TableOfContents
random natural selection[]
JerryAdler , SeedMagazine
adsf[]
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/2feef56c7bedd98c/#
Dave Scott from http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-response-to-father-jonathan-at-fox-news/ replies to http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184953,00.html
Foxnews priest Jonathan: "..No reasonable person denies that life forms can evolve, but it’s quite different to say that through purely random natural selection one species evolves into another to the point of reaching human intelligence..."
Note that Jonathan uses "random natural Selection", but Coyne at http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070618&s=coyne061807 said:"...Humans, the product of non-random natural selection, are the biological equivalent of a 747, and in some ways they are even more complex....." Who's pragmatics with natural selection must I refer to when talking about the NS - the random or non-random intent?
Dave Scott replies: "....Since we can observe in living tissue that random mutation + natural selection is capable of causing descent with modification today...." What was Dave Scott's intent with natural selection in this quote: random or non-random?
Jonathan states: "...They are being taught a very unscientific theory called Neo-Darwinism, the belief that there is NO purpose or intelligence behind life forms, that it’s all random..." But on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Modern_evolutionary_synthesis#Modern_synthesisis_is_not_defined I quoted a journal stating that it is not defined: "There is no canonical definition of neo-Darwinism, and surprisingly few writers on the subject seem to consider it necessary to spell out precisely what it is that they are discussing. This is especially curious in view of the controversy which dogs the theory, for one might have thought that a first step towards resolving the dispute over its status would be to decide upon a generally acceptable definition over it. ... Of course, the lack of firm definition does, as we shall see, make the theory much easier to defend." P.T. Saunders & M.W. Ho, "Is Neo-Darwinism Falsifiable? - And Does It Matter?", Nature and System (1982) 4:179-196, p. 179.
If Neo-Darwinims or the "Modern synthesis" as it is called today is not defined then according to who's belief is there no purpose behind life forms?
http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2006_06_24_archive.html "....Taylor believed that evolution occurs, and he also believed that random natural selection played a role in evolution. However, he came to doubt Darwinism, the idea that random natural selection and a few other naturalistic processes explain the life we see around us...." Gordon Rattray Taylor was Chief Science Advisor to BBC Television. If he talks about "Random Natural Selection", John Harshman and Dawkins talks about "Non-random Natural Selection" but Darwin never "randomed" anything in OriginSpecies then whos's intent with Natural Selection is Taylor, Dawkins and Harshman communicating? Its obvious that we are dealing here with a structural ambiguity.
Cathy posts on: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/yet-another-feather-in-natural-selections-cap-what-hasnt-it-accomplished/#comment-29307 "...Creating a mutation to prove what random natural selection is capable of doing is contradictory....
Dave Scott replies: "...Sometimes it’s difficult or impossible to do this and that’s the bane of the study of evolution in the distant past...." We are told that Evolution = RM + NS. Who's version of evolution is Scott referring to in his reply to Cathy?
At http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?s=832502d3bf6727b0f00bf3b7277ba4fc&p=4793725&postcount=14 Espritch says:"...But evolution is an undirected process....." His intent is that evolution is a random process. What would Espritch intent be with Random(ev) = Random(mut) + NS ? It could be Random(ev) = random + non-random or it could be Random(ev) = random + random.
And the whole pragmatics surrounding this term Evolution = RM+NS is what the linguists addressed here: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0210c&L=linguist&P=6328 "...Now it is considered as a result that while mutation is random, natural selection is non-random. ?!...But what does this mean?.... The issue of 'random evolution' is left untouched by this revised terminology. You can't have you cake and eat it too....."
Noam Chomsky says that natural selection can't explain where language came from. Of course it can't - natural selection doesn't exist.
Sandiago.com[]
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20051222-0727-science-evolution.html
"...The journal's editor in chief, Don Kennedy, acknowledged this was a reference to the rise of the theory of intelligent design, which holds that some aspects of nature are so complex that they must be the work of an unnamed creator rather than the result of random natural selection, as Darwin argued...." Darwin never said natural selection is random.
"..Kennedy said Science picked evolution as the year's biggest breakthrough in part because it was a "hot topic," but stressed there was a wealth of research that justified the choice...."
Who's version of evolution was the biggest breakthrough - random or non-random?
asdfas f[]
DarwinMisquotedOnWikipedia {{{ Rolf wrote: > Now, if you would be kind and try to explain to us your personal > interpretation of the term Natural Selection? .
