.
No one has ever observed new species suddenly appearing without
ancestors.

Where do you think these species came from, Ray? What evidence do you
have to support that belief?

>
>> The latter is a tautology, simplistic and unrevealing, applicable to
>> many things but illustrative of none.
>>
>> The former entails concepts that explain why we see what we see:
>> variation, heredity, differential reproductive success. It invokes
>> cause and effect. It infers connections, it hypothesizes.
>>
>
> "What survives shapes future generations."

Yes, it determines what the future generation will become. If those
that survive are different, the future generations will be different.

>
> The only relevant concept in the sentence is the concept of
> "survival."

No, the relevant word in that sentence is "shapes".

>
> "Shapes future generations"----what shapes future generations?

The differential reproductive success of current variants in the
population.

Answer:
> survival ("what survives survives").

But what survives doesn't just survive, it causes the population to
reflect the variants which survive and reproduce more successfully.

> So what conceptS are you talking
> about? Your comments make a lot of claims in behalf of 5 words.

The concept is differential reproductive success of variants in the
population. It's amazing you've still managed to refuse to understand
that simple idea.

>
>> Backspace's argument has always been about words, and nothing more. He
>> seems to think that if he can devalue the language of evolutionary
>> biology it will change the way we perceive empirical reality.
>>
>> Your arguments will not be improved by emulating his incoherence.
>>
>> RLC
>
> "Devalue the language"?

Yep, if you make words mean only what you want them to mean, you are
devaluing the language.

>
> We take the language of natural selection literally, because
> scientific explication is to be taken literally, unlike the Bible,
> remember?

Actually, to understand the language of natural selection, you need to
know what the words mean, not simply make up whatever meanings you want.

>
> But when we do so, you get upset.

No, you seem to imagine that your opponents get "upset" more often than
they do. What happens when you misuse the language, you just become
incoherent.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

This is, of course just not true. Whatever "authorities" you want to
cite (usually out of context), all observations require an amount of
inference. Evolutionary change can be directly observed, as much as
anything can be observed directly.

Ray has never addressed the fact that no observation of a supernatural
being producing anything, has ever been made. The whole "observation
versus inference" is a red herring. Ray's own belief in "design in
nature" is not only inferred, it's a false inference.

> Robert Camp should be viewed as existing among and within
> evo scholars.

And again, these unnamed "evo scholars" recognize that all scientific
observation requires inference.

> He does not attempt to say evolution is observed like
> some ordinary evos here at Talk.Origins.

Evolution is observed, like a sunrise is observed, or the orbit of a
planet is observed. All of these observations require inference.

> Moreover, evo scholars
> maintain inference infinitely more reliable than observation.

More correctly, anyone who knows anything about science realizes that
inferences are more useful than simply collecting data. A pile of
unconnected observations is largely useless.

> Since
> they have no choice, that is, since evolution can only be inferred,
> their reliability claim is undermined.

Evolution can be directly observed, and it is inferred from the mass of
observations conducted every day. Unlike Ray's preferred belief, which
cannot be observed, and is merely assumed. Whatever problems Ray has
with inference, the fact remains that no one has ever observed a
supernatural being carrying out a design. No one has ever observed a
supernatural being producing anything, at any time. If one believes
that God created the universe, it's a matter of faith.



DJT

[prawnster]

On Nov 1, 1:48�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [...]

> Evolution authorities, in their publications, clearly and plainly
> acknowledge the fact that evolution is inferred, not directly
> observed. Robert Camp should be viewed as existing among and within
> evo scholars. He does not attempt to say evolution is observed like
> some ordinary evos here at Talk.Origins. Moreover, evo scholars
> maintain inference infinitely more reliable than observation. Since
> they have no choice, that is, since evolution can only be inferred,
> their reliability claim is undermined.
>

Ha ha!

Money quote:
"Evo scholars maintain inference infinitely more reliable than
observation."

Yeah, because inference is utterly under one's control, while
observable reality is not. So, yeah, inference is always more
reliable than pesky observation, which may or may not flatter one's
inferences. LOL.

Good one, sir. Very funny.

"When one scientist accepts an unproven assertion, it is called a
hypothesis. When many scientists accept an unproven assertion, it is
called a consensus." ~ prawndaddy

[hersheyh]

On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 3:58:12 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Where I can view the alleged phenomenon known as natural selection? If
>
> > I look in my backyard or go hiking in the local forests, how is the
>
> > phenomenon seen and indentified?
>
>
>
> "You might have to be pretty patient and very observant. I'd choose a
>
> creature with short generations and change something significant in
>
> their environment. You could visit a lab that specifically works on
>
> drug resistance, or perhaps just get a lot of infections
>
> yourself" (GG).
>
>
>
> As priceless as it gets.
>
>
>
> So the phenomenon is not seen?
>
>
>
> > So acceptance of the existence of (1) variation; (2) inheritance; (2)
>
> > differential reproduction does NOT mean natural selection has
>
> > occurred?
>
>
>
> "If we have variation at some trait, differential reproduction
>
> associated with that trait and the "Earthling" system of heredity, we
>
> will have Natural Selection" (GG).

> True by definition.

True, but misleading. You CAN have variation at some trait without having any
differential reproduction. You only have NS when there is, in fact, empirically
observable and significant differential reproduction of those 2 or 3 traits.
[NS is empirically observable either as a significant change in the frequency of
the alternative* traits between birth and reproduction or a decrease in variance
in a quantitative trait between birth and reproduction.]

IOW, it is possible for one to have the same condition (variation at some alternative
trait system) without or with NS occurring. NS is not a universal occurrence. In
fact, most nt differences (a detectable trait difference when you sequence) has no
significant selective effect.

It certainly is true that *when* you do have significant differential reproduction
of traits, you *do* have NS. That is, indeed, the real definition of NS.
BTW, you do not have to have the traits be genetically determined in order
for there to be NS working on them, although heritability (at least in part)
of the traits is necessary for the selection to have any evolutionary effect.
Nature does not care whether you cannot run from a predator because
you have a broken leg due to chance or have a leg that doesn't function
well because of a genetic disorder.

*Alternative traits are traits where you either have one trait or the other (or, for diploid
organisms, a maximum of three alternative traits, corresponding, respectively to
the two different homozygotes and the heterozygote -- all else being equal.

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

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

> True by definition.

Only because of the phrase "differential reproduction". When the
other features are present and there is no "differential reproduction"
NS is (to the extent we can tell) not present.

> So you've admitted twice now.
>
> "Backspace likes to reduce it to "what survives, survives". See? He
> leaves out the "effect". If we need a brief phrase, perhaps "What
> survives shapes future generations" (GG).

Backspace's definition is idiotic and not even one that Darwin would
have accepted in such a stupidly ignorant form. Darwin clearly recognized
sexual selection, for example.

> For context: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c02ed5500b62e504?hl=en&
>
>
>
> Yet Stephan is right. "What survives shapes future generations"
> means "what survives, survives."
>

No. That phrase is intentionally misleading and simplistic in extreme.
Survival, per se, does not guarantee that NS occurred. One can have
two alternative traits and survival can be completely a matter of chance
and chance alone. That is NOT NS.
>
> Ray

[hersheyh]

Most historical evolution is inferred. NS (or the absence of NS) is
observed. Speciation (by most definitions of that term) has been
observed and experimentally demonstrated as well as inferred
from living species. Speciation, as described by biology, has
observable consequence that can be tested for.

> Robert Camp should be viewed as existing among and within
> evo scholars. He does not attempt to say evolution is observed like
> some ordinary evos here at Talk.Origins. Moreover, evo scholars
> maintain inference infinitely more reliable than observation. Since
> they have no choice, that is, since evolution can only be inferred,
> their reliability claim is undermined.
>

No other natural explanation works. Supernatural explanation can,
of course, explain anything by invoking a miracle.
>
> Ray

[Amy Guarino]

On Nov 1, 3:43 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 31, 2:53 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 31, 12:58 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > "Backspace likes to reduce it to "what survives, survives". See? He
> > > leaves out the "effect". If we need a brief phrase, perhaps "What
> > > survives shapes future generations" (GG).
>
> > > For context:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c02ed5500b62e504?hl=en&
>
> > > Yet Stephan is right. "What survives shapes future generations"
> > > means "what survives, survives."
>
> > Ray, anyone who can read can discern the difference between the two.
>
> Since you can read, and since you believe there is a difference, your
> claim is false.

?????

> The concept of "survival" survives in "What survives
> shapes future generations."

Of course. What about the second half of the sentence? Or, if you
think that too vague, how about Origin of Species? Or most any high-
school biology text?

> What is it, then, that you don't understand? The inability of the evo
> mind to understand, I have explained. Your mind has been initiated
> into nonsense (= Materialism), unlike mine. Natural selection (fully
> material causation agent) is nonsense.

Once again, the only "materialism" required for Natural Selection is
the material inheritance of traits -- regular biological heredity --
which you claim to accept.

> Those who don't understand
> natural selection as nonsense don't understand natural selection.

> There is no such phenomenon operating in the wild. It is not seen in
> my backyard or the local forrest lands where I live.

Where you live all creatures -- regardless of their complement of
traits -- reproduce equally?

> Robert: How do species appear in Central Park? Did you know that
> abundant wild life exists in the middle of New York City? Where did it
> come from?

I can't begin to imagine what you're driving at here. The life in
Central Park - the birds, the rats, the gingko trees, the fish, the
skate-dancers -- come from their ancestors.

>
> > The latter is a tautology, simplistic and unrevealing, applicable to
> > many things but illustrative of none.
>
> > The former entails concepts that explain why we see what we see:
> > variation, heredity, differential reproductive success. It invokes
> > cause and effect. It infers connections, it hypothesizes.
>
> "What survives shapes future generations."
>
> The only relevant concept in the sentence is the concept of
> "survival."

Why?

>
> "Shapes future generations"----what shapes future generations? Answer:
> survival ("what survives survives").

So "survives" is a synonym for "shapes future generations"? How?

> So what conceptS are you talking
> about? Your comments make a lot of claims in behalf of 5 words.

Unlike you and Backspace, I have no attachment to the idea that
Natural Selection must be reducible to a catchphrase. But I offered
one anyway.

> > Backspace's argument has always been about words, and nothing more. He
> > seems to think that if he can devalue the language of evolutionary
> > biology it will change the way we perceive empirical reality.
>
> > Your arguments will not be improved by emulating his incoherence.
>
> > RLC
>
> "Devalue the language"?

I don't know if I would use the word "devalue". But Backspace attempts
to reduce a book to four words and then argue that the four words have
no meaning, all in a attempt to argue against evolution with nary a
whiff of biology.

> We take the language of natural selection literally, because
> scientific explication is to be taken literally, unlike the Bible,
> remember?

Do you mean you take the couplet "Natural Selection" in some "literal"
sense, rather than as the label we use for a process described in
detail elsewhere? Come to think of it, that does sound like you. How
do you parse the term "stagflation" in the "forest" where you live?

Sounds a little risque to me. :)

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 13:47:30 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

<snip Shrimpiocies>

>For the record:
>
>Evolution authorities, in their publications, clearly and plainly
>acknowledge the fact that evolution is inferred, not directly
>observed.

For the record:

Inference of evolution based on observations (which is what
you reference) is of the same order as inference of the
birth of Ray Martinez based on the observation that he seems
to exist.

[Ray Martinez]

I am a species immutabilist. No evidence exists supporting natural
selection or microevolution on this planet.

I was simply telling a handful of evos here that their own scholars do
not support their belief that evolution is observed.

Ray

[prawnster]

On Nov 2, 12:08 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [...]

> I am a species immutabilist. No evidence exists supporting natural
> selection or microevolution on this planet.
>
> I was simply telling a handful of evos here that their own scholars do
> not support their belief that evolution is observed.
>

I know. Word up.

I understood your point.

[Ray Martinez]

All species (sexuallly reproducing organisms) evolution is inferred

> NS [....] is
> observed.

Completely false.

I'm in my backyard, Howard; where is it, I don't see it?

If I go hiking in the local forests; again, where is it, I don't see
it?

And what exactly am I looking for?

> Speciation (by most definitions of that term) has been

> observed....

Completely false.

I challenge you to support this claim. I can, and will, refute
anything you say.

> and experimentally demonstrated as well as inferred
> from living species.

It's ALL inferred (not seen directly).

> Speciation, as described by biology, has
> observable consequence that can be tested for.
>

Note that Howard said "observable consequences." The same implies
conclusions arrived at by inference.

And we are talking about Paley's watches (sexually reproducing
species), not bacteria or anything of that nature.

> > Robert Camp should be viewed as existing among and within
> > evo scholars. He does not attempt to say evolution is observed like
> > some ordinary evos here at Talk.Origins. Moreover, evo scholars
> > maintain inference infinitely more reliable than observation. Since
> > they have no choice, that is, since evolution can only be inferred,
> > their reliability claim is undermined.
>
> No other natural explanation works.  Supernatural explanation can,
> of course, explain anything by invoking a miracle.
>

Produce a YouTube so we all can observe speciation occurring, Howard.

Waiting....

The point is: you can't because the natural (speciation) is invisible
(inferred) and the supernatural is clearly visible (appearance of
design).

Evolutionists, unlike the Paleyan IDists, believe in that which cannot
be seen.

Ray

PS: Note to Greg Guarino; I haven't forgotten your posts. They take
longer to create responses.

RM

[Dana Tweedy]

On 11/2/12 1:20 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 1, 4:28 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:

snip

>>
>> Most historical evolution is inferred.
>
> All species (sexuallly reproducing organisms) evolution is inferred

Not so. There are many examples of sexually reproducing populations who
breed quickly enough to observe their evolution. The Grant's study of
beak sizes in the Galapagos Finches is the best known example.

Also, your bizarre insistence of limiting observed evolution to only
"sexually reproducing organisms" is particularly puzzling. Since the
majority of living thing on Earth are asexually reproducing, you seem to
be shutting out a large number of cases where evolution can be readily
observed.

>
>> NS [....] is
>> observed.
>
> Completely false.

Wrong again, Ray.

>
> I'm in my backyard, Howard; where is it, I don't see it?

You refuse to look. It's been explained to you many times that examples
of natural selection can be seen in many different events that happen in
your back yard. A bird eating a worm, is an example of natural
selection. An insect eating a plant, is another. A patch of weeds
that grows more than others is an example of natural selection. It's
impossible to miss.

>
> If I go hiking in the local forests; again, where is it, I don't see
> it?

That's because you refuse to look. In the local forest, an example of
natural selection is one tree having it's leaves eaten by a caterpillar,
and another tree being untouched. Monarch butterflies are not eaten by
birds, because they feed on milkweed, which is toxic to birds. Another
species of butterfly, the Viceroy, looks very much like the Monarch, but
isn't toxic to birds. When a bird passes up a Viceroy
butterfly,thinking it's a Monarch, and eats another species, that's an
example of natural selection. The Pepper Moth case, in England was an
excellent example of how natural selection works.

If you turn over a rotten log, you may see some insects run for
cover. Some of them may run faster than others. That's an example of
natural selection in action, as slower bugs tend to be eaten more often.

>
> And what exactly am I looking for?

You are looking for anywhere where some members of a population have
differential reproductive success, due to some environmental factor.
That factor may be mimicry of another species, better ability to use a
food source, or being faster than others in it's population. It may

>
>> Speciation (by most definitions of that term) has been
>> observed....
>
> Completely false.

Wrong again, Ray. Speciation has been directly observed in many cases.

>
> I challenge you to support this claim. I can, and will, refute
> anything you say.

Here's an article of one such example:

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jb/2012/817920/abs/

Here's another.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2002.tb01461.x/abstract

I doubt you can even understand the papers, much less refute them.

>
>> and experimentally demonstrated as well as inferred
>> from living species.
>
> It's ALL inferred (not seen directly).

Wrong again, Ray. It's seen directly, and also inferred, as all
observations require inference.

>
>> Speciation, as described by biology, has
>> observable consequence that can be tested for.
>>
>
> Note that Howard said "observable consequences." The same implies
> conclusions arrived at by inference.

That's how all conclusions are reached, Ray.

>
> And we are talking about Paley's watches (sexually reproducing
> species), not bacteria or anything of that nature.

Bacteria make up the majority of species on Earth, Ray. Paley himself
did not limit his topic to sexually reproducing species. Why do you?

>
>>> Robert Camp should be viewed as existing among and within
>>> evo scholars. He does not attempt to say evolution is observed like
>>> some ordinary evos here at Talk.Origins. Moreover, evo scholars
>>> maintain inference infinitely more reliable than observation. Since
>>> they have no choice, that is, since evolution can only be inferred,
>>> their reliability claim is undermined.
>>
>> No other natural explanation works. Supernatural explanation can,
>> of course, explain anything by invoking a miracle.
>>
>
> Produce a YouTube so we all can observe speciation occurring, Howard.

Why do you imagine that YouTube is a scientific website? Here are
some YouTube videos for you.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5kumHLiK4A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huGgirq9gTc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oDJksG3gKw



>
> Waiting....

Do you realize that many observations take more than a few minutes?
While you are waiting, Ray, how about providing a YouTube video of a
supernatural being designing anything.

>
> The point is: you can't because the natural (speciation) is invisible
> (inferred) and the supernatural is clearly visible (appearance of
> design).

Speciation is quite visible, and can be observed over time. The
supernatural, by contrast is not visible at all. The appearance of
design is not an observation, it's an inference you make from the
presence of order.

>
> Evolutionists, unlike the Paleyan IDists, believe in that which cannot
> be seen.

No one has ever observed a supernatural being designing anything, Ray.
You are assuming "design" when you have no evidence that backs up your
assumption.

>
> Ray
>
> PS: Note to Greg Guarino; I haven't forgotten your posts. They take
> longer to create responses.

Running away takes no time at all, Ray.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 11/2/12 1:03 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
snipping.

>
> I am a species immutabilist. No evidence exists supporting natural
> selection or microevolution on this planet.

Actually, Ray, there is a huge amount of evidence supporting natural
selection, and both macro, and micro evolution. Your refusal to look at
that evidence does not mean it does not exist.

>
> I was simply telling a handful of evos here that their own scholars do
> not support their belief that evolution is observed.

What "scholars" in your opinion claim that all evolution cannot be
observed? Stephen Jay Gould said:

"First, we have abundant, direct, observational evidence of evolution
in action, from both the field and laboratory. This evidence ranges from
countless experiments on change in nearly everything about fruit flies
subjected to artificial selection in the laboratory to the famous
populations of British moths that became black when industrial soot
darkened the trees upon which the moths rest."

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

Roger Pennock, of Michigan State University

"Once we are attuned to the nature of observation and understand what
evolutionary
theory actually claims, it becomes clear that scientists have observed
evolution in as
clear a manner as one could desire both in the lab and in nature. Aside from
observations from many lab experiments and field studies like the
Grants� finch
research, scientists have also observed, for example, how insects have
evolved
resistance to various pesticides and how disease-causing bacteria have
evolved
resistance to penicillin and other antibiotics."

http://www.nescent.org/documents/the_web_of_life_book.pdf Page 3 "On
Observing Evolution"

Ernst Mayr wrote:

"Whenever we study evolutionary change in living populations, we observe
such gradualness."

Mayr "What Evolution Is" Page 190

Later, on the same page, he writes: "Such gradual evolution can be
observed wherever one looks. The history of our domestic animals and
cultivated plants is a story of gradual evolution, even though, in this
case it was effected by artificial selection."


Some more examples of observed evolution in action

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g545774850mn6505/

http://www.landesbioscience.com/curie/chapter/878/

http://www.springerlink.com/content/h7n4r6h026q1u6hk/

http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/39/2/346.short

DJT

[Mitchell Coffey]

On 10/31/2012 5:33 PM, prawnster wrote:
> On Oct 31, 1:08 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> [...]
>> He just told you where you can see it
>>
>>
>>
>>>> So acceptance of the existence of (1) variation; (2) inheritance; (2)
>>>> differential reproduction does NOT mean natural selection has
>>>> occurred?
>>
>>> "If we have variation at some trait, differential reproduction
>>> associated with that trait and the "Earthling" system of heredity, we
>>> will have Natural Selection" (GG).
>>
>>> True by definition.
>>
>> No, true to the contingent facts that there is variation, the
>> differential reproduction that we observe and the system of heredity
>> that we observe.
>> If any of these conditions turns our [sic] false, NS is in trouble.
>>
>
> Yes, a person can watch bacteria beget bacteria unto the 100,000th
> generation, and yet they stubbornly just keep making bacteria: they
> never move up, down, or sideways on the Great Bush of Being. So
> what's your point?

If they moved up, down, or sideways on the Great Bush of Being it would
disprove evolution.

> If any of those conditions turn out false, you don't exist. So what's
> your point?
>
> Let me restate your prolix bilge in non-obscurantist terms for ya:
> 1) Critters fuck.
> 2) Their offspring don't look exactly like ma and pa.
> 3) This process, no matter how many times repeated, never leads to
> speciation. QED: my first response paragraph above the hyphen line.
>
> So what's your point?

Your claim is false. Speciation has been observed.

Mitchell Coffey

[prawnster]

On Nov 2, 4:58 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]

>    "First, we have abundant, direct, observational evidence of evolution
> in action, from both the field and laboratory. This evidence ranges from
> countless experiments on change in nearly everything about fruit flies
> subjected to artificial selection in the laboratory to the famous
> populations of British moths that became black when industrial soot
> darkened the trees upon which the moths rest."
>

> [...]

> "Once we are attuned to the nature of observation and understand what
> evolutionary
> theory actually claims, it becomes clear that scientists have observed
> evolution in as
> clear a manner as one could desire both in the lab and in nature. Aside from
> observations from many lab experiments and field studies like the

> Grants finch

> research, scientists have also observed, for example, how insects have
> evolved
> resistance to various pesticides and how disease-causing bacteria have
> evolved
> resistance to penicillin and other antibiotics."

> [...]

> Later, on the same page, he writes:  "Such gradual evolution can be
> observed wherever one looks.  The history of our domestic animals and
> cultivated plants is a story of gradual evolution, even though, in this
> case it was effected by artificial selection."
>

Moths making moths.
----------
Finches making finches, insects making insects, bacteria making
bacteria.
---------
Ha ha. Now you're just trolling.

None of these examples should lead any rational person to believe that
if a worm fucks enough times it eventually begets a man.

[Ray Martinez]

On Oct 31, 3:53 pm, "g...@risky-biz.com" <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 31, 3:58 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> What's with this "new thread to avoid all the uncomfortable bits in
> the old thread" jazz? That's Tony's schtick, and we all laugh at him
> for it. It's an even weaker tactic in the roadshow version.
>

The other thread was loaded with the usual diversions and derailments
of those disinterested with topic.

> > > Where I can view the alleged phenomenon known as natural selection? If
> > > I look in my backyard or go hiking in the local forests, how is the
> > > phenomenon seen and indentified?
>
> > "You might have to be pretty patient and very observant. I'd choose a
> > creature with short generations and change something significant in
> > their environment. You could visit a lab that specifically works on
> > drug resistance, or perhaps just get a lot of infections
> > yourself" (GG).
>
> > As priceless as it gets.
>
> > So the phenomenon is not seen?
>
> It is, most easily in hospitals and labs, but elsewhere as well.
>

The point, which you seemed to have missed is, by your own admissions,
the fact that you listed hospitals, labs and oneself as the first
answers to where one can best view natural selection! Again, you seem
completely oblivious to the fact that these answers support my point
that the alleged phenomenon is not seen in the wild, that is, the main
object of explanation in the Creo-Evo debate!

That's why I remarked "as priceless as it gets."

What goes on in the lab, as I told Kleinman, is not Darwinian natural
selection acting on species, but some form, labelled as such, like
"negative selection." Natural selection was eventually accepted by
scientific men as occurring in the wild. To have to resort to the lab,
becomes good evidence supporting the point that the original
conception not readily seen in the wild.

Isn't this true, Greg?

> > > So acceptance of the existence of (1) variation; (2) inheritance; (2)
> > > differential reproduction does NOT mean natural selection has
> > > occurred?
>
> > "If we have variation at some trait, differential reproduction
> > associated with that trait and the "Earthling" system of heredity, we
> > will have Natural Selection" (GG).
>
> > True by definition.
>
> How could it be with the word "if" in the sentence? Three "ifs",
> actually.
>

So the word "if" becomes your intentionally designed escape hatch?
Omit or delete the word and you've more or less admitted.

Howard Hershey, in response to the same point, in this thread,
answered "True, but misleading." He said natural selection true by
definition (but misleading, whatever that may mean).

> > > > > Does acceptance of the existence of variation, inheritance and
> > > > > differential reproduction mean natural selection does occur?
> > > > Given variation, *particulate* inheritance and differential
> > > > reproduction, I can see no easy way to avoid Natural Selection.
>
> > True by definition.
>
> How could it be, with the word "given" in the sentence? 3 "givens" are
> required.
>

More escape hatchism.

You've admitted.

> > So you've admitted twice now.
>
> > "Backspace likes to reduce it to "what survives, survives". See? He
> > leaves out the "effect". If we need a brief phrase, perhaps "What
> > survives shapes future generations" (GG).
>
> > For context:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c02ed5500b62e504?hl=en&
>
> > Yet Stephan is right. "What survives shapes future generations"
> > means "what survives, survives."
>
> Explain.

Do you see the concept of "survival" in both sentences?

Ray

[prawnster]

On Nov 2, 5:13 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> If [bacteria] moved up, down, or sideways on the Great Bush of Being it would
> disprove evolution.
>
> [...]

> Your claim is false. Speciation has been observed.
>

Wrong. That's the only available proof for evolution, and has never
been observed.
---------
True, in the same way that a chihuahua is a different species from a
Great Dane; i.e., they're not.

"Evo scholars maintain inference infinitely more reliable than
observation." ~ Ray Martinez, species immutabilist

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 2, 4:58 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Grants finch

> research, scientists have also observed, for example, how insects have
> evolved
> resistance to various pesticides and how disease-causing bacteria have
> evolved
> resistance to penicillin and other antibiotics."
>
> http://www.nescent.org/documents/the_web_of_life_book.pdf Page 3 "On
> Observing Evolution"
>
> Ernst Mayr wrote:
>
> "Whenever we study evolutionary change in living populations, we observe
> such gradualness."
>
> Mayr "What Evolution Is" Page 190
>
> Later, on the same page, he writes:  "Such gradual evolution can be
> observed wherever one looks.  The history of our domestic animals and
> cultivated plants is a story of gradual evolution, even though, in this
> case it was effected by artificial selection."
>
> Some more examples of observed evolution in action
>
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/g545774850mn6505/
>
> http://www.landesbioscience.com/curie/chapter/878/
>
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/h7n4r6h026q1u6hk/
>
> http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/39/2/346.short
>
> DJT

You've misunderstood the most basic jargon. Each time observation is
mentioned, it is presupposed to mean "by inference." The writer
assumes the reader to already understand this rudimentary fact.

Species evolution ("gradualism" as it is known far and wide) is too
slow to see as it allegedly occurs.

Ray

[pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu]

No sane or rational person would EXPECT a worm to beget a man directly, you scrotum-gnawing simpleton.

Examination of the real world shows that variations arise in populations, and that some variations have a better chance of living long enough to produce offspring of their own than others do. Thus the population CAN CHANGE over the generations.

'Moths make moths' - but the later generations are different than the earlier ones.

'Finches make finches' - but there are now a dozen species of finch where there was only one before, thanks to the OBSERVED effects of natural selection.

(the REAL WORLD version of it, not the silly-arsed strawman version of it you and Ray ascribe to.)

"When one scientist accepts an unproven assertion, it is called a hypothesis. When many scientists accept an unproven assertion, it is called a consensus." ~ prawndaddy

A hypothesis is a TESTABLE IDEA, not an 'unproven assertion'. You'd have to be some sort of willfully stupid ignoramus with no real understanding of science to make a mistake THAT ridiculous.

You seem to 'think' that science is run the way creationism is - someone pulls an idea out of his arse, and everyone falls all over themselves to accept it just because Da Big Authority proclaimed it true.

Good thing that, IN REALITY, scientific ideas are TESTED. Those that work are kept; those that fail are discarded.

Creationism is so silly and useless it can't even get into the ballpark.
Which is why creationuts spend so much time and rancor screaming about how awful evolution is - they seem to have the silly idea that if they can only say enough bad things about evolution, their untested and useless ideas will be accepted by default.

In science, an 'unproven assertion' will not remain that way for long - researchers will investigate and devise ways to TEST the validity of the assertion (in marked contrast to creatorisms, whose assertions are either untestable or never tested).

[pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu]

WHICH IS WHY ONLY A DEMENTED F*CKWIT WOULD DEMAND TO SEE AN YOUTUBE VIDEO OF IT HAPPENING !

Do you SERIOUSLY 'think' that 'observed' means 'someone must be standing there looking at it the whole time - even if the process takes thousands or millions of years' ?

Some inferences are much better supported than others - evolution and speciation are quite well supported by KNOWN mechanisms.

Evolution is supported by OBSERVATIONS of the way real world organisms work; creationutism is supported only by the hot air vomited forth by the willfully stupid.

If two different species have 99.995% identical DNA (even sharing the same errors, defects, insertions, etc), sane and rational folk would deduce that speciation occurred (via descent with modification); you, of course, would bellow something about Magical Sky Pixies 'POOF !!!!!!'ing the critters into existence when no one was looking.

And 'anyone who dares contradict me is a tool of Satan !!!1!!1!!1!!!!!'

Or 'God curses unbelievers with unbelief !!!'

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 11/01/2012 04:47 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

[snip]

> For the record:
>
> Evolution authorities, in their publications, clearly and plainly
> acknowledge the fact that evolution is inferred, not directly
> observed. Robert Camp should be viewed as existing among and within
> evo scholars. He does not attempt to say evolution is observed like
> some ordinary evos here at Talk.Origins. Moreover, evo scholars
> maintain inference infinitely more reliable than observation. Since
> they have no choice, that is, since evolution can only be inferred,
> their reliability claim is undermined.

I made an observation watching depictions of Rodrigo Borgia (a shining
example of Christianity in action) using the Majestic plural. Now I
fully understand why y'all use it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majestic_plural

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/P-BHjh0tJkk/aN9nuz1iUzsJ

[jillery]

On Fri, 2 Nov 2012 17:54:24 -0700 (PDT), prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com> wrote:

>On Nov 2, 5:13 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> If [bacteria] moved up, down, or sideways on the Great Bush of Being it would
>> disprove evolution.
>>
>> [...]
>> Your claim is false. Speciation has been observed.
>>
>
>Wrong. That's the only available proof for evolution, and has never
>been observed.

You're right if you mean you have never observed it. Of course,
closing your eyes doesn't really count.

[Dana Tweedy]

No, Ray, you are just unable to admit you are wrong.

> Each time observation is
> mentioned, it is presupposed to mean "by inference."

As has been pointed out to you many times, Ray, all observations require
inference. The authors above were talking about observing evolution
happening in real time, with quickly evolving populations.

> The writer
> assumes the reader to already understand this rudimentary fact.

If so, then statements you make that evolution can't be observed are
nonsense. Your own claims of "observing design" are equally affected
by this. When you claim to observe design, you have not observed any
supernatural being in the process of design, you've assumed design from
the appearance of orderly processes. You mistakenly assume that only a
supernatural being is capable of producing order.

>
> Species evolution ("gradualism" as it is known far and wide) is too
> slow to see as it allegedly occurs.

If you had bothered to look at the citations, you'd see the scientists
above were talking about evolution below species level. Not all
evolution is too slow to observe, as the writers above show clearly.
Evolution as defined as change in allele frequencies in populations over
generations can be, and has been directly observed.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 11/2/12 6:52 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Oct 31, 3:53 pm, "g...@risky-biz.com" <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 31, 3:58 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> What's with this "new thread to avoid all the uncomfortable bits in
>> the old thread" jazz? That's Tony's schtick, and we all laugh at him
>> for it. It's an even weaker tactic in the roadshow version.
>>
>
> The other thread was loaded with the usual diversions and derailments
> of those disinterested with topic.

It was also "loaded" with points you chose to ignore, and run away from.