As I have pointed out there is no such thing as natural selection. The phrase was coined by 1859. In contrast "common ancestor", love, rock, bird is as old as mankind itself. The key insight is that an individual by the name of Charles Darwin coined the phrase a 150 years ago and this individual was trying to communicate some sort of intent. He is dead and we can't ask him what was his intent. But whatever the intent was you can't arbitrarily concatenate these two words "Natural" and "selection" to form the phrase "natural selection" - it is grammatical gargoyle. Especially if you look at the only definition Darwin gave for the phrase: "...I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection...."
which as pointed out here http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/9dcb8542a766e33b/aafde145140fc70f#aafde145140fc70f was fraudulently misquoted by the natural selection article on Wikipedia.
So Darwin was referring to some "principle" which seems very close to the ancient principle of pantheism and nature worship or invoking nature as a cause in and of itself. The bible says there is nothing new under the sun.
Berlinski notes that "... if natural selection as a concept is destroyed then nothing at all remains of evolution..." Because natural selection is the mechanism. But nothing got naturaled and nobody did any selectings - there is no such thing as a "natural selection". This is entirely a point of logic, you will simply have to use your common sense and logic to try and reverse years of repetitive brainwashing wether YEC, ID or atheist as the mass media and universities chant like a zombie:"natural, natural we all got naturaled.....". We are dealing here with the most unbelievable form of mind control. Imagine a KGB torture chamber where the agent repeats the same phrase over and over and over again: "You got naturaled". This brainwashing starts out with young tots in the public schools, destroying our society and the mental health of Ken Ham, Richard Dawkins and Dembski. }}}
asdfadf[]
{{{ On Sep 23, 4:01 pm, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote: > Broadly and for the purpose of practical argument, and in terms of > DNA, mutation is random, but mutation is a disruption of the process > of replication of DNA, and often consists of a duplication of DNA but > in the wrong place. So "Mary had lamb little a" is a more likely > mutation than "Mary had a qwerty uiop".
No, Darwin didn't know about DNA or genes, you need to discuss Darwin's pragmatics with natural selection since he coined the phrase and we are told what a genius this man was who could do no calculus.
> Selection is not random: it is selective. It is the compound effect > of many individual events - consider all of the dog vs. cat encounters > in the "Tom and Jerry" cartoons - in which one or the other may get > the upper hand on any given occasion, but overall there is a trend.
What has Tom and Jerry got to do with the Irreducibly interdependently complex control algorithms that keeps the short beak and long beak finch stable in flight?
Is your intent with random "purposelessness"? Prof. Herrmann calls randomness a "strong delusion" - http://www.serve.com/herrmann/random.htm The Abuses of Randomness: My Almost Final Thoughts on this Subject http://www.serve.com/herrmann/random1.htm Kac, M. (1983) Marginalia. What is random?, American Scientist 71(4):405-406 }}}
asdf[]
{{{ On Sep 23, 10:30 pm, Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote: > _Natural selection_ is, in the part that matters > most for evolution explaining speciation, > "non-random" fitness based reproductive success, > where "fitness" refers to the phenotype engendered > by that variation-inheriting genotype.
"...Reproductive success....." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_success Question: If cows were meant to produce beer instead of milk would they still be a "success"?
"Reproductive success" means what? "You have a green light" means what? In both sentences RS and "you have a green light" means absolutely nothing without knowing the intent of the individual formulating the sentence. You have missed the Perry Marshall thread: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/3dce2afb3339cfc2/c5d0c7e1fa95611b#c5d0c7e1fa95611b
Marshall said: "....All languages contain grammar. If I say the "car is red". Is the car red - that is syntax. Semantics would be "Did he steal that car" but by changing the accent the semantics changes. Intent: You have a green light. It could mean you are holding a green light bulb. Or you have a green light to drive your car. Two completely different meanings based on intent. Intent changed but syntax and semantics, grammar didn't change...."
If you were to post "You have a green light" on this forum, you would not even be wrong until I know your intent. It could be that your intent is that somebody is holding a green light in his hand or somebody has the Ok for a project. In the same manner until I know your intent with "Reproductive success" you are not even wrong. On Wikipedia it states:"....Reproductive success is defined as the passing of genes onto the next generation in a way that they too can pass those genes on...."
And until Wikipedia and everybody using this phrase "reproductive success" tells me who defined it and what was this person's intent - nobody is even wrong. And I am not stating "... you are not even wrong..." as some sort of mantra. This is literally the only position one can take if you pick up a blank piece of paper on which somebody wrote:"...You have a green light.." Without know who is this person and what was his intent the sentence literally is not even wrong. Intent Mr. Dolan - intent what is your intent with Reproductive success? }}}
post 30[]
{{{ On Sep 24, 1:18 am, Robert Carnegie <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote: > Curiously, I supposed that you would be interested in what "natural > selection" is considered to mean now, and not in the 19th century. > The precise meanings of technical terms may be revised - for instance > "oxidation". The fundamental specifications of metric systems also > may be substituted, such as the meter.
The defintion of IC can change but intent Behe had of the *interdependence* between algorithms and mechanical parts can't or his theory would be unfalsifiable. Words and its definitions are used to communicate intent. A word such as "selection" had a very specific intent before Darwin muck-up the English language - the word has become undefined and we are being robbed of a word that we have used to communicate the intent of *always* conscious goal directed *selection*. I even had to use the word *selection* in that sentence because well mmmh that is what *selection* means. We are essential dealing with materialists engaging in language relativism. Because given their premises the very words that they use are not available to them, they therefore can't even begin to motivate why they believe there is no God. So instead they are making language undefined. }}}
kayakers[]
{{{ On Sep 24, 6:04 pm, Kent Paul Dolan <xanth...@well.com> wrote: > > Why would you want to call branches in this > > context a sieve?
> Because they sieve things, as was clearly explained, > with examples.
No, tree branches on rivers don' t "sieve" kayakers. It all depends on your intent with "sieve". His intent could have been to invoke the tree branches with some sort of consciousness to "sieve" the kayakers. I have never heard of anybody using "sieve" in such context in lets say popular works, fiction, novels and such. You evolutionists have no idea of what you are trying to say. All you know is that there is no God. You can certainly state your case and argue as to why there is no conscious being separate from its creation but then a word like *selection* is not available to you when talking about rocks, frogs and tigers because nobody *selected* for these objects of nature - this is your premise. }}}
Post 41 Huxley intent[]
HuxleyPragmatics On Sep 24, 7:19 pm, Kent Paul Dolan > >>> Why would you want to call branches in this > >>> context a sieve? > >> Because they sieve things, as was clearly explained, > >> with examples.
No, they don't "sieve" things. The branches have no intent, motive or will to sieve. The branches is a pattern not a design. And calling it a "sieve" is an entirely arbitrary invention which flows from your confused mind. I say your mind is confused because to you state that selection, choice, preference and making a decision need not imply consciousness. For me to see to Ham, Dawkins, Dembski suffer from this mental health problem over the meaning of the word "decision" is actually terrifying. It is like imagine I am in some sort of giant Scientology mind control experiment where everybody is now in a sense "crazy" because their language is not the same language as my language. I am sane , rational and normal and anybody who thinks that "decision, selection,preference and choice" can be concatenated with the word "natural" is delusional.
http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2007/10/further-thoughts-from-outspoken.html "...Huxley in his presentation of Darwin makes a very critical point. He says that "random" means a mutation in the offspring that we observers could not have predicted from looking at the parents. In short, it means "unexpected" and "surprising," and it is defined purely and strictly in respect of human observers. Huxley's definition, in other words, has zero metaphysical or theological implications. From the mere fact that we human observers cannot predict an event, it is absurd to conclude that the event does not follow a regular pattern. Early human beings could not predict eclipses--so they appeared to happen at random. Yet this did not mean that eclipses did not follow a regular and predictable pattern. For Huxley, "random" simply referred to the limits of our knowledge; it did not mean that the course of evolution was itself random. The course of evolution could be the unfolding of an intelligent design or it could the result of a cosmic law of progress. It is simply bad logic to jump from the Darwin/Huxley concept of random to conclusion that the process of evolution is itself random. People today forget the fact that those who embraced Darwin's theory in the 19th century saw it as scientific proof that progress was built into the universe--after all, if evolution led from microbes to Michelangelo, then who could possibly fail to see that the universe was constantly progressing, and not simply drifting randomly and without direction....."
"..Darwin/Huxley concept of random..." or in other words the intent Darwin/Huxley had with "random". Note that Darwin didn't use the word "random" in OoS. What the author is trying to say below was that Huxley's intent differed from what some people's intent is with "random" today. He motivates that the intent Huxley had with "random" was "unexpected" and "surprising". Wether his conclusion is valid or not doesn't really bother me, just that we should really try and get these words intent, motive, will and pragmatics into the lexicon of these debates or we will still be confusing the semantics with the intent a 100 years from now.