>
>>>> Where I can view the alleged phenomenon known as natural selection? If
>>>> I look in my backyard or go hiking in the local forests, how is the
>>>> phenomenon seen and indentified?
>>
>>> "You might have to be pretty patient and very observant. I'd choose a
>>> creature with short generations and change something significant in
>>> their environment. You could visit a lab that specifically works on
>>> drug resistance, or perhaps just get a lot of infections
>>> yourself" (GG).
>>
>>> As priceless as it gets.
>>
>>> So the phenomenon is not seen?
>>
>> It is, most easily in hospitals and labs, but elsewhere as well.
>>
>
> The point, which you seemed to have missed is, by your own admissions,
> the fact that you listed hospitals, labs and oneself as the first
> answers to where one can best view natural selection!

Hospitals, and labs are places where natural selection can happen as
well as in the middle of a primeval forest.

> Again, you seem
> completely oblivious to the fact that these answers support my point
> that the alleged phenomenon is not seen in the wild, that is, the main
> object of explanation in the Creo-Evo debate!

Ray, the fact that you want to ignore something doesn't mean it can be
ignored. Hospitals are a good place to observe natural selection in
rapidly reproducing populations of organisms. For the bacteria itself,
it's just as "wild" as the middle of a jungle. Natural selection goes
on in the middle of a jungle, but it's much easier to see where there
are people, and instruments to study it.

>
> That's why I remarked "as priceless as it gets."

You often make bizarre statements. Why should that be any different?

>
> What goes on in the lab, as I told Kleinman, is not Darwinian natural
> selection acting on species,

Why not, Ray? What is different about a bacteria being affected by a
antibiotic produced by a mold species in the middle of a jungle versus
the same species of bacteria, being affected by the same antibiotic
produced by the same species of mold in a lab?

> but some form, labelled as such, like
> "negative selection."

What is "negative selection", Ray? Who labels it such?

> Natural selection was eventually accepted by
> scientific men as occurring in the wild.

and to a bacterium, a hospital bedpan is just as "wild" as a puddle in a
jungle.

> To have to resort to the lab,
> becomes good evidence supporting the point that the original
> conception not readily seen in the wild.

That doesn't make sense, Ray. A lab tries to reproduce what happens in
the wild, with control of variables.

>
> Isn't this true, Greg?

No, it's not true, Ray, even if I'm not Greg.

>
>>>> So acceptance of the existence of (1) variation; (2) inheritance; (2)
>>>> differential reproduction does NOT mean natural selection has
>>>> occurred?
>>
>>> "If we have variation at some trait, differential reproduction
>>> associated with that trait and the "Earthling" system of heredity, we
>>> will have Natural Selection" (GG).
>>
>>> True by definition.
>>
>> How could it be with the word "if" in the sentence? Three "ifs",
>> actually.
>>
>
> So the word "if" becomes your intentionally designed escape hatch?

Why an "escape hatch"? The word "if" means the term is not true as
defined, but is contingent on the condition.

> Omit or delete the word and you've more or less admitted.

Omitting the word changes the meaning drastically.

>
> Howard Hershey, in response to the same point, in this thread,
> answered "True, but misleading." He said natural selection true by
> definition (but misleading, whatever that may mean).

He means that you are being misleading, ie dishonest.

>
>>>>>> Does acceptance of the existence of variation, inheritance and
>>>>>> differential reproduction mean natural selection does occur?
>>>>> Given variation, *particulate* inheritance and differential
>>>>> reproduction, I can see no easy way to avoid Natural Selection.
>>
>>> True by definition.
>>
>> How could it be, with the word "given" in the sentence? 3 "givens" are
>> required.
>>
>
> More escape hatchism.

More failure of Ray to address the point.


>
> You've admitted.

No, he has not. In fact, he's showing you why you are wrong to assume
that.

>
>>> So you've admitted twice now.
>>
>>> "Backspace likes to reduce it to "what survives, survives". See? He
>>> leaves out the "effect". If we need a brief phrase, perhaps "What
>>> survives shapes future generations" (GG).
>>
>>> For context:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c02ed5500b62e504?hl=en&
>>
>>> Yet Stephan is right. "What survives shapes future generations"
>>> means "what survives, survives."
>>
>> Explain.
>
> Do you see the concept of "survival" in both sentences?

Do you, Ray see the difference between "shapes future generations" and
"survives"? Of course, to shape a future generation, some variants
have to survive and breed more successfully than others of the same
population. The point is that not every variant survives. Those that
do, affect the genetic make up of future generations.

DJT

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ccdfee49-1795-4cb3...@v9g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...

What about the evidence?

Where is the evidence for godditit?

> Ray
>

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

On Nov 2, 8:53�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 31, 3:53 pm, "g...@risky-biz.com" <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 31, 3:58 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > What's with this "new thread to avoid all the uncomfortable bits in
> > the old thread" jazz? That's Tony's schtick, and we all laugh at him
> > for it. It's an even weaker tactic in the roadshow version.
>
> The other thread was loaded with the usual diversions and derailments
> of those disinterested with topic.
>

My post wasn't. And it had quite a bit you chose to snip. Why?

>
> > > > Where I can view the alleged phenomenon known as natural selection? If
> > > > I look in my backyard or go hiking in the local forests, how is the
> > > > phenomenon seen and indentified?
>
> > > "You might have to be pretty patient and very observant. I'd choose a
> > > creature with short generations and change something significant in
> > > their environment. You could visit a lab that specifically works on
> > > drug resistance, or perhaps just get a lot of infections
> > > yourself" (GG).
>
> > > As priceless as it gets.
>
> > > So the phenomenon is not seen?
>
> > It is, most easily in hospitals and labs, but elsewhere as well.
>
> The point, which you seemed to have missed is, by your own admissions,
> the fact that you listed hospitals, labs and oneself as the first
> answers to where one can best view natural selection!

The easiest answers, not the best. Good for lazy folks like you and
me.

> Again, you seem
> completely oblivious to the fact that these answers support my point
> that the alleged phenomenon is not seen in the wild, that is, the main
> object of explanation in the Creo-Evo debate!

People with patience can document observations in the wild. In any
case, you deny Natural Selection happens at all. If it happens in
labs, it happens. Moreover, the process is precisely the same in
either case.

>
> That's why I remarked "as priceless as it gets."
>
> What goes on in the lab, as I told Kleinman, is not Darwinian natural
> selection acting on species, but some form, labelled as such, like
> "negative selection."

Explain how "negative selection" - whatever that might be - is
different.

> Natural selection was eventually accepted by
> scientific men as occurring in the wild. To have to resort to the lab,
> becomes good evidence supporting the point that the original
> conception not readily seen in the wild.
>
> Isn't this true, Greg?

"Readily"? Sounds like a weasel word. Yes, with longer-lived species,
in a relatively static environment, you'll have to make a more
industrious study over a longer period to see Natural Selection at
work. Is that what you're hanging your hat on here - that human
lifespans and and attention spans are too short to "readily" perceive
the process? By that logic, starfish don't move.

Unless you think that all of the life-forms in your yard, in Central
Park, in the ocean and in your lower intestine reproduce equally,
regardless of their traits, Natural Selection is observable; the
amount of effort required to document it will vary however.

> > > > So acceptance of the existence of (1) variation; (2) inheritance; (2)
> > > > differential reproduction does NOT mean natural selection has
> > > > occurred?
>
> > > "If we have variation at some trait, differential reproduction
> > > associated with that trait and the "Earthling" system of heredity, we
> > > will have Natural Selection" (GG).
>
> > > True by definition.
>
> > How could it be with the word "if" in the sentence? Three "ifs",
> > actually.
>
> So the word "if" becomes your intentionally designed escape hatch?
> Omit or delete the word and you've more or less admitted.

Are you now arguing that by omitting the word that expresses
conditionality, we no longer have conditionality? Priceless, to coin a
phrase.

> Howard Hershey, in response to the same point, in this thread,
> answered "True, but misleading." He said natural selection true by
> definition (but misleading, whatever that may mean).

I don't know what he meant either. But if he means that Natural
Selection is "true by definition", I say he's wrong.

> > > > > > Does acceptance of the existence of variation, inheritance and
> > > > > > differential reproduction mean natural selection does occur?
> > > > > Given variation, *particulate* inheritance and differential
> > > > > reproduction, I can see no easy way to avoid Natural Selection.
>
> > > True by definition.
>
> > How could it be, with the word "given" in the sentence? 3 "givens" are
> > required.
>
> More escape hatchism.

More of your argument that, but for the *operative word* in the
sentence, you'd be right.

Let's make it simpler, shall we?

Absent variation, we would not have Natural Selection.
Thus Natural Selection is dependent on variation and *not* "true by
definition.

Absent differential reproduction associated with a heritable trait
(and sometimes this is absent in the real world), we would not have
Natural Selection.
Thus Natural Selection is dependent on differential reproduction
associated with a heritable trait, and *not* "true by definition.

Absent the a system of reproduction something like the one we observe,
we would not have Natural Selection.
Thus Natural Selection is dependent on certain features of heredity,
and *not* true by definition.

The dependence of Natural Selection on conditions is not a function of
the words I used, it is simply what is, however we might choose to
express it.

> You've admitted.
>
> > > So you've admitted twice now.
>
> > > "Backspace likes to reduce it to "what survives, survives". See? He
> > > leaves out the "effect". If we need a brief phrase, perhaps "What
> > > survives shapes future generations" (GG).
>
> > > For context:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c02ed5500b62e504?hl=en&
>
> > > Yet Stephan is right. "What survives shapes future generations"
> > > means "what survives, survives."
>
> > Explain.
>
> Do you see the concept of "survival" in both sentences?

I see two different sentences, with very different meanings, that
share a word. I'm confident that nearly everyone in the world would
see that as well. But we really don't need a single sentence, and if
we did we wouldn't get an amateur like myself to compose it.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 2 Nov 2012 17:54:24 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by prawnster
<zweib...@ymail.com>:

>On Nov 2, 5:13 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> If [bacteria] moved up, down, or sideways on the Great Bush of Being it would
>> disprove evolution.
>>

>> Your claim is false. Speciation has been observed.

>Wrong. That's the only available proof for evolution, and has never
>been observed.

....says Shrimpie, fingers firmly planted in ears and eyes
tightly shut, while humming the theme song from "Dumb and
Dumber".

Observations of speciation are naturally most common among
short-generation species such as viruses, bacteria, insects
and plants, but speciation has been observed elsewhere (not
that it's required; a single instance is sufficient to
demonstrate the accuracy of the concept).

>True, in the same way that a chihuahua is a different species from a
>Great Dane; i.e., they're not.

No, they're not. Nor does anyone claim they are.

Strawmen 'R' Us?

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 2, 6:33 pm, pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu wrote:
> On Friday, November 2, 2012 8:58:05 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 4:58 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/2/12 1:03 PM, Ray Martinez wrote: > snipping. > > > > > I am a species immutabilist. No evidence exists supporting natural > > selection or microevolution on this planet. > > Actually, Ray, there is a huge amount of evidence supporting natural > selection, and both macro, and micro evolution. Your refusal to look at > that evidence does not mean it does not exist. > > > > > I was simply telling a handful of evos here that their own scholars do > > not support their belief that evolution is observed. > > What "scholars" in your opinion claim that all evolution cannot be > observed? Stephen Jay Gould said: > > "First, we have abundant, direct, observational evidence of evolution > in action, from both the field and laboratory. This evidence ranges from > countless experiments on change in nearly everything about fruit flies > subjected to artificial selection in the laboratory to the famous > populations of British moths th
>

> at became black when industrial soot > darkened the trees upon which the moths rest." > >http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html> > Roger Pennock, of Michigan State University > > "Once we are attuned to the nature of observation and understand what > evolutionary > theory actually claims, it becomes clear that scientists have observed > evolution in as > clear a manner as one could desire both in the lab and in nature. Aside from > observations from many lab experiments and field studies like the > Grants finch > research, scientists have also observed, for example, how insects have > evolved > resistance to various pesticides and how disease-causing bacteria have > evolved > resistance to penicillin and other antibiotics." > >http://www.nescent.org/documents/the_web_of_life_book.pdfPage 3 "On > Observing Evolution" > > Ernst Mayr wrote: > > "Whenever we study evolutionary change in living populations, we observe > such gradualness." > > Mayr "What Evolution Is" Page 190 > >

>
> Later, on the same page, he writes: "Such gradual evolution can be > observed wherever one looks. The history of our domestic animals and > cultivated plants is a story of gradual evolution, even though, in this > case it was effected by artificial selection." > > Some more examples of observed evolution in action > >http://www.springerlink.com/content/g545774850mn6505/> >http://www.landesbioscience.com/curie/chapter/878/> >http://www.springerlink.com/content/h7n4r6h026q1u6hk/> >http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/39/2/346.short> > DJT You've misunderstood the most basic jargon. Each time observation is mentioned, it is presupposed to mean "by inference." The writer assumes the reader to already understand this rudimentary fact. Species evolution ("gradualism" as it is known far and wide) is too slow to see as it allegedly occurs. Ray
>
> WHICH IS WHY ONLY A DEMENTED F*CKWIT WOULD DEMAND TO SEE AN YOUTUBE VIDEO OF IT HAPPENING !
>

I was speaking to some of your fellow evos who say evolution is seen,
and can be seen, at it allegedly occurs. Your comments assume
otherwise. Your thought aligns with scholars and the undisputed fact
that evolution is not directly observed as it allegedly occurs.

> Do you SERIOUSLY 'think' that 'observed' means 'someone must be standing there looking at it the whole time - even if the process takes thousands or
> millions of years' ?
>
> Some inferences are much better supported than others - evolution and speciation are quite well supported by KNOWN mechanisms.
>

Comments agree that evolution is inferred, not directly observed.

Evolutionist Dana Tweedy and others are shown to be deluded liars.

> Evolution is supported by OBSERVATIONS of the way real world organisms work; creationutism is supported only by the hot air vomited forth by the
> willfully stupid.
>

Use of the word "OBSERVATIONS," in context, means "by inference."

I'm speaking to deniers (deluded liars), not you Prof. Weird.

> If two different species have 99.995% identical DNA (even sharing the same errors, defects, insertions, etc), sane and rational folk would deduce that speciation occurred (via descent with modification); you, of course, would bellow something about Magical Sky Pixies 'POOF !!!!!!'ing the critters into existence when no one was looking.
>
> And 'anyone who dares contradict me is a tool of Satan !!!1!!1!!1!!!!!'
>
> Or 'God curses unbelievers with unbelief !!!'

True, the more one resists the encroachments of God the more one
becomes hardened in disbelief: the same is a spiritual law.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

> >>http://www.nescent.org/documents/the_web_of_life_book.pdfPage 3 "On

Our Evolutionist cannot bring himself to acknowledge the fact that
evolution (gradualism) is inferred, not directly observed. This
particular Evolutionist cannot handle the fact that he believes in
something that is not actually seen. The same does not bother evo
scholars at all because they always knew that evolution is inferred.
The basic fact of the inference of evolution places evolution in the
land of the invisible, unlike Intelligent design.

Conclusion:

Evolution is unseen.

God is "clearly seen" (like Romans 1:20 says (KJV)).

This is why we are Paleyan IDists: the evidence of ID is observed in
every aspect of nature.

Ray (species immutabilist)

[Ernest Major]

In message
<3d8cfda7-2ae5-4eed...@nl3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes

Your "argument" is based on a false dichotomy between the false
dichotomy of observations and inferences being disjoint categories and
the false equivalence of observation and inference being identical.

Evolution is observed, unless you narrow the definition of observation
to the degree that next to nothing is observed. Do you wish do deny that
the following have been observed - increased frequencies of industrial
melanism in moths, antibiotic resistance in bacteria, insecticide
resistance in mosquitoes, and herbicide resistance in weeds?

>
>God is "clearly seen" (like Romans 1:20 says (KJV)).

Thereby falsifying the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy.

>
>This is why we are Paleyan IDists: the evidence of ID is observed in
>every aspect of nature.

If we take your words at face value you have just conceded that design
is not observed, but inferred - otherwise the qualifier "evidence of"
would be unnecessary. Your problem is that the chain of inference
leading to design is too weak to bear the conclusion.
>
>Ray (species immutabilist)
>
--
alias Ernest Major

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 1, 8:28�pm, Greg Guarino <amy.l.guar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 1, 3:43 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 31, 2:53 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 31, 12:58 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > "Backspace likes to reduce it to "what survives, survives". See? He
> > > > leaves out the "effect". If we need a brief phrase, perhaps "What
> > > > survives shapes future generations" (GG).
>
> > > > For context:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c02ed5500b62e504?hl=en&
>
> > > > Yet Stephan is right. "What survives shapes future generations"
> > > > means "what survives, survives."
>
> > > Ray, anyone who can read can discern the difference between the two.
>
> > Since you can read, and since you believe there is a difference, your
> > claim is false.
>
> ?????
>
> > The concept of "survival" survives in "What survives
> > shapes future generations."
>
> Of course. What about the second half of the sentence? Or, if you
> think that too vague, how about Origin of Species? Or most any high-
> school biology text?
>

All we are pointing out is that the concept of natural selection, what
survives----survives, is pointless. Theobald calls natural selection
an "explanatory mechanism"----exactly what I've been saying. In short,
the "mechanism" is not a mechanism as we understand the concept of
mechanism. Death does not cause or propel life. Conceptually, your
logic is perverted. In reality a wide range of species exist side by
side for long periods of time. There is no Darwinian competition. No
single species dominates. The reason diversity exists simultaneously,
for long periods of time, is because each species was created with an
advantage, but not an excessive advantage. This allows each species to
breed successfully, generation after generation. The endurance of
diversity is quality evidence supporting the work of one Divine
Mastermind (Paley's Watchmaker, the Genesis Creator).

> > What is it, then, that you don't understand? The inability of the evo
> > mind to understand, I have explained. Your mind has been initiated
> > into nonsense (= Materialism), unlike mine. Natural selection (fully
> > material causation agent) is nonsense.
>
> Once again, the only "materialism" required for Natural Selection is
> the material inheritance of traits -- regular biological heredity --
> which you claim to accept.
>

Natural selection (fully material causation proposal) was offered in a
historical context when God (the Immaterial) was held as Creator of
each species (Darwin 1859:6; London: John Murray).

> > Those who don't understand
> > natural selection as nonsense don't understand natural selection.
> > There is no such phenomenon operating in the wild. It is not seen in
> > my backyard or the local forrest lands where I live.
>
> Where you live all creatures �-- regardless of their complement of
> traits -- reproduce equally?
>
> > Robert: How do species appear in Central Park? Did you know that
> > abundant wild life exists in the middle of New York City? Where did it
> > come from?
>
> I can't begin to imagine what you're driving at here.

Do you really expect anyone to believe that quadrupeds in Central Park
owe their existence to macroevolution?

> The life in
> Central Park - the birds, the rats, the gingko trees, the fish, the
> skate-dancers -- come from their ancestors.
>

Evolution-did-it in a small urban park surrounded by steel, concrete
and millions of people, over the course of a very short time period?

LOL!

>
>
> > > The latter is a tautology, simplistic and unrevealing, applicable to
> > > many things but illustrative of none.
>
> > > The former entails concepts that explain why we see what we see:
> > > variation, heredity, differential reproductive success. It invokes
> > > cause and effect. It infers connections, it hypothesizes.
>
> > "What survives shapes future generations."
>
> > The only relevant concept in the sentence is the concept of
> > "survival."
>
> Why?
>

Because it shapes future generations. What shapes future generations?
Whatever survives. Well, what else could shape future generations? I
agree, what's the point? The point: that which survives is seen in
future generations. The answer is seen in that which survives.
Simpleton nonsense.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

I have no trouble acknowledging that some evolution is inferred, and
that some evolution is directly observed. Ray is unable to admit he is
mistaken.

> This
> particular Evolutionist cannot handle the fact that he believes in
> something that is not actually seen.

I have no problem believing in things I can't see. I believe in God,
who I can't see. I also believe that Saturn orbits the sun, even though
I've never seen a full orbit of that planet. I believe that gravity
exists, even though I can't see gravity.

Ray is wrong again, and won't admit his error.

> The same does not bother evo
> scholars at all because they always knew that evolution is inferred.

As I showed above, "evo scholars" widely state that evolution is
directly observed, as well as inferred.

> The basic fact of the inference of evolution places evolution in the
> land of the invisible, unlike Intelligent design.

As I've pointed out to you several times, and you refuse to admit,
"Intelligent Design" by a supernatural being cannot be seen, has never
been seen, and is merely assumed. There is no evidence which supports
an assumption of "intelligent design", but much evidence that supports
both the observation, and inference of evolution.




>
> Conclusion:
>
> Evolution is unseen.

Doesn't follow, Ray. Evolution is directly observed, so claiming it's
"unseen" is wrong.

>
> God is "clearly seen" (like Romans 1:20 says (KJV)).

Romans 1:20 does not say God is clearly seen. You are misquoting the
Bible. The verse reads: "20 For since the creation of the world God�s
invisible qualities�his eternal power and divine nature�have been
clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people
are without excuse."

The verse days that God's qualities are invisible. The writer of the
passage is claiming that that the results of God's power is "clearly
seen", which is an inference.

>
> This is why we are Paleyan IDists: the evidence of ID is observed in
> every aspect of nature.

But there are no actual observations of "ID" anywhere, at any time. You
merely assume that the existence of orderly processes is caused by 'ID'.
The evidence indicates otherwise. You not only don't see "ID" your
inference is faulty.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On Nov 3, 3:08 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 6:33 pm, pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu wrote:
>
> > On Friday, November 2, 2012 8:58:05 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On Nov 2, 4:58 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/2/12 1:03 PM, Ray Martinez wrote: > snipping. > > > > > I am a species immutabilist. No evidence exists supporting natural > > selection or microevolution on this planet. > > Actually, Ray, there is a huge amount of evidence supporting natural > selection, and both macro, and micro evolution. Your refusal to look at > that evidence does not mean it does not exist. > > > > > I was simply telling a handful of evos here that their own scholars do > > not support their belief that evolution is observed. > > What "scholars" in your opinion claim that all evolution cannot be > observed? Stephen Jay Gould said: > > "First, we have abundant, direct, observational evidence of evolution > in action, from both the field and laboratory. This evidence ranges from > countless experiments on change in nearly everything about fruit flies > subjected to artificial selection in the laboratory to the famous > populations of British moths th
>

> > at became black when industrial soot > darkened the trees upon which the moths rest." > >http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html> > Roger Pennock, of Michigan State University > > "Once we are attuned to the nature of observation and understand what > evolutionary > theory actually claims, it becomes clear that scientists have observed > evolution in as > clear a manner as one could desire both in the lab and in nature. Aside from > observations from many lab experiments and field studies like the > Grants finch > research, scientists have also observed, for example, how insects have > evolved > resistance to various pesticides and how disease-causing bacteria have > evolved > resistance to penicillin and other antibiotics." > >http://www.nescent.org/documents/the_web_of_life_book.pdfPage3 "On > Observing Evolution" > > Ernst Mayr wrote: > > "Whenever we study evolutionary change in living populations, we observe > such gradualness." > > Mayr "What Evolution Is" Page 190 > >

>
> > Later, on the same page, he writes: "Such gradual evolution can be > observed wherever one looks. The history of our domestic animals and > cultivated plants is a story of gradual evolution, even though, in this > case it was effected by artificial selection." > > Some more examples of observed evolution in action > >http://www.springerlink.com/content/g545774850mn6505/> >http://www.landesbioscience.com/curie/chapter/878/> >http://www.springerlink.com/content/h7n4r6h026q1u6hk/> >http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/39/2/346.short> > DJT You've misunderstood the most basic jargon. Each time observation is mentioned, it is presupposed to mean "by inference." The writer assumes the reader to already understand this rudimentary fact. Species evolution ("gradualism" as it is known far and wide) is too slow to see as it allegedly occurs. Ray
>
> > WHICH IS WHY ONLY A DEMENTED F*CKWIT WOULD DEMAND TO SEE AN YOUTUBE VIDEO OF IT HAPPENING !
>
> I was speaking to some of your fellow evos who say evolution is seen,
> and can be seen, at it allegedly occurs.

Indeed, Evolution can be seen in real time, as it happens. It would
make a fairly boring Video, as it takes more than a few minutes to
happen. There are many populations where change in allele
frequencies can be observed, over a few weeks or months. Expecting
to be visible in a video is just being silly.

> Your comments assume
> otherwise. Your thought aligns with scholars and the undisputed fact
> that evolution is not directly observed as it allegedly occurs.
>

Of corse for Ray an " undisputed fact" means something he knows to be
false, but won't admit. No " scholars" maintain that evolution
always happens too slowly for observation.

> > Do you SERIOUSLY 'think' that 'observed' means 'someone must be standing there looking at it the whole time - even if the process takes thousands or
> > millions of years' ?
>
> > Some inferences are much better supported than others - evolution and speciation are quite well supported by KNOWN mechanisms.
>
> Comments agree that evolution is inferred, not directly observed.

Ray, the comments only suggest that you are being dishonest in wanting
a video of evolution happening. Evolution is both directly observed,
and inferred from the evidence. All observation, even those
involving direct visualization, require some type of inference.

You keep equivocating on this point, when you claim that design is
observed, you are referring to the teleological inference of design by
those who see order. When scientists directly observe populations,and
note changes in the allele frequencies over generation, they are
observing evolution directly. When scientists note that different
populations share specific genetic similarities, which can only be
explained by common descent, they infer the differences must be due to
evolution. When fossils are found with intermediate features between
taxonomic groups, the reasonable inference is that evolution Ina's
happened.

>
> Evolutionist Dana Tweedy and others are shown to be deluded liars.

No, it just show that Ray is lying by equivocation again.

>
> > Evolution is supported by OBSERVATIONS of the way real world organisms work; creationutism is supported only by the hot air vomited forth by the
> > willfully stupid.
>
> Use of the word "OBSERVATIONS," in context, means "by inference."

What evidence do you have that when Stephen Jay Gould wrote that
evolution was directly observed, he meant "by inference", the way you
are using the term "inference"?

>
> I'm speaking to deniers (deluded liars), not you Prof. Weird.

If you are speaking to deluded liars, you must be talking to yourself,
as no one else here is lying, and no one but you shows signs of
delusion.

>
> > If two different species have 99.995% identical DNA (even sharing the same errors, defects, insertions, etc), sane and rational folk would deduce that speciation occurred (via descent with modification); you, of course, would bellow something about Magical Sky Pixies 'POOF !!!!!!'ing the critters into existence when no one was looking.
>
> > And 'anyone who dares contradict me is a tool of Satan !!!1!!1!!1!!!!!'
>
> > Or 'God curses unbelievers with unbelief !!!'
>
> True, the more one resists the encroachments of God the more one
> becomes hardened in disbelief: the same is a spiritual law.
>

Have you considered how silly that claim really is? Only a petty,
insecure, and insane being would use such a "punishment". It would
only serve to drive away anyone with intelligence, and leave those too
weak minded to wonder as worshipers.


DJT



> Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

On Nov 3, 3:58 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 1, 8:28 pm, Greg Guarino <amy.l.guar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 1, 3:43 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 31, 2:53 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 31, 12:58 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > <snip>
>
> > > > > "Backspace likes to reduce it to "what survives, survives". See? He
> > > > > leaves out the "effect". If we need a brief phrase, perhaps "What
> > > > > survives shapes future generations" (GG).
>
> > > > > For context:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c02ed5500b62e504?hl=en&
>
> > > > > Yet Stephan is right. "What survives shapes future generations"
> > > > > means "what survives, survives."
>
> > > > Ray, anyone who can read can discern the difference between the two.
>
> > > Since you can read, and since you believe there is a difference, your
> > > claim is false.
>
> > ?????
>
> > > The concept of "survival" survives in "What survives
> > > shapes future generations."
>
> > Of course. What about the second half of the sentence? Or, if you
> > think that too vague, how about Origin of Species? Or most any high-
> > school biology text?
>
> All we are pointing out is that the concept of natural selection, what
> survives----survives, is pointless.

If that was what natural selection is all about, maybe, but its not.
And that is whiy you are wrong.

> Theobald calls natural selection
> an "explanatory mechanism"----exactly what I've been saying.

Dr Theobald is correct, natural selection does explain adaptive
evolutionary change.

> In short,
> the "mechanism" is not a mechanism as we understand the concept of
> mechanism.

That's simply because you refuse to understand the mechanism.
Deliberately refusing to see is not a rational response to
information.

> Death does not cause or propel life.

This particular falsehood has been explained to you dozens of times.
Natural selection is not merely death. Natural selection is
differential reproductive success of variants in a population, based
on environmental factors. Some members of a population die, but what
causes adaptive changes is that those that live reproduce more than
those who died. It's the living members of a population that "propel"
life, not the dead ones.

Furthermore, in order for any organism that does not photo synthesize,
death of another life form is necessary to live. You, yourself, Ray
have survived as long as you have doue to the death of countless other
beings.

> Conceptually, your
> logic is perverted. In reality a wide range of species exist side by
> side for long periods of time.

It's is a good illustration of why Ray fails logic. The fact that
some memberss of a population are more successful at breeding has
nothing to do with whether or not other species coexist with that
species.

> There is no Darwinian competition. No
> single species dominates.

Darwinian competition does not suggest that only one species would
dominate. In a real life competition for resources, a dynamic balance
is reached. No one species could dominate, or it would go extinct.
Predators need prey, and prey species need predators. Without either,
the ecosystem would collapse.

> The reason diversity exists simultaneously,
> for long periods of time, is because each species was created with an
> advantage, but not an excessive advantage.

This is a good illustration of how Ray fails ecology. Species don't
have an advantage over other species. It's individuals within a
population that compete, and Amy have an advantage over others in that
population.

> This allows each species to
> breed successfully, generation after generation.

Apparently Ray has forgotten that extinction is the rule, rather than
the exception. It's estimated that 99% of all species that ever
lived are extinct. Why would God create species, and then let them
die out?

> The endurance of
> diversity is quality evidence supporting the work of one Divine
> Mastermind (Paley's Watchmaker, the Genesis Creator).
>

If so, the extremely common experience of extinction, and the fact
that species as a whole usually only last a few million years at most
is evidence suggesting this Mastermind is either incompetent, or has a
very short attention span.

The rapidity of extinction, and the constant turn over of species is
much better explained by the fact of evolution, rather than Rays
assumption of a Mastermind.

> > > What is it, then, that you don't understand? The inability of the evo
> > > mind to understand, I have explained. Your mind has been initiated
> > > into nonsense (= Materialism), unlike mine. Natural selection (fully
> > > material causation agent) is nonsense.
>
> > Once again, the only "materialism" required for Natural Selection is
> > the material inheritance of traits -- regular biological heredity --
> > which you claim to accept.
>
> Natural selection (fully material causation proposal) was offered in a
> historical context when God (the Immaterial) was held as Creator of
> each species (Darwin 1859:6; London: John Murray).
>

So, why can't God have used natural selection, the same way he uses
the fully material process of conception and development of living
things? The fact that life evolves does not rule out the existence
of an immaterial God any more than the fact of precipitation and
evaporation rules out God sending rain.

> > > Those who don't understand
> > > natural selection as nonsense don't understand natural selection.
> > > There is no such phenomenon operating in the wild. It is not seen in
> > > my backyard or the local forrest lands where I live.
>
> > Where you live all creatures -- regardless of their complement of
> > traits -- reproduce equally?
>
> > > Robert: How do species appear in Central Park? Did you know that
> > > abundant wild life exists in the middle of New York City? Where did it
> > > come from?
>
> > I can't begin to imagine what you're driving at here.
>
> Do you really expect anyone to believe that quadrupeds in Central Park
> owe their existence to macroevolution?
>

Yes, all quadrupeds, and all other life in Central Park owes their
existence to macro evolution. Every living thing we know about does
the same. Do you think they were all zapped there? Why has no
one ever witnessed such an event?

> > The life in
> > Central Park - the birds, the rats, the gingko trees, the fish, the
> > skate-dancers -- come from their ancestors.
>
> Evolution-did-it in a small urban park surrounded by steel, concrete
> and millions of people, over the course of a very short time period?

Evolution was responsible for the existence of all those animals,
plants,and micro organisms that live there. The park itself was
built by humans, but the living things that live there were not made
by humans. Some, like the swans were transported from elsewhere by
humans, but swans themselves evolved from earlier species of
waterfowl. Some, like the raccoons, squirrels, and the dozens of
wild bird species made their way to the park on their own.

Even those humans who designed and built the park are the result of
macro evolution.