> Perhaps someone should introduce you to the concept > of a "dictionary"???
A dictionary gives us the semantics of the word. The intent though depends on what your motive or will is with the word in the sentence that only you as a free agent can generate. In order to understand your intent we agree that the dictionary definition of "selection" is a choice, preference and goal directed decision. Frogs don't have goals thus they are not a "success" or an "achievement" not even a "differential reproductive achievement" and neither does nature have any goals hence "natural" can't make decisions or implement choices making the correct "selections". I am right and anybody else who differs needs mental help.
Reply to Glenn[]
{{{ Glenn wrote: > How did Darwin modify artificial selection to explain adaptation > through natural selection?
Darwin actually coined the term "artificial selection" in 1859. For thousands of years mankind was oblivious to the fact that they were "artificialing" cows. You will note that the AS quote from Origins is missing on Wikipedia. I have picked up two instances of quote fraud and omission fraud on Wikipedia:
Artificial Selection is not quoted on Wikipedia: "....Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do much by artificial selection, I can see no limit to the amount of change, to the beauty and complexity of the coadaptations between all organic beings, one with another and with their physical conditions of life, which may have been effected in the long course of time through nature's power of selection, that is by the survival of the fittest...."
Natural Selection a crucial part is left out: "I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection...." Wikipedia left out "... man's power of selection..."
There is no such thing as an "artificial decision". One can make a hasty decision or a careless decision but one can never ever make an "artificial" decision. It is just some fool angry with God because his child died a 150 years ago who decided that he ad-hoc arbitrarily is going to concatenate artificial with selection to create a semantic mistake - artificial selection - a linguistic impossibility. }}}
Reply to backspace AND glen[]
{{{ backspace wrote: > Artificial Selection is not quoted on Wikipedia: > "....Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do > much by artificial selection, I can see no limit to the amount of > change, to the beauty and complexity of the coadaptations between all > organic beings, one with another and with their physical conditions of > life, which may have been effected in the long course of time through > nature's power of selection, that is by the survival of the > fittest...."
Notice how Darwin was begging the question with AS: He merely assumes that there is such a thing as AS and then says that because of this "feeble man" (where did he get that from?) can do much by Artificial Selection. It is no wonder that Wikipedia is refusing to quote the only passage in the entire OoS where Darwin uses "artificial selection" only once. And notice how he drags "Survival of the Fittest" into the passage. So when one talks about Darwin's intent with "Natural Selection" you must always discuss it in relation to a) Artificial Selection b) Survival of the Fittest , Strongest , Biggest or Scariest or what ever you want to survive. }}}
Reply post 73[]
{{{
Woland wrote: > On Oct 21, 6:11 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Glenn wrote: > > > How did Darwin modify artificial selection to explain adaptation > > > through natural selection? > > > > Darwin actually coined the term "artificial selection" in 1859. For > > thousands of years mankind was oblivious to the fact that they were > > "artificialing" cows. You will note that the AS quote from Origins is > > missing on Wikipedia. I have picked up two instances of quote fraud > > and omission fraud on Wikipedia: > > > > Artificial Selection is not quoted on Wikipedia: > > "....Slow though the process of selection may be, if feeble man can do > > much by artificial selection, I can see no limit to the amount of > > change, to the beauty and complexity of the coadaptations between all > > organic beings, one with another and with their physical conditions of > > life, which may have been effected in the long course of time through > > nature's power of selection, that is by the survival of the > > fittest...." > > > > Natural Selection a crucial part is left out: > > "I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if > > useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark > > its relation to man's power of selection...." Wikipedia left out > > "... man's power of selection..." > > > > There is no such thing as an "artificial decision". One can make a > > hasty decision or a careless decision but one can never ever make an > > "artificial" decision. It is just some fool angry with God because his > > child died a 150 years ago who decided that he ad-hoc arbitrarily is > > going to concatenate artificial with selection to create a semantic > > mistake - artificial selection - a linguistic impossibility.
> Doesn't matter. Things exist apart from the labels we place on them.
No, they don't: Nothing exists apart from Language that spoke it into existence. I believe Language created matter, you believe matter created language. This is fundamental difference in our world views that influences everything we say and think.