>
> LOL!
>
>
What are you cackling about here Ray? Do you think it was humans who
brought those plants and animals into being? Do you think each
critter that lives in Central Park is a robot?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > The latter is a tautology, simplistic and unrevealing, applicable to
> > > > many things but illustrative of none.
>
> > > > The former entails concepts that explain why we see what we see:
> > > > variation, heredity, differential reproductive success. It invokes
> > > > cause and effect. It infers connections, it hypothesizes.
>
> > > "What survives shapes future generations."
>
> > > The only relevant concept in the sentence is the concept of
> > > "survival."
>
> > Why?
>
> Because it shapes future generations. What shapes future generations?
> Whatever survives.

And that's a contingent fact. Not every member of a population
survives. Whatever survives, survived for a reason.

> Well, what else could shape future generations?

You tell me. You are the one who claims the only thing that can shape
future generations is a supernatural being. Here you are implying
that its a natural event, ie what survives, that shapes future
populations.

> I
> agree, what's the point? The point: that which survives is seen in
> future generations. The answer is seen in that which survives.
> Simpleton nonsense.
>

Since you are a simpleton, it's not surprising you'd miss this point.
That which survives is the genetic make up of that population.
Darwin's great insight was to see it was that segment that survives,
not direct involvement of a supernatural being, that determines the
shape of future generations.

Congratulations, Ray. You have finally grasped the essence of natural
selection, even if you don't yet realize what you have done.

DJT

[Mitchell Coffey]

On 11/2/2012 8:54 PM, prawnster wrote:
> On Nov 2, 5:13 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>> If [bacteria] moved up, down, or sideways on the Great Bush of Being it would
>> disprove evolution.
>>
>> [...]
>> Your claim is false. Speciation has been observed.
>>
>
> Wrong. That's the only available proof for evolution, and has never
> been observed.
> ---------
> True, in the same way that a chihuahua is a different species from a
> Great Dane; i.e., they're not.

Sources? Or is this like the studies you cited when you were defending
rapists. You know, when the webpage you linked to as your source for the
studies admitted at the end that the webpage was a hoax, that all of the
studies either didn't exist or didn't say what the page (and you) had
claimed they said?

[Burkhard]

On 1 Nov, 20:38, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 31, 1:08�pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>

> > On 31 Oct, 19:58, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Where I can view the alleged phenomenon known as natural selection? If
> > > > I look in my backyard or go hiking in the local forests, how is the
> > > > phenomenon seen and indentified?
>
> > > "You might have to be pretty patient and very observant. I'd choose a
> > > creature with short generations and change something significant in
> > > their environment. You could visit a lab that specifically works on
> > > drug resistance, or perhaps just get a lot of infections
> > > yourself" (GG).
>
> > > As priceless as it gets.
>
> > > So the phenomenon is not seen?
>

> > He just told you where you can see it
>

> > > > So acceptance of the existence of (1) variation; (2) inheritance; (2)
> > > > differential reproduction does NOT mean natural selection has
> > > > occurred?
>
> > > "If we have variation at some trait, differential reproduction
> > > associated with that trait and the "Earthling" system of heredity, we
> > > will have Natural Selection" (GG).
>
> > > True by definition.
>

> > No, true to the contingent facts that there is variation, the
> > differential reproduction that we observe and the system of heredity
> > that we observe.

> > If any of these conditions turns our false, NS is in trouble.

>
> > > > > > Does acceptance of the existence of variation, inheritance and
> > > > > > differential reproduction mean natural selection does occur?
> > > > > Given variation, *particulate* inheritance and differential
> > > > > reproduction, I can see no easy way to avoid Natural Selection.
>
> > > True by definition.
>

> > No, true to the contingent facts that there is variation, the
> > differential reproduction that we observe and the system of heredity
> > that we observe.

> > If any of these conditions turns our false, NS is in trouble. Is is
> > the "Given" part that states the contingent, empirical conditions that
> > is the give-away, truth by definitions are valid regardless of any
> > empirical conditions. .

>
> > > So you've admitted twice now.
>

> > No, you've just proven twice that you don't understand what "true by
> > definition " means, and you don't understand how a scientific theory
> > is structured.

>
> > > "Backspace likes to reduce it to "what survives, survives". See? He
> > > leaves out the "effect". If we need a brief phrase, perhaps "What
> > > survives shapes future generations" (GG).
>
> > > For context:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c02ed5500b62e504?hl=en&
>
> > > Yet Stephan is right. "What survives shapes future generations"
> > > means "what survives, survives."
>
> > > Ray
>

> Since I plainly falsified your claim that inference-free observation
> does not exist,

No, you "claimed" it, as always without evidence or references to the
relevant lityerature - which I supplied for my position in heaps.

> and since you refuse to acknowledge, I will not waste
> another minute reading or answering any of your messages. What would
> be the point? Your presence is completely fraudulent.

suit yourself,

>
> Ray (anti-evolutionist)

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

On Nov 3, 4:58�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 1, 8:28 pm, Greg Guarino <amy.l.guar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 1, 3:43 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 31, 2:53 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 31, 12:58 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > <snip>
>
> > > > > "Backspace likes to reduce it to "what survives, survives". See? He
> > > > > leaves out the "effect". If we need a brief phrase, perhaps "What
> > > > > survives shapes future generations" (GG).
>
> > > > > For context:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c02ed5500b62e504?hl=en&
>
> > > > > Yet Stephan is right. "What survives shapes future generations"
> > > > > means "what survives, survives."
>
> > > > Ray, anyone who can read can discern the difference between the two.
>
> > > Since you can read, and since you believe there is a difference, your
> > > claim is false.
>
> > ?????

Nothing here? What the hell did that mean, above?

> > > The concept of "survival" survives in "What survives
> > > shapes future generations."
>
> > Of course. What about the second half of the sentence? Or, if you
> > think that too vague, how about Origin of Species? Or most any high-
> > school biology text?
>
> All we are pointing out is that the concept of natural selection, what
> survives----survives, is pointless.

All *you* (what's with the "we" all the time, anyway?) are pointing
out is that despite the years of research you claim to be doing, you
really have no idea what you're arguing against. And that makes for a
very weak debating position. You've heard me describe Kleinman's
argument - an argument I disagree with - in some detail. I believe I
have presented it fairly. I'd like you to try to describe Darwin's
idea of Natural Selection; a topic I believe you claim to have done
years of research on.

> Theobald calls natural selection
> an "explanatory mechanism"----exactly what I've been saying. In short,
> the "mechanism" is not a mechanism as we understand the concept of
> mechanism. Death does not cause or propel life.

Natural Selection is not claimed to "cause" or "propel" life, whatever
"propelling" life might mean. The claim is that Natural Selection (and
variation via mutations) *changes* life. Death, when it is
disproportionately visited on members of a species with a certain
trait, changes the mix of traits in the next generation. If the
pattern continues, the traits associated with a smaller chance of
reproducing will tend to disappear altogether, altering the species.

> Conceptually, your logic is perverted.

Thinking "conceptually" is one of your more conspicuous problems.
Those that think "biologically" have no difficulty with the idea that
death can affect life. How could it not?

> In reality a wide range of species exist side by
> side for long periods of time. There is no Darwinian competition. No
> single species dominates. The reason diversity exists simultaneously,
> for long periods of time, is because each species was created with an
> advantage, but not an excessive advantage. This allows each species to
> breed successfully, generation after generation. The endurance of
> diversity is quality evidence supporting the work of one Divine
> Mastermind (Paley's Watchmaker, the Genesis Creator).

I've run out of words to express my bewilderment at some of the things
you write. You claim to have done - what is it - *six years* of
research on a book that will have Darwin as its central theme, yet you
manage not to understand that when we speak of Natural Selection we
are generally discussing the differential fortunes of creatures *in
the same species*?

>
> > > What is it, then, that you don't understand? The inability of the evo
> > > mind to understand, I have explained. Your mind has been initiated
> > > into nonsense (= Materialism), unlike mine. Natural selection (fully
> > > material causation agent) is nonsense.
>
> > Once again, the only "materialism" required for Natural Selection is
> > the material inheritance of traits -- regular biological heredity --
> > which you claim to accept.
>
> Natural selection (fully material causation proposal) was offered in a
> historical context when God (the Immaterial) was held as Creator of
> each species (Darwin 1859:6; London: John Murray).

Do you accept Newton's Laws? Those require material causation as well.
Natural Selection requires material processes of reproduction and
heredity, much as Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation requires
material processes of physics. Neither requires that there be no God.

> > > Those who don't understand
> > > natural selection as nonsense don't understand natural selection.
> > > There is no such phenomenon operating in the wild. It is not seen in
> > > my backyard or the local forrest lands where I live.
>
> > Where you live all creatures -- regardless of their complement of
> > traits -- reproduce equally?
>
> > > Robert: How do species appear in Central Park? Did you know that
> > > abundant wild life exists in the middle of New York City? Where did it
> > > come from?
>
> > I can't begin to imagine what you're driving at here.
>
> Do you really expect anyone to believe that quadrupeds in Central Park
> owe their existence to macroevolution?

Of course.

> > The life in
> > Central Park - the birds, the rats, the gingko trees, the fish, the
> > skate-dancers -- come from their ancestors.
>
> Evolution-did-it in a small urban park surrounded by steel, concrete
> and millions of people, over the course of a very short time period?
>
> LOL!
>

Here's my dilemma again. Perhaps I simply do not possess the writing
skill to adequately express my astonishment. Is it your understanding
that there is a person anywhere in the world (let a lone an
evolutionary biologist) who believes that the squirrels in Central
Park evolved *in situ* from unicellular organisms?

My advice would be, anytime you are tempted to write "LOL", assume you
have grossly misunderstood. There could be a few false positives, but
experience tells me they would be infrequent.

Now I would not be at all surprised to learn that many of the
populations of animals and plants in big cities have begun to adapt,
through natural selection, to the rapid and radical environmental
changes that have occurred since mankind has developed large urban
areas.

>
> > > > The latter is a tautology, simplistic and unrevealing, applicable to
> > > > many things but illustrative of none.
>
> > > > The former entails concepts that explain why we see what we see:
> > > > variation, heredity, differential reproductive success. It invokes
> > > > cause and effect. It infers connections, it hypothesizes.
>
> > > "What survives shapes future generations."
>
> > > The only relevant concept in the sentence is the concept of
> > > "survival."
>
> > Why?
>
> Because it shapes future generations. What shapes future generations?
> Whatever survives. Well, what else could shape future generations? I
> agree, what's the point?

That future generations will be different from past generations, of
course; the very essence of evolution. Different because mutations
produce new variations, and some variations help creatures reproduce
more successfully than others. If nothing but "what survives" can
shape future generations, and "what survives" depends on heritable
traits, then the heritable traits that produce greater success
(including "new" ones, from new mutations) will accumulate in future
populations, changing them in the process.

> The point: that which survives is seen in
> future generations. The answer is seen in that which survives.
> Simpleton nonsense.

Yet I seem to remember that you believe Darwin was anything but a
simpleton. So I'll ask again: Describe to us, if you can, Darwin's
conception of Natural Selection. The first step in refuting an
argument is to understand it. See if you can.

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 4, 9:33�am, "g...@risky-biz.com" <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 4:58�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 1, 8:28 pm, Greg Guarino <amy.l.guar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 1, 3:43 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 31, 2:53 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 31, 12:58 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > <snip>
>
> > > > > > "Backspace likes to reduce it to "what survives, survives". See? He
> > > > > > leaves out the "effect". If we need a brief phrase, perhaps "What
> > > > > > survives shapes future generations" (GG).
>
> > > > > > For context:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c02ed5500b62e504?hl=en&
>
> > > > > > Yet Stephan is right. "What survives shapes future generations"
> > > > > > means "what survives, survives."
>
> > > > > Ray, anyone who can read can discern the difference between the two.
>
> > > > Since you can read, and since you believe there is a difference, your
> > > > claim is false.
>
> > > ?????
>
> Nothing here? What the hell did that mean, above?
>

Simply review context carefully.

> > > > The concept of "survival" survives in "What survives
> > > > shapes future generations."
>
> > > Of course. What about the second half of the sentence? Or, if you
> > > think that too vague, how about Origin of Species? Or most any high-
> > > school biology text?
>
> > All we are pointing out is that the concept of natural selection, what
> > survives----survives, is pointless.
>
> All *you* (what's with the "we" all the time, anyway?) are pointing
> out is that despite the years of research you claim to be doing, you
> really have no idea what you're arguing against. And that makes for a
> very weak debating position. You've heard me describe Kleinman's
> argument - an argument I disagree with - in some detail. I believe I
> have presented it fairly. I'd like you to try to describe Darwin's
> idea of Natural Selection; a topic I believe you claim to have done
> years of research on.
>

Yes, you have conveyed the claim of fellow evo Alan Kleinman. I have
no doubt that his claim was represented accurately (even though Alan
might disagree). Now you ask that I convey Darwin's idea or conception
of natural selection. A fair request to say the least based on the
fact that you have labored to convey Darwin's claim too. But in
reality you're really making a rhetorical point that says I do not
understand that which I have researched for years. In other words, I
am an ordinary moron with a big mouth who is not to be taken
seriously.

Yet in a recent spate of exchanges **I initiated** the fact that I do
NOT understand natural selection **scientifically.** Did you forget?
Tell me, what participant in the debate has ever done that? In fact,
we know every participant attempts to avoid that particular accusation
or implication, isn't that true, Greg?

Then I explained the reason why I don't understand is because natural
selection----the "thing itself"----doesn't exist, and because the
"thing itself" is, in fact, nonsense. Then I argued, based on these
two claims of fact, that I do indeed understand natural selection
afterall, and anyone who doesn't understand natural selection as
nonsense doesn't understand natural selection. Then I explained why
persons "understand" natural selection. I said these minds have been
initiated into Materialism, unlike mine. My mind thinks theistically
or supernaturally, unlike yours.

Let's backtrack to what has to be the most rudimentary explication of
natural selection by anyone at anytime:

"In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my
systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on
Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for
existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of
the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under
these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved,
and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the
formation of new species" (C. Darwin, Autobio:120).

The explication is anchored in a historical context and conveys a
scientific claim. I do understand the historical claim (which is NOT,
by any means, fully explicated in the passage). One might also contend
that neither is the scientific claim. But the latter, to whatever
degree it is conveyed with accuracy, and with whatever degree of
simplicity, I contend the same is, in fact, incomprehensible nonsense
wholly dependent on perverted logic. If true the same explains why I
don't understand from your perspective and why I do understand from my
perspective.

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

I paste again a quote which supports my claim that natural selection
is unintelligible until one has been initiated into a certain way of
thinking (materialistically). The men Darwin speaks of were
scientists. They didn't understand either. Before 1859, Materialism
was not accepted by science. After the rise of Darwinism (1859-1872)
Materialism became the dominant paradigm and remains the dominant
paradigm. All of the same, regarding myself, undermines your
rhetorical point identified in the opening paragraph.

With all this said, to the best of my recollection, you have not
defended the scientific aspect of the previous Darwin quote. Tell me,
Greg, how does "preservation and destruction" result in the "formation
of new species"?

I understand Darwin to be conveying the bare concept of natural
selection. That conception says death (selection) causes life
(formation of new species). In every scientific claim there are two
aspects: the empirics and the logic that binds. Go ahead and explain
both?

One could say Darwin dumbed down the concept. Yet he admitted certain
scientific men failed to understand. I am not a scientist.

Then there is the issue of the historical claim, which you have shown
almost zero understanding (for another time).

> > Theobald calls natural selection
> > an "explanatory mechanism"----exactly what I've been saying. In short,
> > the "mechanism" is not a mechanism as we understand the concept of
> > mechanism. Death does not cause or propel life.
>
> Natural Selection is not claimed to "cause" or "propel" life, whatever
> "propelling" life might mean. The claim is that Natural Selection (and
> variation via mutations) *changes* life. Death, when it is
> disproportionately visited on members of a species with a certain
> trait, changes the mix of traits in the next generation. If the
> pattern continues, the traits associated with a smaller chance of
> reproducing will tend to disappear altogether, altering the species.
>
> > Conceptually, your logic is perverted.
>
> Thinking "conceptually" is one of your more conspicuous problems.
> Those that think "biologically" have no difficulty with the idea that
> death can affect life. How could it not?
>

Not affect life, but cause life (new species). Show me this logic
anywhere outside of Biology?

> > In reality a wide range of species exist side by
> > side for long periods of time. There is no Darwinian competition. No
> > single species dominates. The reason diversity exists simultaneously,
> > for long periods of time, is because each species was created with an
> > advantage, but not an excessive advantage. This allows each species to
> > breed successfully, generation after generation. The endurance of
> > diversity is quality evidence supporting the work of one Divine
> > Mastermind (Paley's Watchmaker, the Genesis Creator).
>
> I've run out of words to express my bewilderment at some of the things
> you write. You claim to have done - what is it - *six years* of
> research on a book that will have Darwin as its central theme, yet you
> manage not to understand that when we speak of Natural Selection we
> are generally discussing the differential fortunes of creatures *in
> the same species*?
>

Yes, and I have explained why.

In response, evo Dana Tweedy, now maintains that I do indeed
understand natural selection. After years of saying I don't understand
his position has changed. In short, Dana sees the need to maintain
that I do understand. His change of heart is a reaction to my argument
outlined above.

How could there be enough time for macroevolution to occur in Central
Park?

Done, in opening paragraphs.

Ray

[Amy Guarino]

On Nov 4, 6:17 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 9:33 am, "g...@risky-biz.com" <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 3, 4:58 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 1, 8:28 pm, Greg Guarino <amy.l.guar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 1, 3:43 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 31, 2:53 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Oct 31, 12:58 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > <snip>
>
> > > > > > > "Backspace likes to reduce it to "what survives, survives". See? He
> > > > > > > leaves out the "effect". If we need a brief phrase, perhaps "What
> > > > > > > survives shapes future generations" (GG).
>
> > > > > > > For context:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c02ed5500b62e504?hl=en&
>
> > > > > > > Yet Stephan is right. "What survives shapes future generations"
> > > > > > > means "what survives, survives."
>
> > > > > > Ray, anyone who can read can discern the difference between the two.
>
> > > > > Since you can read, and since you believe there is a difference, your
> > > > > claim is false.
>
> > > > ?????
>
> > Nothing here? What the hell did that mean, above?
>
> Simply review context carefully.

Still incomprehensible.

> > > > > The concept of "survival" survives in "What survives
> > > > > shapes future generations."
>
> > > > Of course. What about the second half of the sentence? Or, if you
> > > > think that too vague, how about Origin of Species? Or most any high-
> > > > school biology text?
>
> > > All we are pointing out is that the concept of natural selection, what
> > > survives----survives, is pointless.
>
> > All *you* (what's with the "we" all the time, anyway?) are pointing
> > out is that despite the years of research you claim to be doing, you
> > really have no idea what you're arguing against. And that makes for a
> > very weak debating position. You've heard me describe Kleinman's
> > argument - an argument I disagree with - in some detail. I believe I
> > have presented it fairly. I'd like you to try to describe Darwin's
> > idea of Natural Selection; a topic I believe you claim to have done
> > years of research on.
>
> Yes, you have conveyed the claim of fellow evo Alan Kleinman. I have
> no doubt that his claim was represented accurately (even though Alan
> might disagree). Now you ask that I convey Darwin's idea or conception
> of natural selection. A fair request to say the least based on the
> fact that you have labored to convey Darwin's claim too. But in
> reality you're really making a rhetorical point that says I do not
> understand that which I have researched for years. In other words, I
> am an ordinary moron with a big mouth who is not to be taken
> seriously.

Ordinary? That doesn't seem like a word I would use. Moron? Hmmm. You
seem more like a person for whom the bible simply must be the Truth,
and who has erected elaborate "conceptual" barriers around anything
that would question it. And you have displayed a fundamental
misunderstanding of several basic concepts.

>
> Yet in a recent spate of exchanges **I initiated** the fact that I do
> NOT understand natural selection **scientifically.** Did you forget?
> Tell me, what participant in the debate has ever done that? In fact,
> we know every participant attempts to avoid that particular accusation
> or implication, isn't that true, Greg?
>
> Then I explained the reason why I don't understand is because natural
> selection----the "thing itself"----doesn't exist, and because the
> "thing itself" is, in fact, nonsense.

I still think that all your research should allow you to present
Darwin's position, as I have presented Kleinman's. Failing that, you
should at least be aware of basic issues; competition between members
of the same species among them.

>Then I argued, based on these
> two claims of fact, that I do indeed understand natural selection
> afterall, and anyone who doesn't understand natural selection as
> nonsense doesn't understand natural selection.

I don't buy it. I find little difficulty in describing arguments that
I think are nonsensical. I think I could do a paragraph on Tony's "no
forces act at the center of mass", among the sillier things I've read
here. Why can't you?

> Then I explained why
> persons "understand" natural selection. I said these minds have been
> initiated into Materialism, unlike mine. My mind thinks theistically
> or supernaturally, unlike yours.

And yet you claim to accept the material processes that are required
for Natural Selection, namely, biological reproduction and heredity.

> Let's backtrack to what has to be the most rudimentary explication of
> natural selection by anyone at anytime:
>
> "In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my
> systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on
> Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for
> existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of
> the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under
> these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved,
> and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the
> formation of new species" (C. Darwin, Autobio:120).


> The explication is anchored in a historical context and conveys a
> scientific claim. I do understand the historical claim (which is NOT,
> by any means, fully explicated in the passage). One might also contend
> that neither is the scientific claim. But the latter, to whatever
> degree it is conveyed with accuracy, and with whatever degree of
> simplicity, I contend the same is, in fact, incomprehensible nonsense
> wholly dependent on perverted logic.

Which part? Do you disagree with this part, taken by itself:

"favourable variations would tend to be preserved,

> and unfavourable ones to be destroyed"?

> If true the same explains why I
> don't understand from your perspective and why I do understand from my
> perspective.
>
> "I tried once or twice to explain to able men what I meant by natural
> selection, but signally failed" (C. Darwin, Autobio:124).
>
> I paste again a quote which supports my claim that natural selection
> is unintelligible until one has been initiated into a certain way of
> thinking (materialistically).

I'll ask again what you neglected to respond to below:

Do you accept Newton's Laws? Those require material causation as well.
Natural Selection requires material processes of reproduction and
heredity, much as Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation requires
material processes of physics. Neither requires that there be no God.

The men Darwin speaks of were
> scientists. They didn't understand either. Before 1859, Materialism
> was not accepted by science.

Newton's laws were not accepted? Biological reproduction was not
accepted? Fire as the combination of oxygen with various elements was
not accepted? Boyle's Law?

After the rise of Darwinism (1859-1872)
> Materialism became the dominant paradigm and remains the dominant
> paradigm. All of the same, regarding myself, undermines your
> rhetorical point identified in the opening paragraph.
>
> With all this said, to the best of my recollection, you have not
> defended the scientific aspect of the previous Darwin quote. Tell me,
> Greg, how does "preservation and destruction" result in the "formation
> of new species"?

The preservation of some traits and destruction of other traits
changes populations. Enough change, especially of the type that
prevents creatures from interbreeding, leads to speciation. You do
understand that every species is thought to have diverged from an
ancestor that would have been quite similar, right?

>
> I understand Darwin to be conveying the bare concept of natural
> selection. That conception says death (selection) causes life
> (formation of new species).

Death can in fact be one sort of selection, especially an early death
that prevents a creature from reproducing. But "causing life" is
different than "forming new species". I would not normally bother
explaining this, but your continued use of the "Central Park" motif
demonstrates a very odd and distorted view. Species are formed by
modification of ancestor species. Thus selection (acting on variation)
does not "cause" life, it merely alters some traits.

In every scientific claim there are two
> aspects: the empirics and the logic that binds. Go ahead and explain
> both?



> One could say Darwin dumbed down the concept. Yet he admitted certain
> scientific men failed to understand. I am not a scientist.
>
> Then there is the issue of the historical claim, which you have shown
> almost zero understanding (for another time).

OK. History is of course interesting, but it has no bearing on the
usefulness or accuracy of current theories.

> > > Theobald calls natural selection
> > > an "explanatory mechanism"----exactly what I've been saying. In short,
> > > the "mechanism" is not a mechanism as we understand the concept of
> > > mechanism. Death does not cause or propel life.
>
> > Natural Selection is not claimed to "cause" or "propel" life, whatever
> > "propelling" life might mean. The claim is that Natural Selection (and
> > variation via mutations) *changes* life. Death, when it is
> > disproportionately visited on members of a species with a certain
> > trait, changes the mix of traits in the next generation. If the
> > pattern continues, the traits associated with a smaller chance of
> > reproducing will tend to disappear altogether, altering the species.
>
> > > Conceptually, your logic is perverted.
>
> > Thinking "conceptually" is one of your more conspicuous problems.
> > Those that think "biologically" have no difficulty with the idea that
> > death can affect life. How could it not?
>
> Not affect life, but cause life (new species). Show me this logic
> anywhere outside of Biology?

Evolution is about an ancestral species (let's say a primate)
changing by many (generally small) modifications into new species
(let's say macaques, lemurs, monkeys...). No "new life" is "caused",
except in the sense that new creatures are "born" in the usual ways.

> > In reality a wide range of species exist side by
> > > side for long periods of time. There is no Darwinian competition. No
> > > single species dominates. The reason diversity exists simultaneously,
> > > for long periods of time, is because each species was created with an
> > > advantage, but not an excessive advantage. This allows each species to
> > > breed successfully, generation after generation. The endurance of
> > > diversity is quality evidence supporting the work of one Divine
> > > Mastermind (Paley's Watchmaker, the Genesis Creator).
>
> > I've run out of words to express my bewilderment at some of the things
> > you write. You claim to have done - what is it - *six years* of
> > research on a book that will have Darwin as its central theme, yet you
> > manage not to understand that when we speak of Natural Selection we
> > are generally discussing the differential fortunes of creatures *in
> > the same species*?
>
> Yes, and I have explained why.

No, you really haven't. When we, and Darwin, speak of Natural
Selection, more fit, less fit, advantageous traits, disadvantageous
traits, warmer fur, cooler fur etc., we are most often referring to
members of the same species. You need not agree with the standard
conclusions, but you should at least know what is being discussed.

>
> In response, evo Dana Tweedy, now maintains that I do indeed
> understand natural selection. After years of saying I don't understand
> his position has changed. In short, Dana sees the need to maintain
> that I do understand. His change of heart is a reaction to my argument
> outlined above.

I haven't followed your discussion with him.

> > > > > What is it, then, that you don't understand? The inability of the evo
> > > > > mind to understand, I have explained. Your mind has been initiated
> > > > > into nonsense (= Materialism), unlike mine. Natural selection (fully
> > > > > material causation agent) is nonsense.
>
> > > > Once again, the only "materialism" required for Natural Selection is
> > > > the material inheritance of traits -- regular biological heredity --
> > > > which you claim to accept.
>
> > > Natural selection (fully material causation proposal) was offered in a
> > > historical context when God (the Immaterial) was held as Creator of
> > > each species (Darwin 1859:6; London: John Murray).
>
> > Do you accept Newton's Laws? Those require material causation as well.
> > Natural Selection requires material processes of reproduction and
> > heredity, much as Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation requires
> > material processes of physics. Neither requires that there be no God.

As mentioned above, you skipped this. It's important.

Seriously, how could you misunderstand what I wrote? No, as I clearly
stated above, no one, anywhere, thinks that quadrupeds evolved from
non-quadrupeds in Central Park since it opened. What in the world
would make you think that evolutionary theory would predict such a
thing?

No, you have shown again that you can't even recite what other people
think the theory is, and in fact have some very bizarre ideas about
it. The very fact that you could ask, TWICE, about Central Park's
creatures evolving on site in 150 years is ample demonstration.

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

On Nov 4, 6:17 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 9:33 am, "g...@risky-biz.com" <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:

...and one more thing, you didn't respond to this bit below:

> > > Because it shapes future generations. What shapes future generations?
> > > Whatever survives. Well, what else could shape future generations? I
> > > agree, what's the point?
>
> > That future generations will be different from past generations, of
> > course; the very essence of evolution. Different because mutations
> > produce new variations, and some variations help creatures reproduce
> > more successfully than others. If nothing but "what  survives" can
> > shape future generations, and "what survives" depends on heritable
> > traits, then the heritable traits that produce greater success
> > (including "new" ones, from new mutations) will accumulate in future
> > populations, changing them in the process.

As you say, "what else could shape future generations", but those that
survive. What if "those that survive" consistently have thicker fur?
Or a longer femur? What should we expect to see in future generations?

[hersheyh]

For every example of "negative selection" there must be an equal example
of "positive selection". That is because selection involves the *relative
reproductive success* of two or more alternative phenotypes in a specified
environment. If trait x decreases by 10%. the trait(s) not-x must increase by
an equivalent %.

> Natural selection was eventually accepted by
> scientific men as occurring in the wild. To have to resort to the lab,
> becomes good evidence supporting the point that the original
> conception not readily seen in the wild.
>

The lab merely allows one to control variables. But the same process
occurs in nature.

>
> Isn't this true, Greg?
>
>
>
> > > > So acceptance of the existence of (1) variation; (2) inheritance; (2)
> > > > differential reproduction does NOT mean natural selection has
> > > > occurred?
>
> >
>
> > > "If we have variation at some trait, differential reproduction
> > > associated with that trait and the "Earthling" system of heredity, we
> > > will have Natural Selection" (GG).
>
> >
>
> > > True by definition.
>
> >
>
> > How could it be with the word "if" in the sentence? Three "ifs",
> > actually.
>
> >
>
>
>
> So the word "if" becomes your intentionally designed escape hatch?
> Omit or delete the word and you've more or less admitted.
>
>
>
> Howard Hershey, in response to the same point, in this thread,
> answered "True, but misleading." He said natural selection true by
> definition (but misleading, whatever that may mean).
>

As I pointed out, the part of the above that actually *is* the definition
of natural selection is "differential reproduction", qualified only by
the addition of the word "significant". If there is "significant differential
reproduction" of two alternative traits, you have NS by definition.
Variation in a trait is a necessary but not sufficient condition for there
to be NS. Heritability of the trait to some extent (it need not be completely
heritable) is only necessary for NS to have evolutionary consequences. You
will have "significant differential reproduction" of the traits 'able-to-run-
from-bear'' and 'not-able-to-run' regardless of whether the 'not-able-to-run' trait
is due to genetic defect, accident leg break, or your mother taking thalidomide.
Only the first (genetic defect) reason has evolutionary consequences.

>
> > > > > > Does acceptance of the existence of variation, inheritance and
> > > > > > differential reproduction mean natural selection does occur?
>
> > > > > Given variation, *particulate* inheritance and differential
> > > > > reproduction, I can see no easy way to avoid Natural Selection.
>
> >
>
> > > True by definition.
>
> >
>
> > How could it be, with the word "given" in the sentence? 3 "givens" are
> > required.
>
> >
>
>
>
> More escape hatchism.
>

No. Simple deductive logic. If A occurs only under conditions B and C, and it
is possible for conditions B or C to be absent, then, ergo, it is possible for A
not to occur.

In this argument, A (NS, or significant differential success) requires
B (variation in phenotype) and C (some level of heritability) according to the
original poster's statement. I have agreed that B (variation in phenotype) is
a necessary, but not sufficient condition, but pointed out that C (some
level of heritability of the traits) is only needed for NS to have evolutionary
consequences. In either argument, the key *definition* of what constitutes
NS is significant differential reproductive success and even if B and C are
present, that is no guarantee that NS will or has occurred.

By *definition* NS is significant differential reproductive success and the
absence or non-existence of NS therefore requires that there be no
conditions where there is signifiant differential reproductive success
in natural environments. Do you have evidence of the universal absence
of "significant differential reproductive success" in nature?

> You've admitted.
>
>
>
> > > So you've admitted twice now.
>
> >
>
> > > "Backspace likes to reduce it to "what survives, survives". See? He
> > > leaves out the "effect". If we need a brief phrase, perhaps "What
> > > survives shapes future generations" (GG).
>
> >
>
> > > For context:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c02ed5500b62e504?hl=en&
>
> >
>
> > > Yet Stephan is right. "What survives shapes future generations"
> > > means "what survives, survives."
>

I would say that the genetic traits that permit greater reproductive success in
this generation's environment differentially shapes the genetic nature of the
next generation's population. That would be far more accurate in many ways.

First, it accurately points out the real metric (not 'survival', but reproductive
success), limits itself to genetically based trait differences, only deals with
the change between adjacent generations, points out that evolutionary
change is backward looking, not forward looking (selection adapts the new
generation to the environment faced by the previous generation), and points
out that NS involves the interaction of phenotype and environment.

>
> > Explain.
>
>
>
> Do you see the concept of "survival" in both sentences?
>

Yes. And every time I see someone trot out "survival of the fittest" as if
that were the real meaning of NS in evolutionary biology, I want
to scream out that that person is a blithering idiot. But I tend to be too
polite to actually do so.

> Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 4, 5:57 pm, Amy Guarino <amy.l.guar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 6:17 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 4, 9:33 am, "g...@risky-biz.com" <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 3, 4:58 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 1, 8:28 pm, Greg Guarino <amy.l.guar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 1, 3:43 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Oct 31, 2:53 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Oct 31, 12:58 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > <snip>
>
> > > > > > > > "Backspace likes to reduce it to "what survives, survives". See? He
> > > > > > > > leaves out the "effect". If we need a brief phrase, perhaps "What
> > > > > > > > survives shapes future generations" (GG).
>
> > > > > > > > For context:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c02ed5500b62e504?hl=en&
>

> > > > > > > > [Ray Martinez said:] Yet Stephan is right. "What survives shapes future generations"
> > > > > > > > means "what survives, survives."
>
> > > > > > >[Robert Camp in response said:] Ray, anyone who can read can discern the difference between the two.
>
> > > > > > [Ray Martinez in response said:] Since you can read, and since you believe there is a difference, your

> > > > > > claim is false.
>
> > > > > ?????
>
> > > Nothing here? What the hell did that mean, above?
>
> > Simply review context carefully.
>
> Still incomprehensible.
>

See brackets that I've added before text above; these should aid
understanding.

I understand your request to be quite reasonable, but I meant what I
said and said what I meant.

Please read on....

> >Then I argued, based on these
> > two claims of fact, that I do indeed understand natural selection
> > afterall, and anyone who doesn't understand natural selection as
> > nonsense doesn't understand natural selection.
>
> I don't buy it. I find little difficulty in describing arguments that
> I think are nonsensical. I think I could do a paragraph on Tony's "no
> forces act at the center of mass", among the sillier things I've read
> here. Why can't you?
>

Again, your point is that one should be able to understand and convey
no matter how ridiculous a proposal might be. I agree, however. My
claims concerning the unintelligibility of natural selection are meant
only for natural selection and evolutionary theory----nothing else.
And I know of other persons like myself. I've talked with them. One
person told me that in college, as soon as the Professor gave a
general explanation of natural selection his mind immediately shut
down----didn't want to understand that which was instantly seen as
nonsense. The Professor told him to simply parrot any correct
explanation to pass the class. This person declined, admitting he
would rather fail than bow to nonsense. Then there are the scientific
men that didn't understand----even when their teacher was Charles
Darwin. You have not acknowledged the fact.

Greg, I could do the same: I could parrot a basic explanation
published by Ken Miller or Gould, but I still don't understand. Is
that what you want?

In addition:

http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2575

"I have heard by round about channel that Herschel says my Book 'is
the law of higgledy-pigglety'. What this exactly means I do not know,
but it is evidently very contemptuous.— If true this is great blow &
discouragement" (C. Darwin to C. Lyell; December 1859).

Herschel was a scientist that all scientists respected.

Now, in this vein, do you understand the basic claims of Paley or
Biblical Theology? All Darwin scholars say they understand Paley. But
a large amount of these have ZERO understanding of mainstream Biblical
Theology. Case in point: Dawkins's "The God Delusion." In this book
Dawkins shows that he literally has ZERO understanding of the basic
claims of the Bible. Yet I know of other Atheists who do understand.
But when Dawkins was criticized for slamming that which he does not
understand, he essentially said since Theology is unintelligible it
doesn't matter! In fact, this is the position of modern science toward
the Bible: Scripture is nonsense, unintelligible. It just so happens
that that is my position concerning the Theory of (how) Evolution
(occurs).

Ray

(Will finish reply ASAP....)

[....]

[Ray Martinez]

The issue was: Why is Greg Guarino pointing to the lab, and not the
wild, as where natural selection can readily be seen?

> > Natural selection was eventually accepted by
> > scientific men as occurring in the wild. To have to resort to the lab,
> > becomes good evidence supporting the point that the original
> > conception not readily seen in the wild.
>
> The lab merely allows one to control variables. �But the same process
> occurs in nature.
>

I'm in my backyard, Howard, where is the phenomenon called "natural
selection"? I don't see it. According to Ken Miller it is in my
backyard.

>
> > Isn't this true, Greg?
>
> > > > > So acceptance of the existence of (1) variation; (2) inheritance; (2)
> > > > > differential reproduction does NOT mean natural selection has
> > > > > occurred?
>
> > > > "If we have variation at some trait, differential reproduction
> > > > associated with that trait and the "Earthling" system of heredity, we
> > > > will have Natural Selection" (GG).
>
> > > > True by definition.
>
> > > How could it be with the word "if" in the sentence? Three "ifs",
> > > actually.
>
> > So the word "if" becomes your intentionally designed escape hatch?
> > Omit or delete the word and you've more or less admitted.
>
> > Howard Hershey, in response to the same point, in this thread,
> > answered "True, but misleading." He said natural selection true by
> > definition (but misleading, whatever that may mean).
>
> As I pointed out, the part of the above that actually *is* the definition
> of natural selection �is "differential reproduction", qualified only by
> the addition of the word "significant".

Minus the "significant" part, I seen other scholars who have said the
exact same thing. This is how I know what you said is correct.

> If there is "significant differential
> reproduction" of two alternative traits, you have NS by definition.

So mere existence of "significant differential reproduction" and "two
alternative traits" means natural selection will occur/has occurred?

> Variation in a trait is a necessary but not sufficient condition for there
> to be NS. �Heritability of the trait to some extent (it need not be completely
> heritable) is only necessary for NS to have evolutionary consequences. �You
> will have "significant differential reproduction" of the traits 'able-to-run-
> from-bear'' and 'not-able-to-run' regardless of whether the 'not-able-to-run' trait
> is due to genetic defect, accident leg break, or your mother taking thalidomide.
> Only the first (genetic defect) reason has evolutionary consequences.
>

Unintelligible nonsense.

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

http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2575

"I have heard by round about channel that Herschel says my Book 'is
the law of higgledy-pigglety'. What this exactly means I do not know,
but it is evidently very contemptuous. If true this is great blow &
discouragement" (C. Darwin to C. Lyell; December 1859).

Herschel was a scientist that all scientists respected.

>
>
>
>

> > > > > > > Does acceptance of the existence of variation, inheritance and
> > > > > > > differential reproduction mean natural selection does occur?
>
> > > > > > Given variation, *particulate* inheritance and differential
> > > > > > reproduction, I can see no easy way to avoid Natural Selection.
>
> > > > True by definition.
>
> > > How could it be, with the word "given" in the sentence? 3 "givens" are
> > > required.
>
> > More escape hatchism.
>
> No. �Simple deductive logic. �If A occurs only under conditions B and C, and it
> is possible for conditions B or C to be absent, then, ergo, it is possible for A
> not to occur.
>

Howard: Does existence of variation, laws of inheritance, and
differential reproduction mean natural selection occurs?

> In this argument, A (NS, or significant differential success) requires
> B (variation in phenotype) and C (some level of heritability) according to the
> original poster's statement. �I have agreed that B (variation in phenotype) is
> a necessary, but not sufficient condition, but pointed out that C (some
> level of heritability of the traits) is only needed for NS to have evolutionary
> consequences. �In either argument, the key *definition* of what constitutes
> NS is significant differential reproductive success and even if B and C are
> present, that is no guarantee that NS will or has occurred.
>
> By *definition* NS is significant differential reproductive success and the
> absence or non-existence of NS therefore requires that there be no
> conditions where there is signifiant differential reproductive success
> in natural environments. �Do you have evidence of the universal absence
> of "significant differential reproductive success" in nature?
>

So mere existence of "significant differential reproductive success"
means natural selection occurs?

>
>
>
>
> > You've admitted.
>
> > > > So you've admitted twice now.
>
> > > > "Backspace likes to reduce it to "what survives, survives". See? He
> > > > leaves out the "effect". If we need a brief phrase, perhaps "What
> > > > survives shapes future generations" (GG).
>
> > > > For context:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c02ed5500b62e504?hl=en&
>
> > > > Yet Stephan is right. "What survives shapes future generations"
> > > > means "what survives, survives."
>
> I would say that the genetic traits that permit greater reproductive success in
> this generation's environment differentially shapes the genetic nature of the
> next generation's population. �That would be far more accurate in many ways.
>
> First, it accurately points out the real metric (not 'survival', but reproductive
> success), limits itself to genetically based trait differences, only deals with
> the change between adjacent generations, points out that evolutionary
> change is backward looking, not forward looking (selection adapts the new
> generation to the environment faced by the previous generation), and points
> out that NS involves the interaction of phenotype and environment.
>
>
>
> > > Explain.
>
> > Do you see the concept of "survival" in both sentences?
>
> Yes. �And every time I see someone trot out "survival of the fittest" as if
> that were the real meaning of NS in evolutionary biology, I want
> to scream out that that person is a blithering idiot. But I tend to be too
> polite to actually do so.
>

Darwin himself adopted the phrase.

According to a vast majority of scholars, the theory of (how)
evolution (occurs) remains Darwinian. According to Gould 2002 the same
has only needed slight or light modification since Darwin lived.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 4, 5:57 pm, Amy Guarino <amy.l.guar...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip material addressed previously....]

>
> > Then I explained why
> > persons "understand" natural selection. I said these minds have been
> > initiated into Materialism, unlike mine. My mind thinks theistically
> > or supernaturally, unlike yours.
>
> And yet you claim to accept the material processes that are required
> for Natural Selection, namely, biological reproduction and heredity.
>

I accept existence of variation, biological inheritance, and
differential reproduction. Yes, these are material things or
phenomenon, but mere existence does not support existence of material
causation (Materialism) also known as natural causation (Naturalism)
or natural selection. The things just mentioned are EXPLAINED to act
as a mechanism. Douglas Theobald calls natural selection an
"explanatory mechanism." I reject the explanation as unintelligible
nonsense, not existence of the material things that comprise said
explanation.

Do you understand?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 4, 5:57 pm, Greg Guarino <amy.l.guar...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip material addressed previously....]

>
> > Let's backtrack to what has to be the most rudimentary explication of
> > natural selection by anyone at anytime:
>
> > "In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my
> > systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on
> > Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for
> > existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of
> > the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under
> > these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved,
> > and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the
> > formation of new species" (C. Darwin, Autobio:120).
> > The explication is anchored in a historical context and conveys a
> > scientific claim. I do understand the historical claim (which is NOT,
> > by any means, fully explicated in the passage). One might also contend
> > that neither is the scientific claim. But the latter, to whatever
> > degree it is conveyed with accuracy, and with whatever degree of
> > simplicity, I contend the same is, in fact, incomprehensible nonsense
> > wholly dependent on perverted logic.
>
> Which part? Do you disagree with this part, taken by itself:
> "favourable variations would tend to be preserved,
>

This part:

"favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable
ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new

species."

How does destruction result in the formation of new species?

Conceptually, the logic says death results in life. Sound logic says
life results in life.

> > and unfavourable ones to be destroyed"?
> > If true the same explains why I
> > don't understand from your perspective and why I do understand from my
> > perspective.
>
> > "I tried once or twice to explain to able men what I meant by natural
> > selection, but signally failed" (C. Darwin, Autobio:124).
>
> > I paste again a quote which supports my claim that natural selection
> > is unintelligible until one has been initiated into a certain way of
> > thinking (materialistically).
>
> I'll ask again what you neglected to respond to below:
>
> Do you accept Newton's Laws? Those require material causation as well.
> Natural Selection requires material processes of reproduction and
> heredity, much as Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation requires
> material processes of physics. Neither requires that there be no God.
>

The issues here concern the History of Science, not the science of
Biology or Physics.

Yes I accept Newton's Laws, and these laws were proposed and initially
accepted as designed. The phrase "material causation" presupposes
Materialism which means the Immaterial not involved, even as a First
Cause.

Natural selection, on the other hand, was proposed and accepted (even
unto the present) as fully material or undesigned. This means NS is
undirected and non-teleological.

Your comments intermingle two separate scientific claims, produced in
two completely different eras. When Newton lived and worked,
Materialism was, for all intents and purposes, non-existent. When
Darwin published in 1859 Materialism was the philosophy of radicals,
not scientific men. By 1872 (a mere 12 years after Darwin published)
Materialism became the paradigm of science. Men of science then, and
forever henceforth, viewed Newton's Laws as undesigned or fully
material.

Not true.

The importance of the History of Science is the preservation of
scientific philosophy and claims. If forgotten, then persons today
might think Newton accepted natural causation, when in fact he
accepted supernatural causation (design). In "Opticks" Newton has the
Hand of God forming the solar system.

Current theories cannot be understood correctly unless one knows the
historical context in which they were originally proposed. For
example, what was the historical context that natural selection was
proposed?

"I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and
dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most
naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained—namely, that
each species has been independently created—is erroneous. I am fully
convinced that species are not immutable" (C. Darwin, "On The Origin
Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection" 1859:6; London: John
Murray).

Answer: Independent creation of each species (supernatural causation).
Therefore natural causation/selection is offered as replacing God as
Creator of species.

Ray

[....]

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

On Nov 5, 5:07�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 5:57�pm, Amy Guarino <amy.l.guar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip material addressed previously....]
>
>
>
> > > Then I explained why
> > > persons "understand" natural selection. I said these minds have been
> > > initiated into Materialism, unlike mine. My mind thinks theistically
> > > or supernaturally, unlike yours.
>
> > And yet you claim to accept the material processes that are required
> > for Natural Selection, namely, biological reproduction and heredity.
>
> I accept existence of variation, biological inheritance, and
> differential reproduction. Yes, these are material things or
> phenomenon, but mere existence does not support existence of material
> causation (Materialism) also known as natural causation (Naturalism)
> or natural selection. The things just mentioned are EXPLAINED to act
> as a mechanism. Douglas Theobald calls natural selection an
> "explanatory mechanism." I reject the explanation as unintelligible
> nonsense, not existence of the material things that comprise said
> explanation.
>
> Do you understand?

Perhaps I do. You equate Natural Selection with complete "natural
causation" of all phenomena - full philosophical materialism - the
exclusion of any supernatural existence whatever. But it is actually
something much more limited in scope.

You accept that variation exists; even members of the same species
differ from each other.
You accept heredity as a material phenomenon; creatures get their
complement of traits from their parent(s) through the generally
accepted processes.
And you say you accept differential reproduction, but I'd like to be
sure. Differential reproduction associated with traits is what we're
interested in here. Do you accept that certain variations tend to give
creatures a better chance of surviving and reproducing as compared
with other member of the same species?

Let's say you do, to move things along. If thicker-furred rabbits
thrive better in a certain environment than thinner-furred rabbits,
producing more offspring that also survive to reproduce, do you agree
that we can expect there to be more and more thick-furred rabbits in
future generations?

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

On Nov 5, 6:12�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Nov 4, 5:57�pm, Greg Guarino <amy.l.guar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip material addressed previously....]

> > > Let's backtrack to what has to be the most rudimentary explication of
> > > natural selection by anyone at anytime:
>
> > > "In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my
> > > systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on
> > > Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for
> > > existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of
> > > the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under
> > > these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved,
> > > and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the
> > > formation of new species" (C. Darwin, Autobio:120).
> > > The explication is anchored in a historical context and conveys a
> > > scientific claim. I do understand the historical claim (which is NOT,
> > > by any means, fully explicated in the passage). One might also contend
> > > that neither is the scientific claim. But the latter, to whatever
> > > degree it is conveyed with accuracy, and with whatever degree of
> > > simplicity, I contend the same is, in fact, incomprehensible nonsense
> > > wholly dependent on perverted logic.
>
> > Which part? Do you disagree with this part, taken by itself:
> > "favourable variations would tend to be preserved,
>
> This part:
>
> "favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable
> ones to be destroyed

Let's dissect this a bit. Do you accept the part above, without the
part about forming new species? That there are differences among
rabbits, some of which help rabbits that possess them to out-compete
their fellows? And that those traits will tend to accumulate in future
populations as the result of the better reproductive "success" of
those that possess those traits?

> The result of this would be the formation of new
> species."
>
> How does destruction result in the formation of new species?

By "variations" Darwin means "traits" rather than creatures. We would
expect future populations to possess a mix of the traits that were
"preserved", and fewer and fewer of the traits that were "destroyed".
A new species is a species that has been altered from its previous
characteristics. "Preserving" some traits and "destroying" others
accomplishes that.

But let's address (what I think is) your understanding of the passage.
It is in fact the creatures that survive that form the new species,
passing on the traits that allowed them to out-survive and out-
reproduce their peers. Those that die off fail to pass on their
heritable traits.

> Conceptually, the logic says death results in life. Sound logic says
> life results in life.

There's that same problem Ray. You "conceptualize" rather than study
the details. Life does indeed result in life; it is - as I mentioned
above - the "winners", the "survivors", the "thrivers" and most
importantly those that get the most offspring to survive in the next
generation that shape the future. Natural Selection in any case does
not "result in life", it is among the mechanisms that alters the
characteristics of a population over time.

>
> > > and unfavourable ones to be destroyed"?
> > > If true the same explains why I
> > > don't understand from your perspective and why I do understand from my
> > > perspective.
>
> > > "I tried once or twice to explain to able men what I meant by natural
> > > selection, but signally failed" (C. Darwin, Autobio:124).
>
> > > I paste again a quote which supports my claim that natural selection
> > > is unintelligible until one has been initiated into a certain way of
> > > thinking (materialistically).
>
> > I'll ask again what you neglected to respond to below:
>
> > Do you accept Newton's Laws? Those require material causation as well.
> > Natural Selection requires material processes of reproduction and
> > heredity, much as Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation requires
> > material processes of physics. Neither requires that there be no God.
>
> The issues here concern the History of Science, not the science of
> Biology or Physics.

You said "materialism" wasn't accepted before Darwin. But the exact
same acceptance of material processes is required for explaining
planetary motions or the behavior of gases as is required to recognize
that populations change to incorporate the traits of those ancestors
who had the greatest success in reproducing.

> Yes I accept Newton's Laws, and these laws were proposed and initially
> accepted as designed. The phrase "material causation" presupposes
> Materialism which means the Immaterial not involved, even as a First
> Cause.

Then that sort of "Materialism" is not required for Natural Selection
to work. Only the acceptance of heredity that proceeds by material
processes.

>
> Natural selection, on the other hand, was proposed and accepted (even
> unto the present) as fully material or undesigned. This means NS is
> undirected and non-teleological.

"Undirected and non-teleological" are part of the common
understanding. "Undesigned" (the process that is, or the properties of
matter and energy) is not required. There is nothing about Natural
Selection that is incompatible with a designer of the Universe.

> Your comments intermingle two separate scientific claims, produced in
> two completely different eras. When Newton lived and worked,
> Materialism was, for all intents and purposes, non-existent. When
> Darwin published in 1859 Materialism was the philosophy of radicals,
> not scientific men. By 1872 (a mere 12 years after Darwin published)
> Materialism became the paradigm of science. Men of science then, and
> forever henceforth, viewed Newton's Laws as undesigned or fully
> material.

"Undesigned" and "fully material" are not synonyms. You believe in a
Creator God. You claim to believe that gravity operates by material
processes. Thus I assume you believe in a God that can design
material processes, that thereafter proceed on their own.

>

>
> > The men Darwin speaks of were
>
> > > scientists. They didn't understand either. Before 1859, Materialism
> > > was not accepted by science.
>
> > Newton's laws were not accepted? Biological reproduction was not
> > accepted? Fire as the combination of oxygen with various elements was
> > not accepted? Boyle's Law?
>
> > After the rise of Darwinism (1859-1872)
>
> > > Materialism became the dominant paradigm and remains the dominant
> > > paradigm. All of the same, regarding myself, undermines your
> > > rhetorical point identified in the opening paragraph.

Methodological materialism yes; which holds that science may only
*study* things that operate by observable processes.

> > > With all this said, to the best of my recollection, you have not
> > > defended the scientific aspect of the previous Darwin quote. Tell me,
> > > Greg, how does "preservation and destruction" result in the "formation
> > > of new species"?
>
> > The preservation of some traits and destruction of other traits
> > changes populations. Enough change, especially of the type that
> > prevents creatures from interbreeding, leads to speciation. You do
> > understand that every species is thought to have diverged from an
> > ancestor that would have been quite similar, right?

Could you address the paragraph above?

> > > I understand Darwin to be conveying the bare concept of natural
> > > selection. That conception says death (selection) causes life
> > > (formation of new species).
>
> > Death can in fact be one sort of selection, especially an early death
> > that prevents a creature from reproducing. But "causing life" is
> > different than "forming new species". I would not normally bother
> > explaining this, but your continued use of the "Central Park" motif
> > demonstrates a very odd and distorted view. Species are formed by
> > modification of ancestor species. Thus selection (acting on variation)
> > does not "cause" life, it merely alters some traits.

And this one (above)?

> > In every scientific claim there are two
>
> > > aspects: the empirics and the logic that binds. Go ahead and explain
> > > both?
> > > One could say Darwin dumbed down the concept. Yet he admitted certain
> > > scientific men failed to understand. I am not a scientist.
>
> > > Then there is the issue of the historical claim, which you have shown
> > > almost zero understanding (for another time).
>
> > OK. History is of course interesting, but it has no bearing on the
> > usefulness or accuracy of current theories.
>
> Not true.
>
> The importance of the History of Science is the preservation of
> scientific philosophy and claims. If forgotten, then persons today
> might think Newton accepted natural causation, when in fact he
> accepted supernatural causation (design). In "Opticks" Newton has the
> Hand of God forming the solar system.

Which has no bearing at all on whether or not his theories of motion
are useful or accurate, as I said.

> Current theories cannot be understood correctly unless one knows the
> historical context in which they were originally proposed. For
> example, what was the historical context that natural selection was
> proposed?

Again, it makes no difference. What matters is whether Darwin's ideas
have proven to be a good fit for the evidence. Some - natural
selection among them - have done so. Others - including his musings on
the source of variation - have not.

> "I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and
> dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most

> naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained�namely, that
> each species has been independently created�is erroneous. I am fully

> convinced that species are not immutable" (C. Darwin, "On The Origin
> Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection" 1859:6; London: John
> Murray).
>
> Answer: Independent creation of each species (supernatural causation).
> Therefore natural causation/selection is offered as replacing God as
> Creator of species.

There's the passive voice again, "is offered". That is one man
writing, and from the passage, not even saying what you think he is
saying. He does indeed seem to be saying that species were not
individually created; they instead diverge over time. I see nothing
that would exclude a designer of the first life, or of the properties
of the Universe.

[Dana Tweedy]

You seem to be deliberately missing the "favorable variations would tend
to be preserved" part. If all variants reproduced equally, then the
genetic population mix, ie the alelle frequencies in that population,
would not change, and the population would not evolve into a new species.

The part you keep refusing to acknowledge is that natural selection
does not destroy ALL the population, only a portion.

>
> Conceptually, the logic says death results in life. Sound logic says
> life results in life.

One of the major mistakes you keep making is to assume that your own
irrational and bizarre notions are "sound logic". Natural selection is
not "death results in life". It is differential reproductive success of
variants in a population will change the genetic make up of a population
over time. Death is one of the factors that results in differential
reproductive success of SOME variants, as dead individuals don't
reproduce nearly as well as live individuals.

It's also telling that you don't grasp that the above actually
refutes your own claims about where species come from. If indeed only
life results in life, then assuming that life comes from an immaterial
spiritual being, not other living things, is irrational.

>
>>> and unfavourable ones to be destroyed"?
>>> If true the same explains why I
>>> don't understand from your perspective and why I do understand from my
>>> perspective.
>>
>>> "I tried once or twice to explain to able men what I meant by natural
>>> selection, but signally failed" (C. Darwin, Autobio:124).
>>
>>> I paste again a quote which supports my claim that natural selection
>>> is unintelligible until one has been initiated into a certain way of
>>> thinking (materialistically).
>>
>> I'll ask again what you neglected to respond to below:
>>
>> Do you accept Newton's Laws? Those require material causation as well.
>> Natural Selection requires material processes of reproduction and
>> heredity, much as Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation requires
>> material processes of physics. Neither requires that there be no God.
>>
>
> The issues here concern the History of Science, not the science of
> Biology or Physics.

Of course, the science of Biology and Physics is what the issue is here.
Your incorrect view of the history of science is not the issue.

>
> Yes I accept Newton's Laws, and these laws were proposed and initially
> accepted as designed. The phrase "material causation" presupposes
> Materialism which means the Immaterial not involved, even as a First
> Cause.

But Newton did not believe that God himself was micromanaging these
laws. He believed that they operated on their own, without divine
influence on the day to day operation.

>
> Natural selection, on the other hand, was proposed and accepted (even
> unto the present) as fully material or undesigned. This means NS is
> undirected and non-teleological.

This is another massive mistake you keep making. Natural Selection is
no more "undirected" and "non-teleological" than Newton's laws are.
Newton's laws are just as "fully material" as Darwin's mechanism of
species change.

>
> Your comments intermingle two separate scientific claims, produced in
> two completely different eras. When Newton lived and worked,
> Materialism was, for all intents and purposes, non-existent.

"Materialism" the belief that nothing beyond the natural exists, is not
what science then, or now uses. Newton made use of methodological
naturalism, not strong materialism.

> When
> Darwin published in 1859 Materialism was the philosophy of radicals,
> not scientific men.

And Darwin did not make use of that form of "Materialism". He, like
Newton made use of methodological naturalism, the same as modern day
scientists use.

> By 1872 (a mere 12 years after Darwin published)
> Materialism became the paradigm of science. Men of science then, and
> forever henceforth, viewed Newton's Laws as undesigned or fully
> material.

And here, Ray equivocates methodological naturalism that science uses as
a tool, with the philosophical "Materialism" which isn't part of
science. The fact that they are superficially similar doesn't change
the fact that science uses the former, not the latter.

>
>> The men Darwin speaks of were
>>
>>> scientists. They didn't understand either. Before 1859, Materialism
>>> was not accepted by science.
>>
>> Newton's laws were not accepted? Biological reproduction was not
>> accepted? Fire as the combination of oxygen with various elements was
>> not accepted? Boyle's Law?
>>
>> After the rise of Darwinism (1859-1872)
>>
>>> Materialism became the dominant paradigm and remains the dominant
>>> paradigm. All of the same, regarding myself, undermines your
>>> rhetorical point identified in the opening paragraph.

Another one of Ray's major errors. Science has never endorsed strong
Materialism, rather, it makes use of methodological naturalism. This
use of methodological naturalism predates both Darwin, and Newton.

What began the decline of "Natural Theology" was not Darwin, but the
findings of early geology, which overturned the idea that the Bible's
creation stories were literal events.

>>
>>> With all this said, to the best of my recollection, you have not
>>> defended the scientific aspect of the previous Darwin quote. Tell me,
>>> Greg, how does "preservation and destruction" result in the "formation
>>> of new species"?
>>
>> The preservation of some traits and destruction of other traits
>> changes populations. Enough change, especially of the type that
>> prevents creatures from interbreeding, leads to speciation. You do
>> understand that every species is thought to have diverged from an
>> ancestor that would have been quite similar, right?
>>
>>
>>
>>> I understand Darwin to be conveying the bare concept of natural
>>> selection. That conception says death (selection) causes life
>>> (formation of new species).
>>
>> Death can in fact be one sort of selection, especially an early death
>> that prevents a creature from reproducing. But "causing life" is
>> different than "forming new species". I would not normally bother
>> explaining this, but your continued use of the "Central Park" motif
>> demonstrates a very odd and distorted view. Species are formed by
>> modification of ancestor species. Thus selection (acting on variation)
>> does not "cause" life, it merely alters some traits.

Ray asks for an explanation of how death fits into natural selection,
then ignores a very good explanation.

>>
>> In every scientific claim there are two
>>
>>> aspects: the empirics and the logic that binds. Go ahead and explain
>>> both?
>>> One could say Darwin dumbed down the concept. Yet he admitted certain
>>> scientific men failed to understand. I am not a scientist.
>>
>>> Then there is the issue of the historical claim, which you have shown
>>> almost zero understanding (for another time).
>>
>> OK. History is of course interesting, but it has no bearing on the
>> usefulness or accuracy of current theories.
>>
>
> Not true.

Wrong again, Ray. The accuracy and usefulness of a scientific theory
is entirely determined by how well it explains the evidence. It's
history of how it became accepted is irrelevant.

>
> The importance of the History of Science is the preservation of
> scientific philosophy and claims. If forgotten, then persons today
> might think Newton accepted natural causation, when in fact he
> accepted supernatural causation (design). In "Opticks" Newton has the
> Hand of God forming the solar system.

Newton did indeed accept natural causation, which he believed was
ultimately instituted by God. Newton's laws were how nature worked,
and he did not believe that God micromanaged every gravitational
interaction between objects.

>
> Current theories cannot be understood correctly unless one knows the
> historical context in which they were originally proposed. For
> example, what was the historical context that natural selection was
> proposed?

The "historical context" is not nearly as important as how well the
theory explains and coordinates the observations.

>
> "I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and
> dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most

> naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained�namely, that
> each species has been independently created�is erroneous. I am fully

> convinced that species are not immutable" (C. Darwin, "On The Origin
> Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection" 1859:6; London: John
> Murray).
>
> Answer: Independent creation of each species (supernatural causation).

All that Darwin showed was that independent creation of each species was
wrong. He did not show, or intend to show, that a supernatural being
cannot exist, or that an ultimate "supernatural causation" of all of the
universal laws of nature was not possible. This is where you are
making another one of your colossal errors. You are assuming that by
refuting independent creation, Darwin refuted God. At worst, he
refuted one tiny, flawed vision of God. That you choose to cling to
that puny, unsupportable vision of God, is neither Darwin's, or
Science's fault.

> Therefore natural causation/selection is offered as replacing God as
> Creator of species.

Wrong again, Ray. Natural causation is offered as an explanation for
how populations change into other species. If one chooses to believe
that God made use of natural causation to create, then natural causation
does not replace God at all. It only proposes an explanation for how
God went about it.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 11/5/12 2:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 5, 11:37 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:

snip

>>
>> For every example of "negative selection" there must be an equal example
>> of "positive selection". That is because selection involves the *relative
>> reproductive success* of two or more alternative phenotypes in a specified
>> environment. If trait x decreases by 10%. the trait(s) not-x must increase by
>> an equivalent %.
>>
>
> The issue was: Why is Greg Guarino pointing to the lab, and not the
> wild, as where natural selection can readily be seen?

Because in a lab, the equipment to examine changes in populations is
more readily accessible. To a bacterial population, a lab is just as
much the 'wild' as the middle of a jungle.

>
>>> Natural selection was eventually accepted by
>>> scientific men as occurring in the wild. To have to resort to the lab,
>>> becomes good evidence supporting the point that the original
>>> conception not readily seen in the wild.
>>
>> The lab merely allows one to control variables. But the same process
>> occurs in nature.
>>
>
> I'm in my backyard, Howard, where is the phenomenon called "natural
> selection"?

It's going on all around you. You refuse to acknowledge this fact.

> I don't see it. According to Ken Miller it is in my
> backyard.

Dr. Miller is correct, and you are wrong, yet again. You "don't see it"
only because you shut your eyes, and stuff your ears. You see a Robin
pulling up a worm, you are seeing a tiny bit of natural selection. You
see a nest of birds, with four chicks, when five eggs were laid. That's
a tiny part of natural selection. You turn over a log, and see insect
larvae in the moist soil. That too is a part of natural selection.
You can't observe any part of nature without seeing natural selection
happening.


snip

>> As I pointed out, the part of the above that actually *is* the definition
>> of natural selection is "differential reproduction", qualified only by
>> the addition of the word "significant".
>
> Minus the "significant" part, I seen other scholars who have said the
> exact same thing. This is how I know what you said is correct.

You should recognize what Howard said as correct without having to rely
on the appeal to authority fallacy. What "Scholars" say isn't always
what determines if something is correct.

Ray, when you see the words "differential reproduction" what does that
mean to you? I've seen you use the term without any sign you
understand what the words mean.

>
>> If there is "significant differential
>> reproduction" of two alternative traits, you have NS by definition.
>
> So mere existence of "significant differential reproduction" and "two
> alternative traits" means natural selection will occur/has occurred?

Again, if you understood what the words "differential reproduction"
meant, you'd possibly have a clue to understanding this.

If you have two alternative traits, say, short fur, and long fur, and
you have significant differential reproduction, ie one of those two
variants produces significantly more offspring, i.e. has more babies
than the other, then after a number of generations, you will have either
a population predominately long haired, or short haired, depending on
which variant reproduced more.

Here's a simple quiz for you, Ray:

if Rabbit A has 200 babies in her life time, and Rabbit B has 5
babies, which Rabbit left more offspring?

Part 2:

If the above ratio continues, and each of Rabbit A's offspring has
200 babies, for each of Rabbit B's 5 babies, after 10 generations, which
Rabbit variation will be more commonly found?

>
>> Variation in a trait is a necessary but not sufficient condition for there
>> to be NS. Heritability of the trait to some extent (it need not be completely
>> heritable) is only necessary for NS to have evolutionary consequences. You
>> will have "significant differential reproduction" of the traits 'able-to-run-
>> from-bear'' and 'not-able-to-run' regardless of whether the 'not-able-to-run' trait
>> is due to genetic defect, accident leg break, or your mother taking thalidomide.
>> Only the first (genetic defect) reason has evolutionary consequences.
>>
>
> Unintelligible nonsense.

This indicates you are just stuffing your ears and humming loudly. The
above makes a great deal of sense, if you just take each sentence, and
try to see what Howard is saying.

1 Variation (different traits in the population) is necessary for
natural selection to operate, but variation itself is not natural
selection.

2. Traits that can be inherited are required for natural selection to
affect evolution.

3. Traits that affect reproductive success may be acquired in different
ways

4. Only those traits that were acquired by genetic change matter to
evolution.


None of those four concepts above are difficult to understand.

>
> "I tried once or twice to explain to able men what I meant by natural
> selection, but signally failed" (C. Darwin, Autobio:124).
>
> http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2575

Basing an argument on an out of context quotation is never a smart idea,
Ray.

>
> "I have heard by round about channel that Herschel says my Book 'is
> the law of higgledy-pigglety'. What this exactly means I do not know,
> but it is evidently very contemptuous. If true this is great blow &
> discouragement" (C. Darwin to C. Lyell; December 1859).
>
> Herschel was a scientist that all scientists respected.

This only means that Darwin had heard that Herschel disagreed with
Darwin. It doesn't indicate that Herschel could not understand
Darwin's mechanism.

snip

>>
>>> More escape hatchism.
>>
>> No. Simple deductive logic. If A occurs only under conditions B and C, and it
>> is possible for conditions B or C to be absent, then, ergo, it is possible for A
>> not to occur.
>>
>
> Howard: Does existence of variation, laws of inheritance, and
> differential reproduction mean natural selection occurs?

Existence of variation in a population means that there are different
types for selection to work on. No variation, no selection.


Laws of inheritance indicate that the different types have potential
to transmit those types to the next generation. No inheritance,
selection doesn't matter.

Differential reproduction means that not every type will transmit
their type to the next generation. No differential reproduction, no
shift in types represented in the next generations.


All of the above are required for natural selection to occur. Since
all three do exist, and natural selection has been observed to happen in
populations, why do you deny that natural selection occurs?

>
>> In this argument, A (NS, or significant differential success) requires
>> B (variation in phenotype) and C (some level of heritability) according to the
>> original poster's statement. I have agreed that B (variation in phenotype) is
>> a necessary, but not sufficient condition, but pointed out that C (some
>> level of heritability of the traits) is only needed for NS to have evolutionary
>> consequences. In either argument, the key *definition* of what constitutes
>> NS is significant differential reproductive success and even if B and C are
>> present, that is no guarantee that NS will or has occurred.
>>
>> By *definition* NS is significant differential reproductive success and the
>> absence or non-existence of NS therefore requires that there be no
>> conditions where there is signifiant differential reproductive success
>> in natural environments. Do you have evidence of the universal absence
>> of "significant differential reproductive success" in nature?
>>
>
> So mere existence of "significant differential reproductive success"
> means natural selection occurs?

No, you have to have variation, and you have to have inheritance as
well. How did you possibly get your version out of the above?

Note you haven't answered Howard's question. Where is there an absence
of significant differential reproductive success anywhere in nature?



snip

>>> Do you see the concept of "survival" in both sentences?
>>
>> Yes. And every time I see someone trot out "survival of the fittest" as if
>> that were the real meaning of NS in evolutionary biology, I want
>> to scream out that that person is a blithering idiot. But I tend to be too
>> polite to actually do so.
>>
>
> Darwin himself adopted the phrase.

Reluctantly. He preferred "Descent with modification" but Spencer's
phrase had become more well known.

>
> According to a vast majority of scholars,

Ray, you don't know what the vast majority of scholars say. You only
have your extremely limited, and badly misunderstood ideas. You base
your claim on reading (and misunderstanding) maybe one, or two sources.

> the theory of (how)
> evolution (occurs) remains Darwinian.

Which only means that natural selection is recognized as one of the
major mechanisms of adaptive evolution. It doesn't mean that Darwin is
worshiped as a god.

> According to Gould 2002 the same
> has only needed slight or light modification since Darwin lived.

Note that Gould was not the "vast majority" and many scientists
considered Gould to be a "Media Scientist" not a leader in the field.
Assuming, for the moment, you've correctly understood Gould, (and I see
no reason to accept that assumption), the opinion of one person isn't
that convincing, no matter how well known that person might be.


DJT

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 5, 6:52 pm, "g...@risky-biz.com" <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 6:12 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

No, not really. Differences are not substantial. Fully grown rabbits,
in any given population, possess the same advantages (speed, eyesight,
dexterity, etc.etc.). I see equality----that's why the species
continues amongst diversity.

> And that those traits will tend to accumulate in future
> populations as the result of the better reproductive "success" of
> those that possess those traits?
>

Name species that diverged from rabbits? Where do you see these

traits?

> > The result of this would be the formation of new
> > species."
>
> > How does destruction result in the formation of new species?
>
> By "variations" Darwin means "traits" rather than creatures. We would
> expect future populations to possess a mix of the traits that were
> "preserved", and fewer and fewer of the traits that were "destroyed".
> A new species is a species that has been altered from its previous
> characteristics. "Preserving" some traits and "destroying" others
> accomplishes that.
>

So preserving and destroying are two sides of a coin? Since these
concepts are basically antonyms, the claim, for me, is hard to grasp.

> But let's address (what I think is) your understanding of the passage.
> It is in fact the creatures that survive that form the new species,
> passing on the traits that allowed them to out-survive and out-
> reproduce their peers. Those that die off fail to pass on their
> heritable traits.
>
> > Conceptually, the logic says death results in life. Sound logic says
> > life results in life.
>
> There's that same problem Ray. You "conceptualize" rather than study
> the details. Life  does indeed result in life; it is  - as I mentioned
> above - the "winners", the "survivors", the "thrivers" and most
> importantly those that get the most offspring to survive in the next
> generation that shape the future. Natural Selection in any case does
> not "result in life", it is among the mechanisms that alters the
> characteristics of a population over time.
>

"Life does indeed result in life....Natural Selection in any case does
not 'result in life'...." (Greg Guarino).

See why I'm confused? But again, according to my full argument, it is
you who is confused.

Ray

> > naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained—namely, that
> > each species has been independently created—is erroneous. I am fully

[Dana Tweedy]

Why not?

> Differences are not substantial.

They don't have to be "substantial", just enough to offer an advantage.

> Fully grown rabbits,
> in any given population, possess the same advantages (speed, eyesight,
> dexterity, etc.etc.).

But not every rabbit in the population has the same speed, eyesight, or
dexterity. There is VARIATION within a population. You have claimed
that you accept that. If every rabbit were the same, there'd be no
variation.

> I see equality----that's why the species
> continues amongst diversity.

This just shows your personal ignorance of biology. Not every rabbit is
equally endowed with the same speed, the same eyesight, or the same
agility. There are difference within any population.

>
>> And that those traits will tend to accumulate in future
>> populations as the result of the better reproductive "success" of
>> those that possess those traits?
>>
>
> Name species that diverged from rabbits?

There are at least 50 different species of rabbit.
http://www.petwebsite.com/rabbits/rabbit_species.asp

There are eight different genera of rabbit. There are at least 13
separate species of rabbit just within the Cottontail genus Sylvilagus
alone. There are also other Lagomorphs such as Hares, and Picas. But
what Greg is talking about here is populations, not species.

> Where do you see these
> traits?

In any population of rabbit. Among domestic breeds, there are 47
different breeds of the domestic European Rabbit,

https://www.arba.net/breeds.htm

Did you really think there was only one "rabbit"?

>
>>> The result of this would be the formation of new
>>> species."
>>
>>> How does destruction result in the formation of new species?
>>
>> By "variations" Darwin means "traits" rather than creatures. We would
>> expect future populations to possess a mix of the traits that were
>> "preserved", and fewer and fewer of the traits that were "destroyed".
>> A new species is a species that has been altered from its previous
>> characteristics. "Preserving" some traits and "destroying" others
>> accomplishes that.
>>
>
> So preserving and destroying are two sides of a coin?

Yes, that's what people have been telling you for months.

> Since these
> concepts are basically antonyms, the claim, for me, is hard to grasp.

That's because you can't understand that English grammar (much less your
poorly understood English grammar) is not a guide to understand nature.

>
>> But let's address (what I think is) your understanding of the passage.
>> It is in fact the creatures that survive that form the new species,
>> passing on the traits that allowed them to out-survive and out-
>> reproduce their peers. Those that die off fail to pass on their
>> heritable traits.
>>
>>> Conceptually, the logic says death results in life. Sound logic says
>>> life results in life.
>>
>> There's that same problem Ray. You "conceptualize" rather than study
>> the details. Life does indeed result in life; it is - as I mentioned
>> above - the "winners", the "survivors", the "thrivers" and most
>> importantly those that get the most offspring to survive in the next
>> generation that shape the future. Natural Selection in any case does
>> not "result in life", it is among the mechanisms that alters the
>> characteristics of a population over time.
>>
>
> "Life does indeed result in life....Natural Selection in any case does
> not 'result in life'...." (Greg Guarino).

Why do you find it necessary to consistently misrepresent what people
have said? Is it a result of your love of quote mining?

>
> See why I'm confused?

Because you choose to misrepresent people, rather than understand them?

> But again, according to my full argument, it is
> you who is confused.

As anyone can see here, your full argument is wrong.


snipping more ignored material.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

Amazing, Ray. I really didn't think you had this level of self
awareness. This is EXACTLY how you come across in this newsgroup.

>
> Yet in a recent spate of exchanges **I initiated** the fact that I do
> NOT understand natural selection **scientifically.** Did you forget?

But as you said yourself, Ray :

"I am an ordinary moron with a big mouth who is not to be taken

seriously." Ray Martinez, 2012.

> Tell me, what participant in the debate has ever done that?

an ordinary moron, with a big mouth, perhaps?

> In fact,
> we know every participant attempts to avoid that particular accusation
> or implication, isn't that true, Greg?

Unless the participant is a "ordinary moron with a big mouth"........

>
> Then I explained the reason why I don't understand is because natural
> selection----the "thing itself"----doesn't exist, and because the
> "thing itself" is, in fact, nonsense.

Your explanation fails, because natural selection does exist, and it's
not nonsense. The explanation of you being a moron is more likely.

> Then I argued, based on these
> two claims of fact,

your fantasy is not a claim of fact, Ray.

> that I do indeed understand natural selection
> afterall, and anyone who doesn't understand natural selection as
> nonsense doesn't understand natural selection.

Which is exactly what a moron with a big mouth would say......

> Then I explained why
> persons "understand" natural selection. I said these minds have been
> initiated into Materialism, unlike mine. My mind thinks theistically
> or supernaturally, unlike yours.

Except that no one requires to be "initiated into Materialism" One just
has to understand that there are natural laws. You haven't shown your
mind thinks at all, much less how it is supposed to think.

>
> Let's backtrack to what has to be the most rudimentary explication of
> natural selection by anyone at anytime:
>
> "In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my
> systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on
> Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for
> existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of
> the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under
> these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved,
> and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the
> formation of new species" (C. Darwin, Autobio:120).

Darwin explains his point very clearly, even with language that is a bit
archaic for modern times.

>
> The explication is anchored in a historical context and conveys a
> scientific claim.

Unlike creationism, which is a religious belief.

> I do understand the historical claim (which is NOT,
> by any means, fully explicated in the passage).

You may imagine you understand the "historical claim" but you haven't
shown any understanding of history at all.

> One might also contend
> that neither is the scientific claim. But the latter, to whatever
> degree it is conveyed with accuracy, and with whatever degree of
> simplicity, I contend the same is, in fact, incomprehensible nonsense
> wholly dependent on perverted logic.

When one remembers you have no capacity to understand the most simple
logic, you claim here loses any justification.

> If true the same explains why I
> don't understand from your perspective and why I do understand from my
> perspective.

Your perspective is demonstrably wrong. There is nothing
incomprehensible about Darwin's explanation, and his logic is quite
sound.

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

You are basing your claims on the shifting sand of an out of context
quotation. Doesn't the biblical injunction against building on sand
mean anything to you?

>
> I paste again a quote which supports my claim that natural selection
> is unintelligible until one has been initiated into a certain way of
> thinking (materialistically). The men Darwin speaks of were
> scientists. They didn't understand either. Before 1859, Materialism
> was not accepted by science.

Materialism, ie, the belief that nothing beyond the material is not
accepted by science now, either.

> After the rise of Darwinism (1859-1872)
> Materialism became the dominant paradigm and remains the dominant
> paradigm.

I have explained, and others have too, that this claim is historically
incorrect. The use of methodological naturalism predates Darwin by
many centuries. It was not Darwin's theory which eroded the hold of
religious beliefs on science. Much more influential was the early
geologists, who's study of Earth's history established that the Bible's
creation stories were not historical events.

'Materialism" is not a paradigm of science. Methodological
naturalism is a tool used by scientists long before Darwin.

> All of the same, regarding myself, undermines your
> rhetorical point identified in the opening paragraph.

Actually, the above merely cements your self identification as "an
ordinary moron with a big mouth".

>
> With all this said, to the best of my recollection, you have not
> defended the scientific aspect of the previous Darwin quote. Tell me,
> Greg, how does "preservation and destruction" result in the "formation
> of new species"?

You do realize, don't you Ray, that "new" species are just modifications
of old species? Natural selection does not produce altogether new
organisms. All life is descended from a common ancestor.

>
> I understand Darwin to be conveying the bare concept of natural
> selection. That conception says death (selection) causes life
> (formation of new species).

No, he is saying that death is part of the process of selection, and
what forms new species is particular variations in a population out
reproducing other variants.

> In every scientific claim there are two
> aspects: the empirics and the logic that binds. Go ahead and explain
> both?

To what end? You don't have the ability to grasp logic, and you ignore
the empirical evidence that's been presented to you over and over.

>
> One could say Darwin dumbed down the concept. Yet he admitted certain
> scientific men failed to understand. I am not a scientist.

Correct, you are a "ordinary moron with a big mouth". You base
arguments on mined quotes, and ignore all attempts to explain why that's
wrong.

>
> Then there is the issue of the historical claim, which you have shown
> almost zero understanding (for another time).

Ray, you are almost as ignorant of history as you are of biology.

>
>>> Theobald calls natural selection
>>> an "explanatory mechanism"----exactly what I've been saying. In short,
>>> the "mechanism" is not a mechanism as we understand the concept of
>>> mechanism. Death does not cause or propel life.
>>
>> Natural Selection is not claimed to "cause" or "propel" life, whatever
>> "propelling" life might mean. The claim is that Natural Selection (and
>> variation via mutations) *changes* life. Death, when it is
>> disproportionately visited on members of a species with a certain
>> trait, changes the mix of traits in the next generation. If the
>> pattern continues, the traits associated with a smaller chance of
>> reproducing will tend to disappear altogether, altering the species.
>>
>>> Conceptually, your logic is perverted.
>>
>> Thinking "conceptually" is one of your more conspicuous problems.
>> Those that think "biologically" have no difficulty with the idea that
>> death can affect life. How could it not?
>>
>
> Not affect life, but cause life (new species). Show me this logic
> anywhere outside of Biology?

Natural selection itself doesn't cause life, and "life" and "species"
are not the same thing. Natural selection is one of the mechanisms
that explains how populations undergo adaptive change. How life
itself began is a separate question.

In response to your request for "this logic", In other scientific
fields, there are seeming paradoxes as well. Refrigerators, for example
operate on the principle that releasing heat can produce cold. Black
Holes are observed by noting the energy given off by them. A secret
code is a type of communication that is designed to conceal the message.
Zeno's paradox, where the space between two points can be infinitely
divided, but one can still cross that space. There are many, many
others.

>
>>> In reality a wide range of species exist side by
>>> side for long periods of time. There is no Darwinian competition. No
>>> single species dominates. The reason diversity exists simultaneously,
>>> for long periods of time, is because each species was created with an
>>> advantage, but not an excessive advantage. This allows each species to
>>> breed successfully, generation after generation. The endurance of
>>> diversity is quality evidence supporting the work of one Divine
>>> Mastermind (Paley's Watchmaker, the Genesis Creator).
>>
>> I've run out of words to express my bewilderment at some of the things
>> you write. You claim to have done - what is it - *six years* of
>> research on a book that will have Darwin as its central theme, yet you
>> manage not to understand that when we speak of Natural Selection we
>> are generally discussing the differential fortunes of creatures *in
>> the same species*?
>>
>
> Yes, and I have explained why.

Your "explanation" is seriously lacking in content.

>
> In response, evo Dana Tweedy, now maintains that I do indeed
> understand natural selection.

Ray, it would help immensely if you'd address the points I've made
directly, rather than producing this kind of misunderstood parody. I
was pointing out where you seemed to accept the salient points of
natural selection, whether or not you actually recognized that fact.

> After years of saying I don't understand
> his position has changed.

My position is pretty much the same. You still haven't a clue, even
though you have stumbled over some of the working parts of natural
selection.

> In short, Dana sees the need to maintain
> that I do understand.

I don't see any "need" to do so, just I've noted that you stumbled onto
the essence of natural selection, ie that it's the part of the
population that survives that determines the make up of the next
generation.

> His change of heart is a reaction to my argument
> outlined above.

Like so many other times Ray, your attempt to explain my actions is
woefully short of reality. Your "argument" above is just so much
silly posturing.



snip the rest.


DJT

[hersheyh]

On Monday, November 5, 2012 4:47:56 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 5, 11:37�am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, November 2, 2012 8:53:05 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 31, 3:53 pm, "g...@risky-biz.com" <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > On Oct 31, 3:58 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > What's with this "new thread to avoid all the uncomfortable bits in
> > > > the old thread" jazz? That's Tony's schtick, and we all laugh at him
> > > > for it. It's an even weaker tactic in the roadshow version.
>
> >
>
> > > The other thread was loaded with the usual diversions and derailments
>
> > > of those disinterested with topic.
>
> >
>
> > > > > > Where I can view the alleged phenomenon known as natural selection? If
> > > > > > I look in my backyard or go hiking in the local forests, how is the
> > > > > > phenomenon seen and indentified?

The most common short-term effect of NS is conservative. That is NS which ruthlessly
eliminates the genetically (or developmentally) 'abnormal' from the reproductive
pool. What you see, with conservative evolution, is the absence of (most -- there
are a few parasitic plants) plants that lack chlorophyll or plants that have lost the
gene for natural toxins that prevent them from being eaten by certain insects. Or
large populations of albino squirrels or blind mice. Such defects *do* occur in nature.
They are eliminated.

And, for the case of male guppy tail color and length there are 'natural' experiments
based on whether the guppies exist in a pond with few or many predators. Ditto
for simple melanic camouflage (how well individuals match their background).
Ditto fro the change in beak size in the Galapagos finches dependent on the
environment (drought selects for thicker, shorter beaks; more rainfall selects
for thinner, longer beaks) -- all the better to match the changes in food
resources (thick latge seeds or small less thick ones).

Moreover, we have examples of frequency-dependent NS in any number of
organisms in nature. For example, self-sterility markers in plants that
encourage out-breeding. The presence of two male morphs (small,
sneaky maters vs. large harem holders).

And, of course, if you (being part of nature yourself) treat your lawn with fertilizer,
herbicide, or insecticides, you are doing so for the express purpose of introducing
a "selective bias" to affect the number of dandelions (or whatever) present. You
are also, inadvertently, selecting for resistance to those toxins.

It is easier to control variables in the lab.

> > > Natural selection was eventually accepted by
> > > scientific men as occurring in the wild. To have to resort to the lab,
> > > becomes good evidence supporting the point that the original
> > > conception not readily seen in the wild.
>
> >
>
> > The lab merely allows one to control variables. But the same process
> > occurs in nature.
>
> >
>
>
>
> I'm in my backyard, Howard, where is the phenomenon called "natural
> selection"? I don't see it. According to Ken Miller it is in my
> backyard.
>

See examples above. In my lawn, because there has been an explosion
of urban deer in my area, I see natural selection working on the bulbs
that I have planted. Daffodils are not being eaten before they can flower.
Tulips are. The difference is due to daffodils being unpleasant to deer.
If tulips were to gain a mutation that produces a deer-repelling compound,
those tulips would have a selective advantage over the tulips that lack
it. Conversely, if a mutation in daffodils were to prevent the formation
of the deer-repelling compounds, those daffodils would have a selective
disadvantage if deer can smell the difference.

Even humans can act as a selective force, unintentionally selecting for
mimicry in weeds. Quite a number of examples are given in the following:
http://biology.duke.edu/rausher/seeds.pdf
These examples often have closely related 'races' that are not found
in farmer's fields. Those 'races' lack the genetic mimicry that allows the
plant considered a 'weed' to flourish in farm fields.
For example: there is a race of Vicia sativa (a vetch) that infests lentil fields.
Most Vicia sativa seeds are round. Those of the race that is found
in lentil fields, like lentils, are flattened and tend to be harvested with
and sowed with lentil seeds. The difference is due to a single
recessive mutation.

But you can also see mimicry in insects in your yard.

> > > Isn't this true, Greg?
>
> >
>
> > > > > > So acceptance of the existence of (1) variation; (2) inheritance; (2)
> > > > > > differential reproduction does NOT mean natural selection has
> > > > > > occurred?
>
> >
>
> > > > > "If we have variation at some trait, differential reproduction
> > > > > associated with that trait and the "Earthling" system of heredity, we
> > > > > will have Natural Selection" (GG).
>
> >
>
> > > > > True by definition.
>
> >
>
> > > > How could it be with the word "if" in the sentence? Three "ifs",
> > > > actually.
>
> >
>
> > > So the word "if" becomes your intentionally designed escape hatch?
> > > Omit or delete the word and you've more or less admitted.
>
> >
>
> > > Howard Hershey, in response to the same point, in this thread,
> > > answered "True, but misleading." He said natural selection true by
> > > definition (but misleading, whatever that may mean).
>
> >
>
> > As I pointed out, the part of the above that actually *is* the definition
> > of natural selection �is "differential reproduction", qualified only by
> > the addition of the word "significant".
>
>
>
> Minus the "significant" part, I seen other scholars who have said the
> exact same thing. This is how I know what you said is correct.
>
>
>
> > If there is "significant differential
> > reproduction" of two alternative traits, you have NS by definition.
>
>
>
> So mere existence of "significant differential reproduction" and "two
> alternative traits" means natural selection will occur/has occurred?

Yes. But the word "significant" is important because it specifically excludes change
that is due to chance alone.

> > Variation in a trait is a necessary but not sufficient condition for there
> > to be NS. �Heritability of the trait to some extent (it need not be completely
> > heritable) is only necessary for NS to have evolutionary consequences. �You
> > will have "significant differential reproduction" of the traits 'able-to-run-
> > from-bear'' and 'not-able-to-run' regardless of whether the 'not-able-to-run' trait
> > is due to genetic defect, accident leg break, or your mother taking thalidomide.
>
> > Only the first (genetic defect) reason has evolutionary consequences.
>
> Unintelligible nonsense.
>

Really? What do you not understand? The idea above is quite simple.

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

> http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2575
>
>
>
> "I have heard by round about channel that Herschel says my Book 'is
> the law of higgledy-pigglety'. What this exactly means I do not know,
> but it is evidently very contemptuous. If true this is great blow &
> discouragement" (C. Darwin to C. Lyell; December 1859).
>
>
>
> Herschel was a scientist that all scientists respected.
>

I certainly agree that using NS to explain evolution was a new idea at the time
that Darwin proposed it. Precisely because the form of NS that most people
were familiar with was the conservative form of NS and not the directional
form.

>
> > > > > > > > Does acceptance of the existence of variation, inheritance and
> > > > > > > > differential reproduction mean natural selection does occur?
>
> >
>
> > > > > > > Given variation, *particulate* inheritance and differential
> > > > > > > reproduction, I can see no easy way to avoid Natural Selection.
>
> >
>
> > > > > True by definition.
>
> >
>
> > > > How could it be, with the word "given" in the sentence? 3 "givens" ar

> > > > required.
>
> >
>
> > > More escape hatchism.
>
> >
>
> > No. �Simple deductive logic. �If A occurs only under conditions B and C, and it
> > is possible for conditions B or C to be absent, then, ergo, it is possible for A
> > not to occur.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Howard: Does existence of variation, laws of inheritance, and
> differential reproduction mean natural selection occurs?
>

As I have said: Phenotypic variation is a necessary but not sufficient condition
for NS to occur. The laws of inheritance are a necessary but
not sufficient condition for the phenotypic variation to have evolutionary
consequences. NS is *defined* as significant relative reproductive success.
If you see significant relative reproductive success, then NS is the reason.
If you want to get even more specific, NS occurs when there is a
significant change between the frequency of alleles or genotypes
or reduction in variation or mean along a quantitative dimension between
conception and the reproductively successful population.

>
> > In this argument, A (NS, or significant differential success) requires
> > B (variation in phenotype) and C (some level of heritability) according to the
> > original poster's statement. �I have agreed that B (variation in phenotype) i

> > a necessary, but not sufficient condition, but pointed out that C (some
> > level of heritability of the traits) is only needed for NS to have evolutionary
> > consequences. �In either argument, the key *definition* of what constitutes
> > NS is significant differential reproductive success and even if B and C are
> > present, that is no guarantee that NS will or has occurred.
>
> >
>
> > By *definition* NS is significant differential reproductive success and the
> > absence or non-existence of NS therefore requires that there be no
> > conditions where there is signifiant differential reproductive success
> > in natural environments. �Do you have evidence of the universal absence
> > of "significant differential reproductive success" in nature?
>
> >
>
>
>
> So mere existence of "significant differential reproductive success"
> means natural selection occurs?
>

Yes. Except that should be "has" occurred. You cannot determine
the existence of NS before the fact. You can hypothesize that it
will or will not occur and in what direction. But you have to actually
do the work to determine that 'significant differential reproductive
success' "has" occurred. You cannot *assume* that NS will occur.
You have to demonstrate that it has occurred.

>
> > > You've admitted.
>
> >
>
> > > > > So you've admitted twice now.
>
> >
>
> > > > > "Backspace likes to reduce it to "what survives, survives". See? He
>
> > > > > leaves out the "effect". If we need a brief phrase, perhaps "What
> > > > > survives shapes future generations" (GG).
>
> >
>
> > > > > For context:http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c02ed5500b62e504?hl=en&
>
> >
>
> > > > > Yet Stephan is right. "What survives shapes future generations"
> > > > > means "what survives, survives."
>
> >
>
> > I would say that the genetic traits that permit greater reproductive success in
> > this generation's environment differentially shapes the genetic nature of the
> > next generation's population. �That would be far more accurate in many ways.
>
> >
>
> > First, it accurately points out the real metric (not 'survival', but reproductive
> > success), limits itself to genetically based trait differences, only deals with
> > the change between adjacent generations, points out that evolutionary
> > change is backward looking, not forward looking (selection adapts the new
> > generation to the environment faced by the previous generation), and points
> > out that NS involves the interaction of phenotype and environment.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > Explain.
>
> >
>
> > > Do you see the concept of "survival" in both sentences?
>
> >
>
> > Yes. �And every time I see someone trot out "survival of the fittest" as if
> > that were the real meaning of NS in evolutionary biology, I want
> > to scream out that that person is a blithering idiot. But I tend to be too
> > polite to actually do so.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Darwin himself adopted the phrase.
>

Reluctantly. And only in the 5th and later additions of the 'Origin', after
Spencer had used the phrase to describe 'natural selection'. And he also
qualified it in an entire book on sexual selection as well as several pages
of commentary in the "Origin". So, in his *description* of NS, he clearly
understood it to be more than a blindingly ignorant literalistic 'survival of
the fittest'. Instead, he used is as a 'metaphor' (a word Biblical literalists
and fundamentalists have a hard time understanding) for 'better
adapted to the immediate local environment'.

>
> According to a vast majority of scholars, the theory of (how)
> evolution (occurs) remains Darwinian. According to Gould 2002 the same
> has only needed slight or light modification since Darwin lived.
>

And, if you understand that the phrase 'survival of the fittest' was
NEVER used by Darwin in the stupidly literalistic way you imply,
and that it is RARELY used by modern biologists (who prefer the
definition I have used), then you might have a clue. Otherwise you
don't have a clue.
>
> Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 5, 6:52 pm, "g...@risky-biz.com" <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip material addressed previously....]

>
>
>

> > > > and unfavourable ones to be destroyed"?
> > > > If true the same explains why I
> > > > don't understand from your perspective and why I do understand from my
> > > > perspective.
>
> > > > "I tried once or twice to explain to able men what I meant by natural
> > > > selection, but signally failed" (C. Darwin, Autobio:124).
>
> > > > I paste again a quote which supports my claim that natural selection
> > > > is unintelligible until one has been initiated into a certain way of
> > > > thinking (materialistically).
>
> > > I'll ask again what you neglected to respond to below:
>
> > > Do you accept Newton's Laws? Those require material causation as well.
> > > Natural Selection requires material processes of reproduction and
> > > heredity, much as Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation requires
> > > material processes of physics. Neither requires that there be no God.
>
> > The issues here concern the History of Science, not the science of
> > Biology or Physics.
>
> You said "materialism" wasn't accepted before Darwin. But the exact
> same acceptance of material processes is required for explaining
> planetary motions or the behavior of gases as is required to recognize
> that populations change to incorporate the traits of those ancestors
> who had the greatest success in reproducing.
>

When material processes were discovered before the advent of Darwinism
the same were held designed.

> > Yes I accept Newton's Laws, and these laws were proposed and initially
> > accepted as designed. The phrase "material causation" presupposes
> > Materialism which means the Immaterial not involved, even as a First
> > Cause.
>
> Then that sort of "Materialism" is not required for Natural Selection
> to work. Only the acceptance of heredity that proceeds by material
> processes.
>

Non-sequitur.

Natural selection is fully material; hence Materialism.

What is it that you don't understand?

>
>
> > Natural selection, on the other hand, was proposed and accepted (even
> > unto the present) as fully material or undesigned. This means NS is
> > undirected and non-teleological.
>
> "Undirected and non-teleological" are part of the common
> understanding. "Undesigned" (the process that is, or the properties of
> matter and energy) is not required. There is nothing about Natural
> Selection that is incompatible with a designer of the Universe.
>

Your parenthetical definition/explanation of "undesigned" is made up.
And since the main characteristic of natural selection is
"unintelligence" the same is incompatible with the intelligence of an
invisible Designer.

> > Your comments intermingle two separate scientific claims, produced in
> > two completely different eras. When Newton lived and worked,
> > Materialism was, for all intents and purposes, non-existent. When
> > Darwin published in 1859 Materialism was the philosophy of radicals,
> > not scientific men. By 1872 (a mere 12 years after Darwin published)
> > Materialism became the paradigm of science. Men of science then, and
> > forever henceforth, viewed Newton's Laws as undesigned or fully
> > material.
>
> "Undesigned" and "fully material" are not synonyms.

In context, yes they are.

> You believe in a
> Creator God. You claim to believe that gravity operates by material
> processes. Thus I assume you believe in a  God that can design
> material processes,  that thereafter proceed on their own.
>

Yes, most of the time, however. Both a garden and motor need
maintenance from time to time.

>
>
> > > The men Darwin speaks of were
>
> > > > scientists. They didn't understand either. Before 1859, Materialism
> > > > was not accepted by science.
>
> > > Newton's laws were not accepted? Biological reproduction was not
> > > accepted? Fire as the combination of oxygen with various elements was
> > > not accepted? Boyle's Law?
>
> > > After the rise of Darwinism (1859-1872)
>
> > > > Materialism became the dominant paradigm and remains the dominant
> > > > paradigm. All of the same, regarding myself, undermines your
> > > > rhetorical point identified in the opening paragraph.
>
> Methodological materialism yes; which holds that science may only
> *study* things that operate by observable processes.
>

What does the word "methodological" mean in the context in which you
used it?

> > > > With all this said, to the best of my recollection, you have not
> > > > defended the scientific aspect of the previous Darwin quote. Tell me,
> > > > Greg, how does "preservation and destruction" result in the "formation
> > > > of new species"?
>
> > > The preservation of some traits and destruction of other traits
> > > changes populations. Enough change, especially of the type that
> > > prevents creatures from interbreeding, leads to speciation. You do
> > > understand that every species is thought to have diverged from an
> > > ancestor that would have been quite similar, right?
>
> Could you address  the paragraph above?
>

You're describing an "explanatory mechanism" (Douglas Theobald). The
explanation presupposes existence of a phenomenon. There is no such
phenomenon in nature. Your explanation is unintelligible (=
Materialism). Yet the material things that comprise your explanation
do indeed exist.

There really isn't anything left to discuss. Darwinism/Materialism is
nonsense. Don't get me wrong, you "understand," and other evos
"understand," but no one else. Evolution is a private knowledge. It is
unintelligible until one has been initiated into Materialism. That's
why the scientists Darwin spoke of could not understand.

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

> > > > I understand Darwin to be conveying the bare concept of natural
> > > > selection. That conception says death (selection) causes life
> > > > (formation of new species).
>
> > > Death can in fact be one sort of selection, especially an early death
> > > that prevents a creature from reproducing. But "causing life" is
> > > different than "forming new species". I would not normally bother
> > > explaining this, but your continued use of the "Central Park" motif
> > > demonstrates a very odd and distorted view. Species are formed by
> > > modification of ancestor species. Thus selection (acting on variation)
> > > does not "cause" life, it merely alters some traits.
>
> And this one (above)?
>

See previous answer.

> > naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained—namely, that
> > each species has been independently created—is erroneous. I am fully

> > convinced that species are not immutable" (C. Darwin, "On The Origin
> > Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection" 1859:6; London: John
> > Murray).
>
> > Answer: Independent creation of each species (supernatural causation).
> > Therefore natural causation/selection is offered as replacing God as
> > Creator of species.
>
> There's the passive voice again, "is offered". That is one man
> writing, and from the passage, not even  saying what you think he is
> saying. He does indeed seem to be saying that species were not
> individually created; they instead diverge over time. I see nothing
> that would exclude a designer of the first life, or of the properties
> of the Universe.

I'll be kind: You have the ability to understand natural selection but
suddenly you are unable to understand the above historical passage!

Ray

[Burkhard]

On 6 Nov, 03:57, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 6:52 pm, "g...@risky-biz.com" <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:

><snip>

>
> No, not really. Differences are not substantial. Fully grown rabbits,
> in any given population, possess the same advantages (speed, eyesight,
> dexterity, etc.etc.). I see equality----that's why the species
> continues amongst diversity.
>
> > And that those traits will tend to accumulate in future
> > populations as the result of the better reproductive "success" of
> > those that possess those traits?
>
> Name species that diverged from rabbits? Where do you see these
> traits?
>
> > > The result of this would be the formation of new
> > > species."
>
> > > How does destruction result in the formation of new species?
>
> > By "variations" Darwin means "traits" rather than creatures. We would
> > expect future populations to possess a mix of the traits that were
> > "preserved", and fewer and fewer of the traits that were "destroyed".
> > A new species is a species that has been altered from its previous
> > characteristics. "Preserving" some traits and "destroying" others
> > accomplishes that.
>
> So preserving and destroying are two sides of a coin? Since these
> concepts are basically antonyms, the claim, for me, is hard to grasp.
>

Really? "The brilliant strategy of General Patton destroyed the enemy
and preserved his own forces". Nothing problematic about this sentence
I'd say, one and the same thing destroys one thing and preserves
another.

[Burkhard]

Really? Here are a couple of important scientific equations from
physics and also biology:

F = dp/dt = d(mv)/dt
pV = k
pV = nRT
L = (wmax - wbar)/wmax
1 = C(b,c) > | C(a,b) - C(a,c)|

In which of these equations does any of the variables denote a deity?
Which of these equations is "materialistic" and which one is not, and
how can you tell form looking at the equations (which are all the
scientists needs to do his job)

[Dana Tweedy]

On 11/6/12 1:30 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 5, 6:52 pm, "g...@risky-biz.com" <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
snip

>>> The issues here concern the History of Science, not the science of
>>> Biology or Physics.
>>
>> You said "materialism" wasn't accepted before Darwin. But the exact
>> same acceptance of material processes is required for explaining
>> planetary motions or the behavior of gases as is required to recognize
>> that populations change to incorporate the traits of those ancestors
>> who had the greatest success in reproducing.
>>
>
> When material processes were discovered before the advent of Darwinism
> the same were held designed.

As a religious belief. Many Christians now believe that material
processes, including evolution, were made by God.

>
>>> Yes I accept Newton's Laws, and these laws were proposed and initially
>>> accepted as designed. The phrase "material causation" presupposes
>>> Materialism which means the Immaterial not involved, even as a First
>>> Cause.
>>
>> Then that sort of "Materialism" is not required for Natural Selection
>> to work. Only the acceptance of heredity that proceeds by material
>> processes.
>>
>
> Non-sequitur.

You really need to learn what words mean before you try to use them.

>
> Natural selection is fully material; hence Materialism.

Newton's laws are fully material as well, hence he used methodological
naturalism, just like Darwin did.

>
> What is it that you don't understand?

He doesn't share your personal brain damage, so Greg tends to be able to
process logic. Natural selection is no more, or less "materialistic"
than Newton's laws.

>
>>
>>
>>> Natural selection, on the other hand, was proposed and accepted (even
>>> unto the present) as fully material or undesigned. This means NS is
>>> undirected and non-teleological.
>>
>> "Undirected and non-teleological" are part of the common
>> understanding. "Undesigned" (the process that is, or the properties of
>> matter and energy) is not required. There is nothing about Natural
>> Selection that is incompatible with a designer of the Universe.
>>
>
> Your parenthetical definition/explanation of "undesigned" is made up.

If by "made up" you mean the standard understanding of the word.

> And since the main characteristic of natural selection is
> "unintelligence" the same is incompatible with the intelligence of an
> invisible Designer.

The "main characteristic" of natural selection is that it operates
without overt guidance. Whatever you mean by "unintelligence" is your
own mistake.

You still have never explained why an inanimate object, or process
lacking a mind should be incompatible with being made, or designed by an
intelligent being. Many things lacking in intelligence have been
manufactured, and designed by humans. Why do you keep refusing to
address this massive hole in your 'logic'?

>
>>> Your comments intermingle two separate scientific claims, produced in
>>> two completely different eras. When Newton lived and worked,
>>> Materialism was, for all intents and purposes, non-existent. When
>>> Darwin published in 1859 Materialism was the philosophy of radicals,
>>> not scientific men. By 1872 (a mere 12 years after Darwin published)
>>> Materialism became the paradigm of science. Men of science then, and
>>> forever henceforth, viewed Newton's Laws as undesigned or fully
>>> material.
>>
>> "Undesigned" and "fully material" are not synonyms.
>
> In context, yes they are.

How so? A house is designed, but it's fully material as well. A car
is a designed object, but a car is fully material. Every living being
that has ever been seen is fully material, but you claim they are
designed.


How does the context make the two entirely unconnected ideas synonyms?

>
>> You believe in a
>> Creator God. You claim to believe that gravity operates by material
>> processes. Thus I assume you believe in a God that can design
>> material processes, that thereafter proceed on their own.
>>
>
> Yes, most of the time, however. Both a garden and motor need
> maintenance from time to time.

So, wouldn't a greater designer be one that makes a process that doesn't
need maintenance? You are implying that God isn't capable of creating
a process (natural selection, gravity, chemical reactions) that operates
indefinitely, without maintenance. Are you implying that God is less
competent than nature?

>
>>
>>
>>>> The men Darwin speaks of were
>>
>>>>> scientists. They didn't understand either. Before 1859, Materialism
>>>>> was not accepted by science.
>>
>>>> Newton's laws were not accepted? Biological reproduction was not
>>>> accepted? Fire as the combination of oxygen with various elements was
>>>> not accepted? Boyle's Law?
>>
>>>> After the rise of Darwinism (1859-1872)
>>
>>>>> Materialism became the dominant paradigm and remains the dominant
>>>>> paradigm. All of the same, regarding myself, undermines your
>>>>> rhetorical point identified in the opening paragraph.
>>
>> Methodological materialism yes; which holds that science may only
>> *study* things that operate by observable processes.
>>
>
> What does the word "methodological" mean in the context in which you
> used it?

That it's used for the purposes of the method, not something held as
given. This has been explained to you many times before.

>
>>>>> With all this said, to the best of my recollection, you have not
>>>>> defended the scientific aspect of the previous Darwin quote. Tell me,
>>>>> Greg, how does "preservation and destruction" result in the "formation
>>>>> of new species"?
>>
>>>> The preservation of some traits and destruction of other traits
>>>> changes populations. Enough change, especially of the type that
>>>> prevents creatures from interbreeding, leads to speciation. You do
>>>> understand that every species is thought to have diverged from an
>>>> ancestor that would have been quite similar, right?
>>
>> Could you address the paragraph above?
>>
>
> You're describing an "explanatory mechanism" (Douglas Theobald). The
> explanation presupposes existence of a phenomenon.

Since the phenomena has been observed, the explanation is required.
Are you trying to claim that there is never any change in populations?

> There is no such
> phenomenon in nature.

On the contrary. Genetic change in populations is well established to
exist. If it did not, all organisms would be identical.

> Your explanation is unintelligible (=
> Materialism).

That something escapes your very limited grasp does not mean it's
"unintelligible". Nor is it the same thing as materialism.

> Yet the material things that comprise your explanation
> do indeed exist.

Which means the physical change in the genetic make up of a population
exists.

>
> There really isn't anything left to discuss.

When you run away from the issues, it's difficult to discuss.


> Darwinism/Materialism is
> nonsense.

That's just an excuse to refuse to listen. You are equivocating
"Darwinism" with "Materialism", and then assuming you can't understand
it, because you refuse to accept "materialism". Darwin's discovery of
the creative powers of natural selection is not "Materialism", it's just
normal, everyday science. You don't get let off the hook, just because
you are afraid of being exposed to a philosophical position you don't
have the slightest clue about.

> Don't get me wrong, you "understand," and other evos
> "understand," but no one else.

This is an example of the kind of tautology you are claiming natural
selection is. You say that only 'evos' understand natural selection,
then define anyone who understands the idea as an 'evo".

> Evolution is a private knowledge.

On the contrary, evolution is open to anyone who cares to look.

> It is
> unintelligible until one has been initiated into Materialism. That's
> why the scientists Darwin spoke of could not understand.

You have no idea why the scientists who spoke to Darwin did not
understand, you only have your own poorly thought out assumptions. One
does not need be "initiated" into "Materialism" to understand the very
simple mechanism behind evolution. All you need is a basic education,
and the courage to face reality. Sadly, you lack both.

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

" I am an ordinary moron with a big mouth who is not to be taken
seriously."

https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9ac7f7161eb017d2?dmode=source&output=gplain&noredirect&pli=1
(R Martinez, 2012)

What, you object that the above is taken out of context? But you
wrote it, and as you always say, you "mean what you say, and say what
you mean".


Taking Darwin's words out of context is just as wrong.

>
>>>>> I understand Darwin to be conveying the bare concept of natural
>>>>> selection. That conception says death (selection) causes life
>>>>> (formation of new species).
>>
>>>> Death can in fact be one sort of selection, especially an early death
>>>> that prevents a creature from reproducing. But "causing life" is
>>>> different than "forming new species". I would not normally bother
>>>> explaining this, but your continued use of the "Central Park" motif
>>>> demonstrates a very odd and distorted view. Species are formed by
>>>> modification of ancestor species. Thus selection (acting on variation)
>>>> does not "cause" life, it merely alters some traits.
>>
>> And this one (above)?
>>
>
> See previous answer.

"I am an ordinary moron with a big mouth who is not to be taken

seriously." (R. Martinez, 2012)


snip

>>
>> There's the passive voice again, "is offered". That is one man
>> writing, and from the passage, not even saying what you think he is
>> saying. He does indeed seem to be saying that species were not
>> individually created; they instead diverge over time. I see nothing
>> that would exclude a designer of the first life, or of the properties
>> of the Universe.
>
> I'll be kind: You have the ability to understand natural selection but
> suddenly you are unable to understand the above historical passage!

Ray, you have not the ability to understand either. Why do you imagine
you have understood what Darwin was writing? Apparently to understand
Darwin you need to be 'initiated".


DJT

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 6, 9:07�am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Monday, November 5, 2012 4:47:56 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 11:37 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Friday, November 2, 2012 8:53:05 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 31, 3:53 pm, "g...@risky-biz.com" <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 31, 3:58 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > What's with this "new thread to avoid all the uncomfortable bits in
> > > > > the old thread" jazz? That's Tony's schtick, and we all laugh at him
> > > > > for it. It's an even weaker tactic in the roadshow version.
>
> > > > The other thread was loaded with the usual diversions and derailments
>
> > > > of those disinterested with topic.
>
> > > > > > > Where I can view the alleged phenomenon known as natural selection? If
> > > > > > > I look in my backyard or go hiking in the local forests, how is the
> > > > > > > phenomenon seen and indentified?
>
> The most common short-term effect of NS is conservative. That is NS which ruthlessly
> eliminates the genetically (or developmentally) 'abnormal' from the reproductive
> pool. �What you see, with conservative evolution, is the absence of (most -- there
> are a few parasitic plants) plants that lack chlorophyll or plants that have lost the
> gene for natural toxins that prevent them from being eaten by certain insects. �Or
> large populations of albino squirrels or blind mice. �Such defects *do* occur in nature.
> They are eliminated.
>

So far, no answer provided for a straightforward question. If natural
selection is seen, and is a real phenomenon, then what's the problem?

> And, for the case of male guppy tail color and length there are 'natural' experiments
> based on whether the guppies exist in a pond with few or many predators. �Ditto
> for simple melanic camouflage (how well individuals match their background).
> Ditto fro the change in beak size in the Galapagos finches dependent on the
> environment (drought selects for thicker, shorter beaks; more rainfall selects
> for thinner, longer beaks) -- all the better to match the changes in food
> resources (thick latge seeds or small less thick ones).
>
> Moreover, we have examples of frequency-dependent NS in any number of
> organisms in nature. �For example, self-sterility markers in plants that
> encourage out-breeding. �The presence of two male morphs (small,
> sneaky maters vs. large harem holders).
>
> And, of course, if you (being part of nature yourself) treat your lawn with fertilizer,
> herbicide, or insecticides, you are doing so for the express purpose of introducing
> a "selective bias" to affect the number of dandelions (or whatever) present. �You
> are also, inadvertently, selecting for resistance to those toxins.
>

Incomprehensible nonsense. Since Howard shows no signs of sobering up,
let me interpret: When a dog eats a fly that has been buzzing around
his or her snoot the same is natural selection. Death of a creature,
in other words, is natural selection! Why, then, all the
unintelligible nonsense? This is what happens when God is eliminated
as Creator of species. Why is our Evolutionist unable to make natural
selection simple and intelligible? Again, this is what happens when
Intelligence is not involved: nonsense ensues ( or unintelligence,
which is the main characteristic of natural selection).

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

If death of a creature ("selection pressure" to use a modern
euphemism) is all natural selection is, why, then, were these
scientists unable to understand? Answer: Because their minds had not
been initiated into Materialism (unlike Darwin's). Their minds had not
been poisoned by perverted logic "mindless death causes/propels
life."

The answer is because natural selection is not readily seen in the
wild. If it were both Greg and Howard would not have said "the lab."
One must take their word for it: natural selection is seen in their
labs, that is, private buildings that the public cannot enter. Darwin
admitted that his insight into natural selection came when he was
reading----"for amusement"----Malthus on Population, and not when he
was outdoors observing nature.

Since nothing in the process is designed, it is all by chance.

> > > Variation in a trait is a necessary but not sufficient condition for there
> > > to be NS. Heritability of the trait to some extent (it need not be completely
> > > heritable) is only necessary for NS to have evolutionary consequences. You
> > > will have "significant differential reproduction" of the traits 'able-to-run-
> > > from-bear'' and 'not-able-to-run' regardless of whether the 'not-able-to-run' trait
> > > is due to genetic defect, accident leg break, or your mother taking thalidomide.
>
> > > Only the first (genetic defect) reason has evolutionary consequences.
>
> > Unintelligible nonsense.
>
> Really? �What do you not understand? �The idea above is quite simple.
>

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

http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2575

"I have heard by round about channel that Herschel says my Book 'is
the law of higgledy-pigglety'. What this exactly means I do not know,
but it is evidently very contemptuous. If true this is great blow &

discouragement" (Letter: C. Darwin to C. Lyell; December 1859).

There you have it: natural selection is true by definition.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 6, 9:07�am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[snip material addressed previously....]

Since Darwin was the Architect of the modern theory, it was with
deliberate calculation.

> And only in the 5th and later additions of the 'Origin', after
> Spencer had used the phrase to describe 'natural selection'.

He did so because natural selection was being "misunderstood" and
rejected based on said "misunderstanding." And earlier you said
natural selection is quite easy to understand. Now we have more
evidence that it was not easy to understand (and remains in that
condition). I have offered an explanation as to why natural selection
is "misunderstood." The scientific minds of the Dawrin era had NOT
been initiated into Materialism. The paradigm of science, before
Darwin published, was Paley's Natural Theology.

Previous evidence supporting my argument:

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

http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2575

"I have heard by round about channel that Herschel says my Book 'is
the law of higgledy-pigglety'. What this exactly means I do not know,
but it is evidently very contemptuous. If true this is great blow &

discouragement" (Letter: C. Darwin to C. Lyell; December 1859).

Herschel was a scientist that all scientists respected.

> And he also
> qualified it in an entire book on sexual selection as well as several pages
> of commentary in the "Origin". �So, in his *description* of NS, he clearly
> understood it to be more than a blindingly ignorant literalistic 'survival of
> the fittest'. �Instead, he used is as a 'metaphor' (a word Biblical literalists
> and fundamentalists have a hard time understanding) for 'better
> adapted to the immediate local environment'.
>

Darwin adopted the phrase because he thought it captured the idea or
concept of natural selection. He thought it would promote quicker and
better understanding. The point being, again, is that natural
selection was not easily understood.

Your concerns, as seen in your comments above, is with literalism. We
are told that scientific explication, unlike the Bible, is to be
understood literally. Do the fittest survive? Yes: variations that
procure an advantage are preserved. So your paranoia about literalism
is unfounded and bizarre.

What is equally strange is the fact that I do understand the face
value meaning of "survival of the fittest." Whatever survives was and
is the fittest. Within the philosophy and logic of the proposition the
truth of the proposition is always guaranteed. And you admitted as
much when you admitted that natural selection is true by definition.
For who could deny that the best adapted will survive (and thus breed)
since the best adapted do survive and breed?

> > According to a vast majority of scholars, the theory of (how)
> > evolution (occurs) remains Darwinian. According to Gould 2002 the same
> > has only needed slight or light modification since Darwin lived.
>
> And, if you understand that the phrase 'survival of the fittest' was
> NEVER used by Darwin in the stupidly literalistic way you imply,
> and that it is RARELY used by modern biologists (who prefer the
> definition I have used), then you might have a clue. �Otherwise you
> don't have a clue.
>
> > Ray

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

On 11/6/12 2:55 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 6, 9:07 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:

snip

>>>>>>>> Where I can view the alleged phenomenon known as natural selection? If
>>>>>>>> I look in my backyard or go hiking in the local forests, how is the
>>>>>>>> phenomenon seen and indentified?
>>
>> The most common short-term effect of NS is conservative. That is NS which ruthlessly
>> eliminates the genetically (or developmentally) 'abnormal' from the reproductive
>> pool. What you see, with conservative evolution, is the absence of (most -- there
>> are a few parasitic plants) plants that lack chlorophyll or plants that have lost the
>> gene for natural toxins that prevent them from being eaten by certain insects. Or
>> large populations of albino squirrels or blind mice. Such defects *do* occur in nature.
>> They are eliminated.
>>
>
> So far, no answer provided for a straightforward question. If natural
> selection is seen, and is a real phenomenon, then what's the problem?

The problem is you are refusing to look at the evidence.

>
>> And, for the case of male guppy tail color and length there are 'natural' experiments
>> based on whether the guppies exist in a pond with few or many predators. Ditto
>> for simple melanic camouflage (how well individuals match their background).
>> Ditto fro the change in beak size in the Galapagos finches dependent on the
>> environment (drought selects for thicker, shorter beaks; more rainfall selects
>> for thinner, longer beaks) -- all the better to match the changes in food
>> resources (thick latge seeds or small less thick ones).
>>
>> Moreover, we have examples of frequency-dependent NS in any number of
>> organisms in nature. For example, self-sterility markers in plants that
>> encourage out-breeding. The presence of two male morphs (small,
>> sneaky maters vs. large harem holders).
>>
>> And, of course, if you (being part of nature yourself) treat your lawn with fertilizer,
>> herbicide, or insecticides, you are doing so for the express purpose of introducing
>> a "selective bias" to affect the number of dandelions (or whatever) present. You
>> are also, inadvertently, selecting for resistance to those toxins.
>>
>
> Incomprehensible nonsense.

This is just stuffing your ears and clenching your eyes shut.

> Since Howard shows no signs of sobering up,
> let me interpret: When a dog eats a fly that has been buzzing around
> his or her snoot the same is natural selection.

It may be part of natural selection, in that that fly is no longer able
to reproduce, and so others in it's population will reproduce more
successfully.

> Death of a creature,
> in other words, is natural selection!

As has been explained to you, over and over, death itself is not natural
selection. It's just one part of how some members of a population
reproduce more successfully than others do.

> Why, then, all the
> unintelligible nonsense?

All the nonsense is coming from you, Ray.

> This is what happens when God is eliminated
> as Creator of species.

Natural selection does not eliminate the possibility that God is behind
the production of species.

> Why is our Evolutionist unable to make natural
> selection simple and intelligible?

He is able to make it intelligible to anyone with a functioning neural
system.

> Again, this is what happens when
> Intelligence is not involved: nonsense ensues ( or unintelligence,
> which is the main characteristic of natural selection).

Once again, Ray, all the nonsense is coming from you. The main
characteristic of natural selection is not "unintelligence" (whatever
you mean by that), but automatic action. No requirement for
micromanaging.

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

"I am an ordinary moron with a big mouth who is not to be taken

seriously." R. Martinez, in T.O. 2012.

See, anyone can take quotes out of context.

>
> If death of a creature ("selection pressure" to use a modern
> euphemism) is all natural selection is,

As has been explained to you, over and over, death of a creature is not
all that natural selection is.

> why, then, were these
> scientists unable to understand?

There's nothing that suggests these scientists did not come to
understand the concept over time.

> Answer: Because their minds had not
> been initiated into Materialism (unlike Darwin's). Their minds had not
> been poisoned by perverted logic "mindless death causes/propels
> life."

First of all, natural selection is not "death causes life". Second,
all living things that don't photosynthesize (including Ray himself)
rely on death of other creatures and plants to sustain their own lives.

Ray is so afraid of having to admit he is wrong, he's cobbled up this
weird claim of having to be "initiated" into "Materialism" to understand
natural selection. No such initiation is required, only the courage to
admit one's errors. Ray lacks such courage.

snip

>>
>>> The issue was: Why is Greg Guarino pointing to the lab, and not the
>>> wild, as where natural selection can readily be seen?
>>
>> It is easier to control variables in the lab.
>>
>
> The answer is because natural selection is not readily seen in the
> wild.

Natural selection is readily seen in "the wild". Of course, for
bacteria, labs are just as much the "wild" as a jungle.

> If it were both Greg and Howard would not have said "the lab."

Since it's easier to observe things in a lab, than in the middle of a
jungle, and the results are exactly the same, why not pick the most
convenient place?

> One must take their word for it: natural selection is seen in their
> labs, that is, private buildings that the public cannot enter.

Why do you think that the public can't enter a lab?

> Darwin
> admitted that his insight into natural selection came when he was
> reading----"for amusement"----Malthus on Population, and not when he
> was outdoors observing nature.

Of course, Darwin spent his life observing nature. The insight into
natural selection was added to his observations. Note too, that Ray
has never studied nature, or anything else. He's just making things up
due to his lack of education, and lack of exposure to the real world.

snip

>>> I'm in my backyard, Howard, where is the phenomenon called "natural
>>> selection"? I don't see it. According to Ken Miller it is in my
>>> backyard.
>>
>> See examples above. In my lawn, because there has been an explosion
>> of urban deer in my area, I see natural selection working on the bulbs
>> that I have planted. Daffodils are not being eaten before they can flower.
>> Tulips are. The difference is due to daffodils being unpleasant to deer.
>> If tulips were to gain a mutation that produces a deer-repelling compound,
>> those tulips would have a selective advantage over the tulips that lack
>> it. Conversely, if a mutation in daffodils were to prevent the formation
>> of the deer-repelling compounds, those daffodils would have a selective
>> disadvantage if deer can smell the difference.
>>
>> Even humans can act as a selective force, unintentionally selecting for
>> mimicry in weeds. Quite a number of examples are given in the following:http://biology.duke.edu/rausher/seeds.pdf
>> These examples often have closely related 'races' that are not found
>> in farmer's fields. Those 'races' lack the genetic mimicry that allows the
>> plant considered a 'weed' to flourish in farm fields.
>> For example: there is a race of Vicia sativa (a vetch) that infests lentil fields.
>> Most Vicia sativa seeds are round. Those of the race that is found
>> in lentil fields, like lentils, are flattened and tend to be harvested with
>> and sowed with lentil seeds. The difference is due to a single
>> recessive mutation.
>>
>> But you can also see mimicry in insects in your yard.

Here Howard gives Ray some very simple, and easy to understand examples
of natural selection that Ray himself can confirm. Of course, Ray
ignores this.


snip

>>> So mere existence of "significant differential reproduction" and "two
>>> alternative traits" means natural selection will occur/has occurred?
>>
>> Yes. But the word "significant" is important because it specifically excludes change
>> that is due to chance alone.
>>
>
> Since nothing in the process is designed, it is all by chance.

It's not "all by chance" because the process itself is deterministic.
It does not have to be designed, to produce a non chance effect.

>
>>>> Variation in a trait is a necessary but not sufficient condition for there
>>>> to be NS. Heritability of the trait to some extent (it need not be completely
>>>> heritable) is only necessary for NS to have evolutionary consequences. You
>>>> will have "significant differential reproduction" of the traits 'able-to-run-
>>>> from-bear'' and 'not-able-to-run' regardless of whether the 'not-able-to-run' trait
>>>> is due to genetic defect, accident leg break, or your mother taking thalidomide.
>>
>>>> Only the first (genetic defect) reason has evolutionary consequences.
>>
>>> Unintelligible nonsense.
>>
>> Really? What do you not understand? The idea above is quite simple.
>>
>
> "I tried once or twice to explain to able men what I meant by natural
> selection, but signally failed" (C. Darwin, Autobio:124).

"I am an ordinary moron with a big mouth who is not to be taken

seriously." R. Martinez in T.O. 2012.

>
> http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2575
>
> "I have heard by round about channel that Herschel says my Book 'is
> the law of higgledy-pigglety'. What this exactly means I do not know,
> but it is evidently very contemptuous. If true this is great blow &
> discouragement" (Letter: C. Darwin to C. Lyell; December 1859).
>
> Herschel was a scientist that all scientists respected.

You can't use those unnamed "scientists" and Herschel to excuse your own
stupidity.

snip

>>
>>> Howard: Does existence of variation, laws of inheritance, and
>>> differential reproduction mean natural selection occurs?
>>
>> As I have said: Phenotypic variation is a necessary but not sufficient condition
>> for NS to occur. The laws of inheritance are a necessary but
>> not sufficient condition for the phenotypic variation to have evolutionary
>> consequences. NS is *defined* as significant relative reproductive success.
>> If you see significant relative reproductive success, then NS is the reason.
>> If you want to get even more specific, NS occurs when there is a
>> significant change between the frequency of alleles or genotypes
>> or reduction in variation or mean along a quantitative dimension between
>> conception and the reproductively successful population.

Another very good explanation, which Ray ignores.

>>
>>>> In this argument, A (NS, or significant differential success) requires
>>>> B (variation in phenotype) and C (some level of heritability) according to the
>>>> original poster's statement. I have agreed that B (variation in phenotype) i
>>>> a necessary, but not sufficient condition, but pointed out that C (some
>>>> level of heritability of the traits) is only needed for NS to have evolutionary
>>>> consequences. In either argument, the key *definition* of what constitutes
>>>> NS is significant differential reproductive success and even if B and C are
>>>> present, that is no guarantee that NS will or has occurred.
>>
>>>> By *definition* NS is significant differential reproductive success and the
>>>> absence or non-existence of NS therefore requires that there be no
>>>> conditions where there is signifiant differential reproductive success
>>>> in natural environments. Do you have evidence of the universal absence
>>>> of "significant differential reproductive success" in nature?
>>
>>> So mere existence of "significant differential reproductive success"
>>> means natural selection occurs?
>>
>> Yes. Except that should be "has" occurred.
>
> There you have it: natural selection is true by definition.

There you are again misrepresenting what Howard wrote. The definition
of natural selection is differential reproductive success of a variant
in a population. If you have differential reproductive success of a
variant of that population, then you have natural selection. But the
"if" there is important. It doesn't become true by definition. It only
becomes true when the process actually happens.

snip more that Ray ignores


DJT

[hersheyh]

On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 4:57:54 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 6, 9:07�am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, November 5, 2012 4:47:56 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 5, 11:37 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > On Friday, November 2, 2012 8:53:05 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > > On Oct 31, 3:53 pm, "g...@risky-biz.com" <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > > > On Oct 31, 3:58 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > > > What's with this "new thread to avoid all the uncomfortable bits in
>
> > > > > > the old thread" jazz? That's Tony's schtick, and we all laugh at him
>
> > > > > > for it. It's an even weaker tactic in the roadshow version.
>
> >
>
> > > > > The other thread was loaded with the usual diversions and derailments
>
> >
>
> > > > > of those disinterested with topic.
>
> >
>
> > > > > > > > Where I can view the alleged phenomenon known as natural selection? If
> > > > > > > > I look in my backyard or go hiking in the local forests, how is the
> > > > > > > > phenomenon seen and indentified?
>
> >
>
> > The most common short-term effect of NS is conservative. That is NS which ruthlessly
> > eliminates the genetically (or developmentally) 'abnormal' from the reproductive
> > pool. �What you see, with conservative evolution, is the absence of (most -- there
> > are a few parasitic plants) plants that lack chlorophyll or plants that have lost the
> > gene for natural toxins that prevent them from being eaten by certain insects. �Or
> > large populations of albino squirrels or blind mice. �Such defects *do* occur in nature.
> > They are eliminated.
>
> >
>
>
>
> So far, no answer provided for a straightforward question. If natural
> selection is seen, and is a real phenomenon, then what's the problem?

You asked how you would identify NS in your lawn or the woods. To do so, you would have
to identify a *population* of organisms, identify phenotypic variation, and follow the fates
(on a useful metric of reproductive success) of those populations between conception and reproduction.
You can do this with any variable trait. That requires following a population for at least one generation.
I gave you some examples. Look at a region which has both agouti and melanic mice in a desert with
brown sand and in a desert with black sand.

> > And, for the case of male guppy tail color and length there are 'natural' experiments
> > based on whether the guppies exist in a pond with few or many predators. �Ditto
> > for simple melanic camouflage (how well individuals match their background).
> > Ditto fro the change in beak size in the Galapagos finches dependent on the
> > environment (drought selects for thicker, shorter beaks; more rainfall selects
> > for thinner, longer beaks) -- all the better to match the changes in food
> > resources (thick latge seeds or small less thick ones).
>
> >
>
> > Moreover, we have examples of frequency-dependent NS in any number of
> > organisms in nature. �For example, self-sterility markers in plants that
> > encourage out-breeding. �The presence of two male morphs (small,
> > sneaky maters vs. large harem holders).
>
> >
>
> > And, of course, if you (being part of nature yourself) treat your lawn with fertilizer,
> > herbicide, or insecticides, you are doing so for the express purpose of introducing
> > a "selective bias" to affect the number of dandelions (or whatever) present. �You
> > are also, inadvertently, selecting for resistance to those toxins.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Incomprehensible nonsense. Since Howard shows no signs of sobering up,
> let me interpret: When a dog eats a fly that has been buzzing around
> his or her snoot the same is natural selection.

That is NOT what I said. You are lying about what I said. I *specifically*
require a significant difference in a population. It is not possible to
identify whether NS occurs from a single individual.

> Death of a creature,
> in other words, is natural selection!

Why are you lying about what I said? I NEVER said that the
"death of a creature" is natural selection. I NEVER would say
that! NS isn't about the life or death of individuals it is about
a "significant difference in the relative reproductive success" of
different PHENOTYPES, all else being equal.

> Why, then, all the
> unintelligible nonsense?

What I said was perfectly intelligible. You are simply lying about what
I said.

> This is what happens when God is eliminated
> as Creator of species. Why is our Evolutionist unable to make natural
> selection simple and intelligible? Again, this is what happens when
> Intelligence is not involved: nonsense ensues ( or unintelligence,
> which is the main characteristic of natural selection).
>

What about the phrase "significant difference in the reproductive success
of alternative phenotypes" that you don't understand? A 'phenotype'
is any visible or detectable trait. 'Alternative' means that the traits are
mutually exclusive (you cannot be both agouti and black; you cannot be
both 6' tall and 5'2" tall). 'Reproductive success' is a measurable feature
of a population. 'Significant difference' has meaning in science.
Which of those terms do you not understand?

>
> "I tried once or twice to explain to able men what I meant by natural
> selection, but signally failed" (C. Darwin, Autobio:124).
>
>
>
> If death of a creature ("selection pressure" to use a modern
> euphemism) is all natural selection is, why, then, were these
> scientists unable to understand?

Because, you i***t, the death of any single creature is irrelevant
and is NOT any normal person's definition of NS.

Does that mean that you understand that because NS involves the relative reproductive
success of two or more alternative phenotypes in a specified environment and understand
that if trait x decreases by 10%, the alternative trait(s) not-x must increase by
an equivalent %?

>
> > It is easier to control variables in the lab.
>
> >
>
>
>
> The answer is because natural selection is not readily seen in the
> wild. If it were both Greg and Howard would not have said "the lab."
> One must take their word for it: natural selection is seen in their
> labs, that is, private buildings that the public cannot enter.

Take a publicly offered genetics lab course. There you will likely do
some selection experiments with bacteria, or yeast, or some other
organism. The public is sometimes invited into labs or into field research
which is also a place where ecological research involving selection is
often done. But all their research is published. Are you claiming that
scientists have been systematically manufacturing data for more than
100 years? That there is a generations long conspiracy among scientists?

> Darwin
> admitted that his insight into natural selection came when he was
> reading----"for amusement"----Malthus on Population, and not when he
> was outdoors observing nature.
>

So?

No, the opposite of chance alone is cause, not design. You get a significant
difference from chance due to *cause*. That *cause* need not be a designer.
There are natural *causal* agents.

> > > > Variation in a trait is a necessary but not sufficient condition for there
> > > > to be NS. Heritability of the trait to some extent (it need not be completely
> > > > heritable) is only necessary for NS to have evolutionary consequences. You
> > > > will have "significant differential reproduction" of the traits 'able-to-run-
> > > > from-bear'' and 'not-able-to-run' regardless of whether the 'not-able-to-run' trait
> > > > is due to genetic defect, accident leg break, or your mother taking thalidomide.
>
> >
>
> > > > Only the first (genetic defect) reason has evolutionary consequences.
>
> >
>
> > > Unintelligible nonsense.
>
> >
>
> > Really? �What do you not understand? �The idea above is quite simple.

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

> http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2575
>

Repeating this does not tell me what it is that you do not understand about the
simple idea that I described.

>
> "I have heard by round about channel that Herschel says my Book 'is
> the law of higgledy-pigglety'. What this exactly means I do not know,
> but it is evidently very contemptuous. If true this is great blow &
> discouragement" (Letter: C. Darwin to C. Lyell; December 1859).
>
>
>
> Herschel was a scientist that all scientists respected.
>

[snip your other brainless and unthinkingly mindless copy of the above]

No. NS is true only when the conditions of its definition are actually met.
That means you cannot assume it has occurred or will occur, you have to actually
and empirically determine that NS has occurred.

[Ray Martinez]

In other words, natural selection is a wad of inferences. It is not
directly seen anywhere (my only point).

> > > And, for the case of male guppy tail color and length there are 'natural' experiments
> > > based on whether the guppies exist in a pond with few or many predators. �Ditto
> > > for simple melanic camouflage (how well individuals match their background).
> > > Ditto fro the change in beak size in the Galapagos finches dependent on the
> > > environment (drought selects for thicker, shorter beaks; more rainfall selects
> > > for thinner, longer beaks) -- all the better to match the changes in food
> > > resources (thick latge seeds or small less thick ones).
>
> > > Moreover, we have examples of frequency-dependent NS in any number of
> > > organisms in nature. �For example, self-sterility markers in plants that
> > > encourage out-breeding. �The presence of two male morphs (small,
> > > sneaky maters vs. large harem holders).
>
> > > And, of course, if you (being part of nature yourself) treat your lawn with fertilizer,
> > > herbicide, or insecticides, you are doing so for the express purpose of introducing
> > > a "selective bias" to affect the number of dandelions (or whatever) present. �You
> > > are also, inadvertently, selecting for resistance to those toxins.
>
> > Incomprehensible nonsense. Since Howard shows no signs of sobering up,
> > let me interpret: When a dog eats a fly that has been buzzing around
> > his or her snoot the same is natural selection.
>
> That is NOT what I said. �You are lying about what I said. �I *specifically*
> require a significant difference in a population. �It is not possible to
> identify whether NS occurs from a single individual.
>

We have been told repeatedly by other Evolutionists that when an
animal is eaten by another the same is bare bones natural selection.
Howard's response, seen directly above, supports a claim that any
given Evolutionist does not understand natural selection either.

So, according to Howard, he was not advocating what others advocate on
a routine basis. My interpretation of Howard's comments were wrong.
Yet he calls me a liar. In other words, I understood exactly what
Howard was saying but chose to misrepresent him deliberately. Yet very
recently I have INITIATED and admitted that I do not understand
natural selection, which confirms years of accusations by
Evolutionists here at Talk.Origins. Since I have posted evidence
showing that even scientists did not understand natural selection, I
don't feel the least bit inferior (so Howard has jumped to a false
conclusion concerning bearing false witness).

> > Death of a creature,
> > in other words, is natural selection!
>
> Why are you lying about what I said? �I NEVER said that the
> "death of a creature" is natural selection. �I NEVER would say
> that! �NS isn't about the life or death of individuals it is about
> a "significant difference in the relative reproductive success" of
> different PHENOTYPES, all else being equal.
>

Addressed above.

> > Why, then, all the
> > unintelligible nonsense?
>
> What I said was perfectly intelligible. �You are simply lying about what
> I said.
>

Addressed above.

> > This is what happens when God is eliminated
> > as Creator of species. Why is our Evolutionist unable to make natural
> > selection simple and intelligible? Again, this is what happens when

> > Intelligence is not involved: nonsense ensues (or unintelligence,

> > which is the main characteristic of natural selection).
>
> What about the phrase "significant difference in the reproductive success
> of alternative phenotypes" that you don't understand?

Direct question, direct answer: Since you have said, in a different
message, that natural selection is differential reproduction, and that
alone, which in response I said the same must be true since I've seen
other scholars who have said the exact same thing; and now you're
saying natural selection is "significant difference in the
reproductive success of alternative phenotypes," you must be saying
the former and the latter to be exactly synonymous, which means I
probably had a false conception of differential reproduction, which
explains why I don't understand.

I've just scanned some websites that explain differential
reproduction. I don't understand. But neither did certain scientists
whom Darwin tutored personally. The concept is basically
incomprehensible until your mind has been initiated into Materialism.
I'm a Paleyan IDist.

Moving on....

http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/be2.shtml

"In a very real sense, natural selection is the driving force behind
the evolutionary process as we currently understand it. The concept
has its roots in the idea of the survival of the fittest, which states
that those organisms that are best adapted to their environment are
those that are most likely to survive. In other words, the organisms
most capable of existing in a given environment will tend to outlive
those that are less capable or surviving in the same environment."

Within the philosophy and logic of the proposition no other conclusion
can be reached. Therefore the claim is pointless and not falsifiable.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIENaturalSelection.shtml

"If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you
will have evolution by natural selection as an outcome. It is as
simple as that."

Good evidence supporting the claim that natural selection is true by
definition (something Howard does not deny, unlike Greg Guarino and
other evos).

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

If that is a "wad of inferences", everything is a "wad of inferences".

> It is not
> directly seen anywhere (my only point).

By any reasonable meaning of the term "directly seen", natural selection
is directly seen. That seeing requires inferences does not alter that
fact.

>
>>>> And, for the case of male guppy tail color and length there are 'natural' experiments
>>>> based on whether the guppies exist in a pond with few or many predators. Ditto
>>>> for simple melanic camouflage (how well individuals match their background).
>>>> Ditto fro the change in beak size in the Galapagos finches dependent on the
>>>> environment (drought selects for thicker, shorter beaks; more rainfall selects
>>>> for thinner, longer beaks) -- all the better to match the changes in food
>>>> resources (thick latge seeds or small less thick ones).
>>
>>>> Moreover, we have examples of frequency-dependent NS in any number of
>>>> organisms in nature. For example, self-sterility markers in plants that
>>>> encourage out-breeding. The presence of two male morphs (small,
>>>> sneaky maters vs. large harem holders).
>>
>>>> And, of course, if you (being part of nature yourself) treat your lawn with fertilizer,
>>>> herbicide, or insecticides, you are doing so for the express purpose of introducing
>>>> a "selective bias" to affect the number of dandelions (or whatever) present. You
>>>> are also, inadvertently, selecting for resistance to those toxins.
>>
>>> Incomprehensible nonsense. Since Howard shows no signs of sobering up,
>>> let me interpret: When a dog eats a fly that has been buzzing around
>>> his or her snoot the same is natural selection.
>>
>> That is NOT what I said. You are lying about what I said. I *specifically*
>> require a significant difference in a population. It is not possible to
>> identify whether NS occurs from a single individual.
>>
>
> We have been told repeatedly by other Evolutionists that when an
> animal is eaten by another the same is bare bones natural selection.

No, Ray. What you've been told repeatedly is that is PART of natural
selection, not the whole thing.

> Howard's response, seen directly above, supports a claim that any
> given Evolutionist does not understand natural selection either.

Actually, it just supports the fact that you tend to lie about others.

>
> So, according to Howard, he was not advocating what others advocate on
> a routine basis.

No, Howard was stating that you were wrong, not anyone else was wrong.

> My interpretation of Howard's comments were wrong.

And you lied about what Howard wrote.

> Yet he calls me a liar.

Because you lied.

> In other words, I understood exactly what
> Howard was saying but chose to misrepresent him deliberately.

Yes, that's what you did.

> Yet very
> recently I have INITIATED and admitted that I do not understand
> natural selection,

Which is most likely a lie as well.

> which confirms years of accusations by
> Evolutionists here at Talk.Origins.

You've been confirmed as a liar for years as well.

> Since I have posted evidence
> showing that even scientists did not understand natural selection, I
> don't feel the least bit inferior (so Howard has jumped to a false
> conclusion concerning bearing false witness).

Out of context quotations are not evidence, Ray. Whether or not you
"feel" inferior, the fact remains that you *are* intellectually
inferior. Your lying is another matter entirely.

>
>>> Death of a creature,
>>> in other words, is natural selection!
>>
>> Why are you lying about what I said? I NEVER said that the
>> "death of a creature" is natural selection. I NEVER would say
>> that! NS isn't about the life or death of individuals it is about
>> a "significant difference in the relative reproductive success" of
>> different PHENOTYPES, all else being equal.
>>
>
> Addressed above.

Running away is not addressing, Ray.

>
>>> Why, then, all the
>>> unintelligible nonsense?
>>
>> What I said was perfectly intelligible. You are simply lying about what
>> I said.
>>
>
> Addressed above.

Running away is not addressing.

>
>>> This is what happens when God is eliminated
>>> as Creator of species. Why is our Evolutionist unable to make natural
>>> selection simple and intelligible? Again, this is what happens when
>>> Intelligence is not involved: nonsense ensues (or unintelligence,
>>> which is the main characteristic of natural selection).
>>
>> What about the phrase "significant difference in the reproductive success
>> of alternative phenotypes" that you don't understand?
>
> Direct question, direct answer: Since you have said, in a different
> message, that natural selection is differential reproduction, and that
> alone, which in response I said the same must be true since I've seen
> other scholars who have said the exact same thing; and now you're
> saying natural selection is "significant difference in the
> reproductive success of alternative phenotypes," you must be saying
> the former and the latter to be exactly synonymous,

Actually, they are fairly similar, not exact synonyms.

> which means I
> probably had a false conception of differential reproduction, which
> explains why I don't understand.

Your crippling inability to grasp logic may have something to do with it
as well...

>
> I've just scanned some websites that explain differential
> reproduction. I don't understand.

<sarcasm> that's a surprise </sarcasm>

> But neither did certain scientists
> whom Darwin tutored personally.

Darwin never said he "tutored" any scientist. He said he discussed it.
You have no idea how in depth Darwin got, or what objections those
scientists had. Again, basing your whole argument on an out of context
quote is just silly.

> The concept is basically
> incomprehensible until your mind has been initiated into Materialism.
> I'm a Paleyan IDist.

Paley himself accepted the same kind of "materialism" that Darwin used
in explaining natural selection. You simply are refusing to admit that
you've been in error all this time.




>
> Moving on....

i.e running away...

>
> http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/be2.shtml
>
> "In a very real sense, natural selection is the driving force behind
> the evolutionary process as we currently understand it. The concept
> has its roots in the idea of the survival of the fittest, which states
> that those organisms that are best adapted to their environment are
> those that are most likely to survive. In other words, the organisms
> most capable of existing in a given environment will tend to outlive
> those that are less capable or surviving in the same environment."
>
> Within the philosophy and logic of the proposition no other conclusion
> can be reached. Therefore the claim is pointless and not falsifiable.

It would be falsified if every variant had an equal chance of
reproducing. If organisms that weren't well adapted to the environment
survived better, that would falsify the proposition.

As usual, your claim is false.

>
> http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIENaturalSelection.shtml
>
> "If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you
> will have evolution by natural selection as an outcome. It is as
> simple as that."
>
> Good evidence supporting the claim that natural selection is true by
> definition (something Howard does not deny, unlike Greg Guarino and
> other evos).

Noting in the above indicates that natural selection is true by
definition. It's contingent on particular factors being in place. You
must have variation, you must have inheritance, and you must have
differential reproductive success. Lose any of those, and natural
selection isn't going to happen.


snip more of what Ray runs away from


DJT

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

I do believe you've finally said something interesting here:

> No, not really. Differences are not substantial. Fully grown rabbits,
> in any given population, possess the same advantages (speed, eyesight,
> dexterity, etc.etc.).

Now first, do you really feel qualified to make a statement like that?
I'm pretty ignorant about rabbits myself, and I suspect you are not
significantly better informed. Moreover, some of the potentially
"selectable" traits would be things like a slightly longer femur or an
altered enzyme. But that's not what I found so interesting.

> I see equality----that's why the species
> continues amongst diversity.

There it is! You see, that's sounds like something a scientist might
say. Where diversity persists for a long time, the trait in question
must not be under strong selection. If it were, as you seem to
realize, the less-advantageous trait would dwindle, as the rabbits
that possess that trait contribute fewer offspring to future
generations.

Now of course a single "snapshot" of the species taken at one time
cannot show this. Brown fur and white fur could be equally
represented, but one could be declining and the other increasing. But
if we did a study over time and found that the numbers stayed
consistent, we would conclude that neither variation conferred a
significant advantage over the other; we would see "equality" as you
might put it.

But my point is that even in denying the existence of Natural
Selection, you have stumbled on the logic of it, which *given the
extant conditions* is hard to escape. If the white rabbits die off
before reproducing (the reason doesn't matter - bad camouflage,
pregnancy tests, Grace Slick with a rifle, whatever) and the brown
rabbits thrive, future generations will have more and more brown
rabbits. The only way for diversity to continue is for "fur color" to
be of neutral advantage, "equality", or nearly so.

> > And that those traits will tend to accumulate in future
> > populations as the result of the better reproductive "success" of
> > those that possess those traits?
>
> Name species that diverged from rabbits? Where do you see these
> traits?

Dana posted elsewhere the many many varieties of rabbits that have
diverged from a common ancestor, which rabbit ignoramuses like us (OK,
I'm assuming in your case) would likely have recognized as rabbit-
like.

> > > The result of this would be the formation of new
> > > species."
>
> > > How does destruction result in the formation of new species?
>
> > By "variations" Darwin means "traits" rather than creatures. We would
> > expect future populations to possess a mix of the traits that were
> > "preserved", and fewer and fewer of the traits that were "destroyed".
> > A new species is a species that has been altered from its previous
> > characteristics. "Preserving" some traits and "destroying" others
> > accomplishes that.
>
> So preserving and destroying are two sides of a coin? Since these
> concepts are basically antonyms, the claim, for me, is hard to grasp.
>

Yes, I've noticed that about you. It's always about antonyms; there's
only one Venn Diagram for the whole world, and everything falls into
one category or the other. But this is a puzzling one. When a cat eats
a bird, is that preserving the life of the cat, or destroying the life
of the bird? I say both. When the Steelers beat the Giants (dammit)
the other day, should I have been confused that two sides of the coin
(winning and losing) occurred in the same event?

Were I to write Origin of Species, I do not think I would have chosen
the word "destroyed" to express that idea. I think that in modern
language something like "lost" would be more accurate. But "two sides
of the coin" always applies when the comparison is a relative one.
What we are interested in is the "relative" success of different
"phenotypes" like brown fur vs. white fur. One can only have an
advantage with respect to the other if the other has a corresponding
relative disadvantage.

>
> > But let's address (what I think is) your understanding of the passage.
> > It is in fact the creatures that survive that form the new species,
> > passing on the traits that allowed them to out-survive and out-
> > reproduce their peers. Those that die off fail to pass on their
> > heritable traits.
>
> > > Conceptually, the logic says death results in life. Sound logic says
> > > life results in life.
>
> > There's that same problem Ray. You "conceptualize" rather than study
> > the details. Life does indeed result in life; it is - as I mentioned
> > above - the "winners", the "survivors", the "thrivers" and most
> > importantly those that get the most offspring to survive in the next
> > generation that shape the future. Natural Selection in any case does
> > not "result in life", it is among the mechanisms that alters the
> > characteristics of a population over time.
>
> "Life does indeed result in life....Natural Selection in any case does
> not 'result in life'...." (Greg Guarino).

It's a particularly weak brand of quote-mining that puts the altered
quote within an inch of the original. Natural selection alters the
characteristics of populations over time. Each life descends from
another, but the types of "life" that have the most reproductive
success shape future generations.

> See why I'm confused?

I think I do.

[Dana Tweedy]

That doesn't follow, Ray. Darwin did not like the term, but used it
because it was popular. Darwin was not the sole 'architect' of the
theory of evolution, and other scientists of his time contributed.

>
>> And only in the 5th and later additions of the 'Origin', after
>> Spencer had used the phrase to describe 'natural selection'.
>
> He did so because natural selection was being "misunderstood" and
> rejected based on said "misunderstanding." And earlier you said
> natural selection is quite easy to understand.

It is quite easy to understand. The reason it was originally not fully
accepted was the problem of heredity. Before the discovery of discrete
genes, natural selection was thought to be susceptible to being
overwhelmed by blending inheritance.

> Now we have more
> evidence that it was not easy to understand (and remains in that
> condition).

Again, your "evidence" is nothing more than your own bizarre imagination.

> I have offered an explanation as to why natural selection
> is "misunderstood."

an explanation that is as bizarre as it is unsupported.

> The scientific minds of the Dawrin era had NOT
> been initiated into Materialism.

Nor have any scientists been "initiated" into "Materialism".
Scientists, then, as now made use of methodological naturalism as
necessary. There wasn't any initiation into philosophical materialism.

> The paradigm of science, before
> Darwin published, was Paley's Natural Theology.

"Natural Theology" was never a paradigm of science, it was always a
religious belief.

>
> Previous evidence supporting my argument:
>
> "I tried once or twice to explain to able men what I meant by natural
> selection, but signally failed" (C. Darwin, Autobio:124).
>
> http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2575

This is, of course, and out of context quotation, that doesn't support
your claims.

>
> "I have heard by round about channel that Herschel says my Book 'is
> the law of higgledy-pigglety'. What this exactly means I do not know,
> but it is evidently very contemptuous. If true this is great blow &
> discouragement" (Letter: C. Darwin to C. Lyell; December 1859).
>
> Herschel was a scientist that all scientists respected.

Still no support for your claim.

>
>> And he also
>> qualified it in an entire book on sexual selection as well as several pages
>> of commentary in the "Origin". So, in his *description* of NS, he clearly
>> understood it to be more than a blindingly ignorant literalistic 'survival of
>> the fittest'. Instead, he used is as a 'metaphor' (a word Biblical literalists
>> and fundamentalists have a hard time understanding) for 'better
>> adapted to the immediate local environment'.
>>
>
> Darwin adopted the phrase because he thought it captured the idea or
> concept of natural selection.

Evidence for that assertion, please. And do make that evidence
something other than out of context quotes, or your own fantasies.

> He thought it would promote quicker and
> better understanding. The point being, again, is that natural
> selection was not easily understood.

Natural selection is easily understood by anyone who cares to study it.

>
> Your concerns, as seen in your comments above, is with literalism. We
> are told that scientific explication, unlike the Bible, is to be
> understood literally.

Science is an entirely different enterprise from myth building. The
creation stories in the Bible were meant to be taken as non scientific
legendary accounts. There was no expectation that the stories would
provide testable, or falsifiable rigor like science does.

> Do the fittest survive? Yes: variations that
> procure an advantage are preserved. So your paranoia about literalism
> is unfounded and bizarre.

Howard did not express any paranoia. The "fittest" are those who are
best fit with their environmental conditions. It's not always the
strongest, or biggest, or meanest.

>
> What is equally strange is the fact that I do understand the face
> value meaning of "survival of the fittest." Whatever survives was and
> is the fittest.

No, that's not what it means. Whatever survives were more likely to
have specific traits that were better suited to the environment. That
isn't true of all of the population.

> Within the philosophy and logic of the proposition the
> truth of the proposition is always guaranteed.

No, it's not. Sometimes none of the population survives, and the
population goes extinct.

> And you admitted as
> much when you admitted that natural selection is true by definition.

Howard never "admitted" any such thing.

> For who could deny that the best adapted will survive (and thus breed)
> since the best adapted do survive and breed?

Who could deny? You, Ray. The best adapted are more likely to survive
and breed, but sometimes "best adapted" isn't adapted enough, and the
population goes extinct. Natural selection is not true by definition,
it's true by contingent facts.

>
>>> According to a vast majority of scholars, the theory of (how)
>>> evolution (occurs) remains Darwinian. According to Gould 2002 the same
>>> has only needed slight or light modification since Darwin lived.
>>
>> And, if you understand that the phrase 'survival of the fittest' was
>> NEVER used by Darwin in the stupidly literalistic way you imply,
>> and that it is RARELY used by modern biologists (who prefer the
>> definition I have used), then you might have a clue. Otherwise you
>> don't have a clue.
>>
>>> Ray
>
> Ray

And Howard is correct, you don't have a clue.


DJT
>

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

On Nov 6, 4:57 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> When a dog eats a fly that has been buzzing around
> his or her snoot the same is natural selection. Death of a creature,
> in other words, is natural selection!

It is not.

In fact, even if a thousand dogs ate a million flies, it might not be
Natural Selection, at least not the type that we are discussing. I'll
leave it to Howard to tell us if I'm wrong here. I'm not sufficiently
knowledgeable about how flies reproduce, so I'm going to change the
example.

If a cat eats a bird, is that natural selection?

No. Not in itself.

If every cat eats a bird every day, is that Natural Selection?

No. Not in itself.

If cats regularly eat sparrows with longer tails in greater numbers
than sparrows with shorter tails, is that Natural Selection?

Yes, *if* predation by cats is a significant factor in the
reproductive success of sparrows. If sparrows reproduce equally
regardless of tail length, tail length is not a trait under
selection.

One death is not Natural Selection. Many deaths is not (necessarily)
Natural Selection. Consistently greater rates of premature death in
one phenotype of some population as compared with another is (one type
of) Natural Selection.

[hersheyh]

On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 9:02:53 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 6, 4:22 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, November 6, 2012 4:57:54 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 6, 9:07 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > On Monday, November 5, 2012 4:47:56 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > > On Nov 5, 11:37 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > > > On Friday, November 2, 2012 8:53:05 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > > > > On Oct 31, 3:53 pm, "g...@risky-biz.com" <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > > > > > On Oct 31, 3:58 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

[snip]

>
> > You asked how you would identify NS in your lawn or the woods.  To do so, you would have
> > to identify a *population* of organisms, identify phenotypic variation, and follow the fates
> > (on a useful metric of reproductive success) of those populations between conception and reproduction.
> > You can do this with any variable trait.  That requires following a population for at least one generation.
> > I gave you some examples.  Look at a region which has both agouti and melanic mice in a desert with
> > brown sand and in a desert with black sand.

> In other words, natural selection is a wad of inferences. It is not
> directly seen anywhere (my only point).

You seem to have a very strange definition of "seen". In your world,
processes cannot be "seen", only objects can be "seen". NS is a process.
That means there is a time element. By your definition of "seen", one
cannot see that the length of day and night change over the course of
a year (in the temperate zones) because you cannot see anything other
than either day or night when you look outside.

> > > > And, for the case of male guppy tail color and length there are 'natural' experiments
>
> > > > based on whether the guppies exist in a pond with few or many predators.  Ditto
>
> > > > for simple melanic camouflage (how well individuals match their background).
>
> > > > Ditto fro the change in beak size in the Galapagos finches dependent on the
>
> > > > environment (drought selects for thicker, shorter beaks; more rainfall selects
>
> > > > for thinner, longer beaks) -- all the better to match the changes in food
>
> > > > resources (thick latge seeds or small less thick ones).
>
> >
>
> > > > Moreover, we have examples of frequency-dependent NS in any number of
>
> > > > organisms in nature.  For example, self-sterility markers in plants that
>
> > > > encourage out-breeding.  The presence of two male morphs (small,
>
> > > > sneaky maters vs. large harem holders).
>
> >
>
> > > > And, of course, if you (being part of nature yourself) treat your lawn with fertilizer,
>
> > > > herbicide, or insecticides, you are doing so for the express purpose of introducing
>
> > > > a "selective bias" to affect the number of dandelions (or whatever) present.  You
>
> > > > are also, inadvertently, selecting for resistance to those toxins.
>
> >
>
> > > Incomprehensible nonsense. Since Howard shows no signs of sobering up,
> > > let me interpret: When a dog eats a fly that has been buzzing around
> > > his or her snoot the same is natural selection.

> > That is NOT what I said.  You are lying about what I said.  I *specifically*
> > require a significant difference in a population.  It is not possible to
> > identify whether NS occurs from a single individual.
>

I also specifically pointed out that NS requires a difference in phenotype.
But perhaps I am being hasty in saying you are 'lying'. Perhaps you have
a mental defect like the man who mistook his wife for a hatrack. I specifically
present a definition that states that there must be a significant difference
related to alternate phenotypes and you see "a dog eats a fly".

I can help you. There is this little tool called "cut and paste".
You seem to be able to use it. Rather than misinterpret my
words so you can argue against things I do not say, cut and
paste my actual words and argue against what I actually do
say. Keep in mind that sometimes, like anyone else, I use
shorter definitions that leave out some of the details. For
example, I might say NS is "differential reproductive success"
as a short-cut to saying "significant differential reproductive
success of alternative phenotypes in a local environment".

> We have been told repeatedly by other Evolutionists that when an
> animal is eaten by another the same is bare bones natural selection.

One will likely find that any quote that says the above is followed by
more words that describe or discuss that they are talking about
"significant differential reproductive success of alternative phenotypes
in a local environment". I doubt that you will find a legitimate
science textbook that includes the above that doesn't further
describe it.

> Howard's response, seen directly above, supports a claim that any
> given Evolutionist does not understand natural selection either.

You will have to cite the source of whoever you think said the above
and nothing more.

> So, according to Howard, he was not advocating what others advocate on
> a routine basis. My interpretation of Howard's comments were wrong.

Indeed they were. They were FALSE, as in NOT TRUE. Whether that is
from intentional lying or massive selective perception of the sort described
as a man who mistook his wife for a hatrack. So distorted that one
suspects the person of either lying or being seriously mentally ill.

> Yet he calls me a liar. In other words, I understood exactly what
> Howard was saying but chose to misrepresent him deliberately.

I concede that you could be seriously mentally ill and unable to read
for comprehension. Again, you should recognize this problem and
not try to rephrase what I say. Use cut and paste.

> Yet very
> recently I have INITIATED and admitted that I do not understand
> natural selection, which confirms years of accusations by
> Evolutionists here at Talk.Origins.

You are not 'accused' of being unable to understand NS. We are simply
pointing out an obvious fact. Ignorance is not a crime. Willful ignorance
is either due to perception illnesses (like the man who mistook his wife
for a hatrack), self-deception (lying to oneself), or lying to others.

> Since I have posted evidence
> showing that even scientists did not understand natural selection, I
> don't feel the least bit inferior (so Howard has jumped to a false
> conclusion concerning bearing false witness).

No. You have pointed out that there were, in Darwin's time, scientists who
did not understand that NS could lead to change over time. Some, perhaps,
even denied the existence of variation within species at that time. None had
a modern understanding of genetics.

>
> > > Death of a creature,
> > > in other words, is natural selection!

> > Why are you lying about what I said?  I NEVER said that the
> > "death of a creature" is natural selection.  I NEVER would say
> > that!  NS isn't about the life or death of individuals it is about
> > a "significant difference in the relative reproductive success" of
> > different PHENOTYPES, all else being equal.

> Addressed above.

The fact remains that you intentionally put words in my (metaphorical
since I wrote rather than spoke them) mouth that I not only did not
say, but never would say. *If* you had said that
your understanding of what I did say (NS is a significant difference

in the relative reproductive success" of different PHENOTYPES, all

else being equal) is that any death of a creature is NS, that would
not be putting words in my mouth. It would then be obvious that
your interpretation was wrong and I would point out all that was
wrong with your interpretation. But instead you put words in my
mouth that were utterly false and not true.

> > > Why, then, all the
> > > unintelligible nonsense?
>
> >
>
> > What I said was perfectly intelligible.  You are simply lying about what
> > I said.
>

Again, I will concede that you could be mentally ill with a severe problem
with perceptional distortion and failure of reading comprehension rather
than intentionally lying.

> Addressed above.
>
>
>
> > > This is what happens when God is eliminated
> > > as Creator of species. Why is our Evolutionist unable to make natural
> > > selection simple and intelligible? Again, this is what happens when
> > > Intelligence is not involved: nonsense ensues (or unintelligence,
> > > which is the main characteristic of natural selection).
>

Well, you seem to think that NS is an object that can be seen rather than a
process that can be observed over time. Recognizing that NS is not an
object but a process (and processes can be observed) would be a start.

>
> > What about the phrase "significant difference in the reproductive success
> > of alternative phenotypes" that you don't understand?

>
> Direct question, direct answer: Since you have said, in a different
> message, that natural selection is differential reproduction, and that
> alone, which in response I said the same must be true since I've seen
> other scholars who have said the exact same thing; and now you're
> saying natural selection is "significant difference in the
> reproductive success of alternative phenotypes," you must be saying
> the former and the latter to be exactly synonymous,

No, the former phrase is meant to be a shorter version of the latter, leaving
some of the details out. That is hardly unusual. But in a NUMBER of places
I clarified what I meant. You apparently completely ignored all that and
simply focused on the literalistic meaning of the shortened phrase.

> which means I
> probably had a false conception of differential reproduction, which
> explains why I don't understand.

Again, that is because you have the creationist metaphor-deficiency syndrome.
You focus on a simple phrase and do not remember the surrounding
explanation of that simple phrase.

> I've just scanned some websites that explain differential
>
> reproduction. I don't understand. But neither did certain scientists
> whom Darwin tutored personally. The concept is basically
> incomprehensible until your mind has been initiated into Materialism.
>

Do you attribute the change from day to night to Apollo's chariot
moving across the sky or do you attribute it to the Materialistic
idea that it is due to the rotation of the earth relative to the position
of the sun? Do you attribute the fact that your car didn't start to
magic and call upon a priest to exorcise the demons or do you
attribute it to the Materialistic idea that the battery died because
you left the lights on and call AAA? Materialism in biology is
not any different than the materialism you use in your daily life.

> I'm a Paleyan IDist.
>
>
>
> Moving on....
>
>
>
> http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/be2.shtml
>
>
>
> "In a very real sense, natural selection is the driving force behind
> the evolutionary process as we currently understand it. The concept
> has its roots in the idea of the survival of the fittest, which states
> that those organisms that are best adapted to their environment are
> those that are most likely to survive. In other words, the organisms
> most capable of existing in a given environment will tend to outlive
> those that are less capable or surviving in the same environment."
>

I notice that you did not read or comment on the following paragraphs.
I presume you did not read them. And I agree that the *roots* of ideas
about NS arose from ideas about 'survival' and the consequences of
differential survival. But right from the start, Darwin knew about and
wrote about other ways for NS to occur -- specifically sexual selection.

He eventually chose 'survival of the fittest' over NS in later editions in
part due to counter the idea that 'selection' implied a 'selector' like
occurs in artificial selection rather than being merely a causal consequence
of the interaction of different phenotypes with the local environment.

Again, the difference is between *chance* and *cause*, not chance and
*design*. Design is cause due to the action of a designer and is a
subset of cause. But unless one has independent evidence of a designer,
all one can say is that a significant difference from chance is due to
cause.

> Within the philosophy and logic of the proposition no other conclusion
> can be reached. Therefore the claim is pointless and not falsifiable.
>
>
>
> http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIENaturalSelection.shtml
>
>
>
> "If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you
> will have evolution by natural selection as an outcome. It is as
> simple as that."

And if you have variation and heredity and no significant differential
reproduction, you do not have natural selection. It is as simple as

that.

> Good evidence supporting the claim that natural selection is true by
> definition (something Howard does not deny, unlike Greg Guarino and
> other evos).
>

No. I do say that NS does indeed have a definition. And when all the
conditions for NS are met, we have what was defined as NS. And
I said that variation is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for
there to be NS and that heredity (that causally affects the variation)
is a necessary condition for the evolutionary consequence of NS. But
that the *definition* of NS is a significant difference in the relative

reproductive success of different PHENOTYPES, all else being equal.


>

> Ray
>
>
>
> > A 'phenotype'
> > is any visible or detectable trait.  'Alternative' means that the traits are
> > mutually exclusive (you cannot be both agouti and black; you cannot be
> > both 6' tall and 5'2" tall).  'Reproductive success' is a measurable feature
> > of a population.  'Significant difference' has meaning in science.
> > Which of those terms do you not understand?
>

>[snip]

[Ray Martinez]

On Nov 7, 8:47 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[big snip....]

>
> Again, the difference is between *chance* and *cause*, not chance and
> *design*.  Design is cause due to the action of a designer and is a
> subset of cause.  But unless one has independent evidence of a designer,
> all one can say is that a significant difference from chance is due to
> cause.
>

If you don't mind, I would really like to know what you're talking
about here?

What's the difference between chance and cause?

And what does this sentence mean: "Design is cause due to the action
of a designer and is a subset of cause"?

And this sentence: "But unless one has independent evidence of a

designer, all one can say is that a significant difference from chance

is due to cause"?

Ray

[hersheyh]

On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 9:47:49 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 7, 8:47�am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> [big snip....]
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Again, the difference is between *chance* and *cause*, not chance and
> > *design*. �Design is cause due to the action of a designer and is a
> > subset of cause. �But unless one has independent evidence of a designer,
> > all one can say is that a significant difference from chance is due to
> > cause.
>
> >
>
>
>
> If you don't mind, I would really like to know what you're talking
> about here?
>
>
>
> What's the difference between chance and cause?
>

Let's take dice as an example. If you have an honest pair of dice (and an
untrained or blind tosser since I understand that a trained tosser can
bias the results), one can predict, as a matter of statistical chance, that
*about* 1/6 of the time you will have a 6. But, of course, that does not
mean that you will get a 6 *exactly* 1/6th of the time. Only that you
will get a normal distribution that is *close* to 1/6 of the total. If you
flip the die 1000 times, you can predict that 95% of the time, you will
get a result somewhere between (roughly) two standard deviations of
the mean expectation of 167 (rounded up).

However, what if 6 comes up much more often than would be the case
with an honest pair of dice? Say half the time rather than 1/6. In that
case we would say that something is *causing* the die to come up 6
significantly more often than would be the case if chance alone were
working. We would say that there was some *causal* reason for the
die to come up 6 more often than would reasonably happen by chance.

At this point we do not know what the *cause* for the die coming up
more frequently than expected by chance is. It is possible that the
*cause* is that the die is 'loaded' so that 6 comes up more often. It
is also possible that the *cause* is that the die was tossed by a
trained tosser so that it comes up 6 more often. Or it could be some
combination of both *causes*.

In this case, one *cause* of the extra 6's is due, not to some inherent
feature of the die, but due to intelligent *design* (a trained tosser,
an agent that intentionally biases the results).

A loaded die could be due to intention as well, but it could also be
an unintentional result of uneven mass distribution in the material
the die was made of.

One can distinguish between these possibilities by experimentation.
But doing so would only identify the *causal* reason for the
non-chance result (i.e., cause is still the opposite of chance)
by distinguishing between a cause that is independent of who
tosses the die (independent of intelligent agency) or a cause
that is dependent on who tosses the die (result is dependent
on an intelligent agent).

> And what does this sentence mean: "Design is cause due to the action
> of a designer and is a subset of cause"?
>
>
>
> And this sentence: "But unless one has independent evidence of a
> designer, all one can say is that a significant difference from chance
> is due to cause"?
>

See above. Design by an intelligent agency (trained tossing) is a subset
of possible causes for getting a biased result in die tossing. Natural
bias in weighting of the die is another possible cause (as is intentional
bias in weighting of the die). Experimentation is required to discriminate
between these possible *causes* for a biased result.

All this can easily be found in any statistics course. But, of course, you
are probably a complete innumerate when it comes to statistics.
>
> Ray

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 08:29:26 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by hersheyh
<hers...@yahoo.com>:

....and a bit fuzzy when it comes to English comprehension;
your original statements were quite clear.

Good explanation, BTW.
--

Bob C.

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

- McNameless

[Greg Guarino]

On 11/7/2012 9:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> And this sentence: "But unless one has independent evidence of a
> designer, all one can say is that a significant difference from chance
> is due to cause"?

I'll take a stab at this one.

Every fall the leaves in my aunt's back yard pile up in one particular
nook at the back wall of her house. There aren't any trees near that
spot; but they always seem to end up there.

Chance would seem to predict a less concentrated arrangement, and a
different arrangement each year. As that's not what happens, we might
wonder about the cause.

The cause could of course be a human being who rakes the leaves into
that spot for reasons of his own. That kind of cause we might call
"design" - the act of a conscious agent.

Or more likely, the prevailing winds and the geometry of the house and
the structures around it favor the leaves landing repeatedly in that
particular spot. Perhaps that spot is also a calmer location, where the
leaves, once deposited, tend to stay. We would not refer to that kind of
cause as design, even though it produces a result that does not seem
random to us.

[Kermit]

On 2 Nov, 16:58, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 5:13 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > If [bacteria] moved up, down, or sideways on the Great Bush of Being it would
> > disprove evolution.
>
> > [...]
> > Your claim is false. Speciation has been observed.
>
> Wrong.  That's the only available proof for evolution,

No, it's not (one error). And science doesn't deal with proofs (two
errors), but rather testable models that explain the data. Some
classes of evidence besides observed speciation includes:
nested hierarchy of morphology,
nested hierarchy of genomes,
fossil record stratification indicating change over time of species
from ancient forms to modern,
expectations derived from understanding genetics (if conditions were
such that fossilization did not occur,we would still expect
evolution).

> and has never been observed.

Yes, it has (three errors).

> ---------
> True, in the same way that a chihuahua is a different species from a
> Great Dane; i.e., they're not.
>

Nobody has claimed that (four errors). In fact, biologists pretty
universally consider them to be wolves. But they are wolves that have
evolved, under human selective pressure.

We, of course, are still fish.

> "Evo scholars maintain inference infinitely more reliable than
> observation." ~ Ray Martinez, species immutabilist

If you quote Ray because you claim he is saying something true, this
is a fifth error. Biologists do not claim this. However, inference is
the only way of making sense on the whole from the world around us. A
baby who learns that crying in a certain way will get her fed has
*inferred something true.

Deduction is far less often applicable. Ray has decided - as many
black-and-white thinkers have - that uncertainty means useless or even
false. Despite having built a world map, a gestalt, almost entirely of
inference (and non sequitors), he claims that inference is somehow at
odds with observation, and somehow inferior to deduction. I will be
generous and count the confused mess this all implies and call it a
sixth error.

Six false things in four sentences. Not a TO record, but not bad.

kermit

[Burkhard]

Biologist may not, theorists of science do. And biologists really
should. When I was at school, I often "observed" the most classic
experiments in mechanics, chemistry etc fail. But of course I did not
get any Nobel prices for changing the face of physics, I was told that
with theories as strongly confirmed, and as connected with other
theories we have reasons to believe in, concluding that somehow my
observation was faulty, the equipment damaged etc was the obvious
conclusion. We judge if individual observations are reliable (also)
against our best theories.
Nor is this specific to science. When someone tells you they just
observed a pink elephant walking down Princes Street in Edinburgh, you
don't discard your theories about how the world works, your net of
inferences (the theories you accept) tell you that this is not bloody
likely (totally the wrong season for pink elephants in Scotland) and
you dismiss the claimed observation as drug induced.

We "observe" through senses, and we know our sense can be subject to
error. Well established theories provide such an error checking
facility

[Ray Martinez]

Kermit, remember I can support everything I say and claim via
evolution scholars----everything. You, on the other hand, cannot.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

So your claims are rooted in statistics, thus said terms retain
specialized or stipulated meanings.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Howard: Some of your evo brothers (here are Talk.Origins) claim that
natural selection and speciation can be and have been seen directly as
these allegedly occur. This is the context of the dispute concerning
observation and inference. In response I told these evos that their
claims are beyond absurd----that no evo scholar has ever said any such
thing. In fact, they've all said the exact opposite. In response one
of your evo brothers posted a few quotes that have the scholar saying
X is observed. In response I said these quotes were written under the
basic assumption that the reader understands that when the term
"observation" is used the same means "by inference."

Just thought you should know.

You couldn't relate or convey my claim/argument accurately with a gun
to your head.

And I readily admit that I do not understand natural selection because
the claim is unintelligible nonsense, the phenomenon does not exist in
nature.

My argument says the evo mind is deluded by Materialism----that's why
they fail to understand natural selection as nonsense.

So yes, one party is, in fact, "seriously mentally ill" (Howard
Hershey).

> > Yet he calls me a liar. In other words, I understood exactly what
> > Howard was saying but chose to misrepresent him deliberately.
>
> I concede that you could be seriously mentally ill and unable to read
> for comprehension.  Again, you should recognize this problem and
> not try to rephrase what I say.  Use cut and paste.
>
> > Yet very
> > recently I have INITIATED and admitted that I do not understand
> > natural selection, which confirms years of accusations by
> > Evolutionists here at Talk.Origins.
>
> You are not 'accused' of being unable to understand NS.  We are simply
> pointing out an obvious fact.  Ignorance is not a crime.  Willful ignorance
> is either due to perception illnesses (like the man who mistook his wife
> for a hatrack), self-deception (lying to oneself), or lying to others.
>

Suddenly you too have augmented your view of me: now I choose not to
understand, as opposed to not understanding or incapable of
understanding. The augmentation is caused by my new argument unveiled
recently in several topics (including this one).

> > Since I have posted evidence
> > showing that even scientists did not understand natural selection, I
> > don't feel the least bit inferior (so Howard has jumped to a false
> > conclusion concerning bearing false witness).
>
> No.  You have pointed out that there were, in Darwin's time, scientists who
> did not understand that NS could lead to change over time.  Some, perhaps,
> even denied the existence of variation within species at that time.  None had
> a modern understanding of genetics.
>

Most everything written after "No" contradicts "No."

>
>
> > > > Death of a creature,
> > > > in other words, is natural selection!
> > > Why are you lying about what I said? I NEVER said that the
> > > "death of a creature" is natural selection. I NEVER would say
> > > that! NS isn't about the life or death of individuals it is about
> > > a "significant difference in the relative reproductive success" of
> > > different PHENOTYPES, all else being equal.
> > Addressed above.
>
> The fact remains that you intentionally put words in my (metaphorical
> since I wrote rather than spoke them) mouth that I not only did not
> say, but never would say.  *If* you had said that
> your understanding of what I did say (NS is a significant difference
> in the relative reproductive success" of  different PHENOTYPES, all
> else being equal) is that any death of a creature is NS, that would
> not be putting words in my mouth.  It would then be obvious that
> your interpretation was wrong and I would point out all that was
> wrong with your interpretation.  But instead you put words in my
> mouth that were utterly false and not true.
>

Not true (as explained above).

> > > > Why, then, all the
> > > > unintelligible nonsense?
>
> > > What I said was perfectly intelligible. You are simply lying about what
> > > I said.
>
> Again, I will concede that you could be mentally ill with a severe problem
> with perceptional distortion and failure of reading comprehension rather
> than intentionally lying.
>

Your explications of natural selection are utterly unintelligible.
Don't feel bad or take it personally, so are Darwin's, Greg Guarino's
and Alan Kleinman's.

The concept only exists in the evo imagination, not in nature or the
wild. Since it is not seen, and since it is an "explanatory
mechanism" (Douglas Theobald) my claims have the upperhand.

> > Addressed above.
>
> > > > This is what happens when God is eliminated
> > > > as Creator of species. Why is our Evolutionist unable to make natural
> > > > selection simple and intelligible? Again, this is what happens when
> > > > Intelligence is not involved: nonsense ensues (or unintelligence,
> > > > which is the main characteristic of natural selection).
>
> Well, you seem to think that NS is an object that can be seen rather than a
> process that can be observed over time.

No, I've always called it a phenomenon or process. And before I ran
into the Theobald quote I always said it was an explanation of
evidence, or a short list of truisms explained to act as a mechanism.

> Recognizing that NS is not an
> object but a process (and processes can be observed) would be a start.
>

In this case: "inferred from observations" (Ernst Mayr).

>
>
> > > What about the phrase "significant difference in the reproductive success
> > > of alternative phenotypes" that you don't understand?
>
> > Direct question, direct answer: Since you have said, in a different
> > message, that natural selection is differential reproduction, and that
> > alone, which in response I said the same must be true since I've seen
> > other scholars who have said the exact same thing; and now you're
> > saying natural selection is "significant difference in the
> > reproductive success of alternative phenotypes," you must be saying
> > the former and the latter to be exactly synonymous,
>
> No, the former phrase is meant to be a shorter version of the latter, leaving
> some of the details out.

Everything written after "No" contradicts "No." Or you have suddenly
forgotten the meaning of "synonymous."

> That is hardly unusual.  But in a NUMBER of places
> I clarified what I meant.  You apparently completely ignored all that and
> simply focused on the literalistic meaning of the shortened phrase.
>

Your clarifications are unintelligible in my understanding. I've
explained why.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Howard wrote the sentence that you are stabbing at. He says it is
rooted in statistics. Only he can say if you got it right.

Moving on....

Greg: You couldn't relate or convey my argument in this topic; neither
could you relate or convey the basic claims of Victorian Creationism.
So your claim concerning me is undermined.

Ray

[hersheyh]

No. My claim is rooted in the basic meaning and non-specialized
meaning of *chance*, *cause*, and *design*.

Perhaps you are one of the people who rejects the idea of "chance"
and think everything that happens is "design". Of course, then, by
such a definition *everything* that happens, including rolling a 6
1/6th of the time, is due to "design". And "design" includes
both "cause" and "chance".
>
> Ray

[hersheyh]

As do I. But by "seen", I also include time-related observation of process and
not just something that can be "seen" in the absence of time. A process
that specifically is about *change* over time can only be "seen" over time.

> This is the context of the dispute concerning
> observation and inference. In response I told these evos that their
> claims are beyond absurd----that no evo scholar has ever said any such
> thing. In fact, they've all said the exact opposite. In response one
> of your evo brothers posted a few quotes that have the scholar saying
> X is observed. In response I said these quotes were written under the
> basic assumption that the reader understands that when the term
> "observation" is used the same means "by inference."
>

I am not using "inference". I am using "inductive" observation rather
than scholastic "deductive" logic to reach a conclusion. I have defined
the observational features by which NS can be determined to exist or
not exist and given you examples where NS can be determined to have
occurred. I could also give you examples of similar observation that
show no evidence of NS.

You're presenting an actual argument? It doesn't show.

> And I readily admit that I do not understand natural selection because
> the claim is unintelligible nonsense, the phenomenon does not exist in
> nature.
>

So you keep asserting without any evidence. That is not an argument. It
is a claim of personal ignorance and unwillingness to learn. And I agree.
You either do not understand NS or you are lying. Unless you do understand
NS, you can make no serious claim that the "phenomenon does not exist
in nature". The two assertions are mutally exclusive. Ignorance or inability
to understand something *means* you have no ability to claim that some
phenomenon does not exist in nature. If I say that I don't understand atomic
theory and then claim that therefore there are no atoms in nature, I am
just being egocentrically arrogant as well as ignorant.

And you are doing a piss poor job of it. All you are saying is "I am ignorant
of what biologists mean when they say that natural selection occurs. Therefore
it doesn't occur in nature." That is the same argument that says "I am ignorant
and don't understand how a plane can fly. Therefore planes can't fly." So, Ray,
please keep on telling us "I am ignorant of what NS is. Therefore it doesn't
exist in nature." and keep claiming that this is an intelligent argument.

>
> So yes, one party is, in fact, "seriously mentally ill" (Howard
> Hershey).
>

Unlike someone who claims that because he cannot understand (and
refuses to learn) x, therefore x does not exist in nature?

> > > Yet he calls me a liar. In other words, I understood exactly what
> > > Howard was saying but chose to misrepresent him deliberately.
>
> > I concede that you could be seriously mentally ill and unable to read
> > for comprehension.  Again, you should recognize this problem and
> > not try to rephrase what I say.  Use cut and paste.
>
> >
>
> > > Yet very
>
> > > recently I have INITIATED and admitted that I do not understand
>
> > > natural selection, which confirms years of accusations by
>
> > > Evolutionists here at Talk.Origins.
>
> >
>
> > You are not 'accused' of being unable to understand NS.  We are simply
>
> > pointing out an obvious fact.  Ignorance is not a crime.  Willful ignorance
>
> > is either due to perception illnesses (like the man who mistook his wife
>
> > for a hatrack), self-deception (lying to oneself), or lying to others.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Suddenly you too have augmented your view of me: now I choose not to
> understand, as opposed to not understanding or incapable of
> understanding. The augmentation is caused by my new argument unveiled
> recently in several topics (including this one).
>

Well, in the sense that ignorance is better than stupidity, it is better to attribute
your inability to understand NS to ignorance than stupidity. There is a cure
for ignorance, namely learning. If it really is impossible for you to learn, then
we will have no choice but to attribute your continued inability to stupidity.

>
> > > Since I have posted evidence
> > > showing that even scientists did not understand natural selection, I
> > > don't feel the least bit inferior (so Howard has jumped to a false
> > > conclusion concerning bearing false witness).
>
> >
>
> > No.  You have pointed out that there were, in Darwin's time, scientists who
> > did not understand that NS could lead to change over time.  Some, perhaps,
> > even denied the existence of variation within species at that time.  None had
> > a modern understanding of genetics.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Most everything written after "No" contradicts "No."

Some is not all.

> > > > > Death of a creature,
> > > > > in other words, is natural selection!

> > > > Why are you lying about what I said? I NEVER said that the
>
> > > > "death of a creature" is natural selection. I NEVER would say
>
> > > > that! NS isn't about the life or death of individuals it is about
>
> > > > a "significant difference in the relative reproductive success" of
>
> > > > different PHENOTYPES, all else being equal.
>
> > > Addressed above.
>
> >
>
> > The fact remains that you intentionally put words in my (metaphorical
>
> > since I wrote rather than spoke them) mouth that I not only did not
>
> > say, but never would say.  *If* you had said that
>
> > your understanding of what I did say (NS is a significant difference
>
> > in the relative reproductive success" of  different PHENOTYPES, all
>
> > else being equal) is that any death of a creature is NS, that would
>
> > not be putting words in my mouth.  It would then be obvious that
>
> > your interpretation was wrong and I would point out all that was
>
> > wrong with your interpretation.  But instead you put words in my
>
> > mouth that were utterly false and not true.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Not true (as explained above).

Well, again. I guess I could attribute your putting your
false words in my mouth to stupidity.

> > > > > Why, then, all the
>
> > > > > unintelligible nonsense?
>
> >
>
> > > > What I said was perfectly intelligible. You are simply lying about what
>
> > > > I said.
>
> >
>
> > Again, I will concede that you could be mentally ill with a severe problem
>
> > with perceptional distortion and failure of reading comprehension rather
>
> > than intentionally lying.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Your explications of natural selection are utterly unintelligible.
> Don't feel bad or take it personally, so are Darwin's, Greg Guarino's
> and Alan Kleinman's.
>
>
>
> The concept only exists in the evo imagination, not in nature or the
> wild. Since it is not seen, and since it is an "explanatory
> mechanism" (Douglas Theobald) my claims have the upperhand.

Bullshit. I have *explicitly* given you examples of natural selection
observed. You do not refute them. You simply ignore them. That
is selective perception. I have pointed out exactly how one goes
about demonstrating NS in the wild. You simply ignore it and
keep making the same ignorant assertion as if you had your
fingers in your ears and were yelling "La. La. La." all the time.

>
> > > Addressed above.
>
> >
>
> > > > > This is what happens when God is eliminated
>
> > > > > as Creator of species. Why is our Evolutionist unable to make natural
>
> > > > > selection simple and intelligible? Again, this is what happens when
>
> > > > > Intelligence is not involved: nonsense ensues (or unintelligence,
>
> > > > > which is the main characteristic of natural selection).
>
> >
>
> > Well, you seem to think that NS is an object that can be seen rather than a
>
> > process that can be observed over time.
>
>
>
> No, I've always called it a phenomenon or process. And before I ran
> into the Theobald quote I always said it was an explanation of
> evidence, or a short list of truisms explained to act as a mechanism.
>

And I have pointed out why it is not a truism and can give you examples
of NS not occurring.

>
> > Recognizing that NS is not an
> > object but a process (and processes can be observed) would be a start.
>
> >
>
>
>
> In this case: "inferred from observations" (Ernst Mayr).

Everything we know about nature is "inferred from observations" of some sort.
Your claim must be either that there is no possible set of observations that
can be called 'natural selection' or no possible set of observations that cannot
be called 'natural selection'. In the first case, natural selection simply cannot
be seen in nature. In the second case, everything is natural selection. Neither
is a scientifically interesting statement. For NS to be scientifically useful, there
must be sets of observations where NS occurs *and* sets of observations where
there is no NS. I defined the sets of conditions when there is NS as well as the
sets of conditions where NS does not occur.

> > > > What about the phrase "significant difference in the reproductive success
> > > > of alternative phenotypes" that you don't understand?
>
> >
>
> > > Direct question, direct answer: Since you have said, in a different
>
> > > message, that natural selection is differential reproduction, and that
>
> > > alone, which in response I said the same must be true since I've seen
>
> > > other scholars who have said the exact same thing; and now you're
>
> > > saying natural selection is "significant difference in the
>
> > > reproductive success of alternative phenotypes," you must be saying
>
> > > the former and the latter to be exactly synonymous,
>
> >
>
> > No, the former phrase is meant to be a shorter version of the latter, leaving
>
> > some of the details out.
>
>
>
> Everything written after "No" contradicts "No." Or you have suddenly
> forgotten the meaning of "synonymous."
>

It is a unidirectional "synonymous'. That is, there are ways in which the shorter
definition is inadequate and can be, by itself, misleading. Only *if* one knows
that the shorter definition *means* exactly the same as the longer definition are
the two synonymous. One cannot replace the longer definition with the shorter one
unless you accept the longer meaning. That is where "survival of the fittest" fails.
As a short phrase meaning "significant differential reproductive success of alternative
traits in a local environment" it is correct. Parsed by itself it fails as an adequate
definition.

>
> > That is hardly unusual.  But in a NUMBER of places
>
> > I clarified what I meant.  You apparently completely ignored all that and
>
> > simply focused on the literalistic meaning of the shortened phrase.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Your clarifications are unintelligible in my understanding. I've
> explained why.
>

Yes. I understand that you claim ignorance (or stupidity). That makes you
uniquely under-qualified to claim that NS does not exist in nature.
>
> Ray

[hersheyh]

On Friday, November 9, 2012 3:57:43 PM UTC-5, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 8, 10:37�am, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 11/7/2012 9:46 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > And this sentence: "But unless one has independent evidence of a
>
> > > designer, all one can say is that a significant difference from chance
>
> > > is due to cause"?
>
> >
>
> > I'll take a stab at this one.
>
> >
>
> > Every fall the leaves in my aunt's back yard pile up in one particular
>
> > nook at the back wall of her house. There aren't any trees near that
>
> > spot; but they always seem to end up there.
>
> >
>
> > Chance would seem to predict a less concentrated arrangement, and a
>
> > different arrangement each year. As that's not what happens, we might
>
> > wonder about the cause.
>
> >
>
> > The cause could of course be a human being who rakes the leaves into
>
> > that spot for reasons of his own. That kind of cause we might call
>
> > "design" - the act of a conscious agent.
>
> >
>
> > Or more likely, the prevailing winds and the geometry of the house and
>
> > the structures around it favor the leaves landing repeatedly in that
>
> > particular spot. Perhaps that spot is also a calmer location, where the
>
> > leaves, once deposited, tend to stay. We would not refer to that kind of
>
> > cause as design, even though it produces a result that does not seem
>
> > random to us.
>
>
>
> Howard wrote the sentence that you are stabbing at. He says it is
> rooted in statistics. Only he can say if you got it right.
>

Greg's example is pretty good. I would say that one would expect,
with only a minor understanding of the nature of gravity, that, in
the absence of some *causal* agency, the leaves that fall from a
tree would be found distributed around the base of that tree. What
we observe is something quite different. Ergo, there is some
*causal* agency that produces the observation of leaves in a
corner of the yard away from the trees. We do not know whether
that *causal* agency is due to *design* (an individual(s) with a rake
or leaf blower) or due to a natural causal agency (the wind).
Ergo, *design* is a subset of *causal* agency and differs from
*chance* (which in this case would produce leaves staying exactly
where they fell).
Perhaps, if one observes over time, one will "see" which *causal* agency is
involved in this process in this case.

[In this case we might *infer* or *hypothesize* that the agent was
the wind by knowledge about what the wind does as opposed to
human agents. If the leaves are piled on a tarp, I would go one
way. If the leaves were mostly piled in a corner, I might go with
the other.]

[Ray Martinez]

Howard: I won't have the time to respond until Monday or Tuesday. But
you can count on a response. Your message contains false claims and
contradictions.

Until then, have a nice weekend.

Ray

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

Don't know what you're referring to here. Feel free to respond to any
of my recent posts directly - point by point would be best - at your
leisure.

[Dana Tweedy]

You've never supported your claim with anything, ever.

> You, on the other hand, cannot.

I provided support for the fact that scientists state that evolution can
be observed directly, and you tried to dismiss it with some silly claim
that "by inference" was implied. Then you ran away.


DJT

[hersheyh]

Let's see.

Synonym:
1: one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses
2 : a word or phrase that by association is held to embody something (as a concept or quality) <a tyrant whose name has become a synonym for oppression>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/synonym?show=0&t=1352656516

Note that the definition does NOT mean ABSOLUTELY identical. I was pointing
out some of the 'technical' *differences* between the various phrases that are used
to describe NS and giving you a relatively short definition which is much more
accurate and complete than the simpler phrases.

The phrase "survival of the fittest" is synonymous with modern understanding
of NS only in the sense of the 2nd definition. It is a phrase that *by association*
is held to embody something (a concept or quality) *without* being the same thing.
E.g., a 'named tyrant (say Idi Amin)' is not exactly identical to the meaning of
'oppression'. He is an example of oppression, but not the very same thing.

The FACT is that NS is not about individual "animals" or "organisms" and their fates.
It is about alternative traits (phenotypes) in a population and their causal fates due
to their interaction with the environment (all else being equal).

> > It is a unidirectional "synonymous'. �That is, there are ways in which the shorter
> > definition is inadequate and can be, by itself, misleading. �Only *if* one knows
> > that the shorter definition *means* exactly the same as the longer definition are
> > the two synonymous. �One cannot replace the longer definition with the shorter one
> > unless you accept the longer meaning. �That is where "survival of the fittest" fails.
> > As a short phrase meaning "significant differential reproductive success of alternative
> > traits in a local environment" it is correct. �Parsed by itself it fails as an adequate
> > definition.
>
> >
>
> > > > That is hardly unusual. But in a NUMBER of places
> > > > I clarified what I meant. You apparently completely ignored all that and
> > > > simply focused on the literalistic meaning of the shortened phrase.
>
> >
>
> > > Your clarifications are unintelligible in my understanding. I've
> > > explained why.

No. You have simply asserted that they are unintelligible to *you* without
explaining why they are. They may well be unintelligible to *you*. They
may forever be unintelligible to *you*. I am not limited by your limited
capacity to understand something.

> > Yes. �I understand that you claim ignorance (or stupidity).

[about what NS really means in modern biology] �

> > That makes you
> > uniquely under-qualified to claim that NS does not exist in nature.

[snip]

> Howard: I won't have the time to respond until Monday or Tuesday. But
> you can count on a response. Your message contains false claims and
> contradictions.
>

I have claimed, specifically, that someone who claims not to understand
NS and then asserts that his personal inability (or even that of some others
even if they are contemporaries of Darwin) means that NS does not exist
in nature is conflating his personal ignorance (or stupidity) with reality.

Such a person is effectively claiming that because he personally does not
understand (or 'see') atoms or molecules, they don't exist. That
because he doesn't understand how an airplane (or a bumblebee) flies that
they can't fly. That because he believes he can walk out a 20th story window
without harm because God will protect him means that he will not go splat.
Ignorance about empirical reality is not evidence that that empirical reality
does not exist.

I am not limited by your ignorance of NS. Even if you keep quoting the fact
that a few 19th century scientists had problems with Darwin's ideas. Other
19th century scientists did not have those problems. Modern biologists have
absolutely no difficulty in understanding NS. I am not constrained
by your attempts to interpret metaphorical phrases as literal tautologies.
I understand the difference between defining a concept in a testable way
and tautology. You don't.

> Until then, have a nice weekend.
>

I will.
>
> Ray

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

On Nov 9, 11:47�am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> When I was at school, I often "observed" the most classic
> experiments in mechanics, chemistry etc fail. But of course I did not
> get any Nobel prices for changing the face of physics, I was told that
> with theories as strongly confirmed, and as connected with other
> theories we have reasons to believe in, concluding that somehow my
> observation was faulty, the equipment damaged etc was the obvious
> conclusion.

Week 1 assignment, Chem Lab, 1979: Determination of Avogadro's number
via the "oil drop" method.

By my "observation", Avogadro's number was in the 10^18 range, at
least in the '70s. With inflation, I hear the mole is up around 10^23.
Damn free-spending liberals.