> People have been breeding plants and animals together based on desired > traits for thousands of years. Feel free to call it what you like.
No, we label something or describe something because we communicate our intent. What would be your intent with "artificial". What about selecting for certain dog traits by allowing only certain dogs to mate with other dogs is "artificial" - what are you really trying to say? What is your agenda, world view and metaphysical beliefs concerning this. You know what mine is but what is yours? }}}
post 79 to Wolandd[]
{{{ Woland wrote: > If all humans vanished this Friday all of these things that we have > words for would still exist. It doesn't matter if Allah, Brahma or > baby Jesus originally created them. The labels ( wordy soundy noises) > we place on things ( by things I mean physical obejects and processes, > I do not mean abstract concepts like 'patriotism,' which exist but not > outside of the human brain) are not the thing.
Patriotism existed from before time began in the mind of God himself, since he is language. When Christ confused the languages at the tower of babel he supernaturally made certain that the intent and semantics with "humility", "choice", decision and selection was the exact same concept in every person's mind. Since God gave us the concept of "Selection" no man can change the semantics and intent of the word.
> > > People have been breeding plants and animals together based on desired > > > traits for thousands of years. Feel free to call it what you like.
> > What is your agenda, world view and metaphysical beliefs concerning > > this. You know what mine is but what is yours?
> It's "artificial" ( Stuff that just doesn't happen in the world > without human intervention,you know, as opposed to natural) in that a > person is deciding which dogs will reproduce based on traits that > specific dogs exhibit, for example; I want a big of a dog as possible. > I then go about only breeding the biggest dogs. I am preventing The > dogs from just running around and reproducing with anything they can > get there paws on. Thats what it means. Thats what everyone who has > ever used it means. You disagreeing about the word choice does not > change its existence.
"Artificial Selection" is a single unmotivated term that Darwin plucked out of thin air a 150 years ago. Nobody artificialed anything before 1859. There is nothing new under the sun, man selecting for traits of cows has been going on for thousands of years - there is nothing "artificial" or "bad" or "inferior" about this. Even Dr.Wilkins didn't know this. He told me that "... the concept was in play before Darwin's time...." after I pointed this out to him. What he fails to understand is that I want to know the INTENT with the term, only then can we talk about "concepts". And Darwin didn't tell us his intent! And thus everybody is inventing their own intent and attributing it to Darwin. I am saying that you can't do this without motivating from his book exactly how you derived Darwin's intent with artificial selection.
> I don't have an agenda that I'm aware of. I have no idea what my world > view is. If you need to pigeon-hole people you could put me as a > satellite orbiting eastern Buddhism (not Zen, but certainly not > western either).
Dear Wolan this is exactly my point: You are into Buddism which means Wilkins and Harshman views you as delusional. Yet you Ken Ham, Harshman, Wilkins all "believe" in artificial and natural selection! This is impossible! How could everybody believe in the same thing yet interpret it differently or derive different metaphysical conclusions from it? Because it doesn't exist. This is the option that Ken Ham, Harshman, Wolan and the bunny kissers aren't willing to consider.
And an atheist like Prof.Fodor has come to the same conclusion: How could everybody believe in NS yet their conclusions differ ? Each camp is so busy fighting for his world view that nobody seems to notice that Linguistics takes precedent over your world view, religious beliefs or science. Everything is subject unto language - our language and anything which contradicts the rules of language must be rejected no matter how catchy and pleasing to the ear AS and NS sounds.
TO POST: 94 kermit[]
Organisms respond to their environment what has this got to do with the word "natural" and a goal directed decision? Lets take the Pepperd moth story. http://www.icr.org completely misses the point. Even if the moths were staged and the research a fraud - it doesn't matter. The confusion is one of semantics and intent, specifically the difference between the words "detection" and "selection".
Lets say I walk past a black floor with white marbles on it but I had no original intent of selecting for marbles and just casually walk past, filing the image somewhere in my subconscious mind. Tomorrow somebody looking for marbles wanting to "select" for marbles asks me about marbles and I remember about the visual contrast the previous day that I *detected*. The other person implementing his goal directed decision to select for marbles would have stopped to pick them up had he seen them.
A bird goes out looking for moths to eat. The bird *detects* the white moths, since birds don't have teleological goals towards their higher destiny the correct term to use for the the black moths being eaten is in the *detection* not *selection* sense and certainly nothing got naturaled.
Lets paint a room black and release white and black moths and put a bird inside. Obviously in the same way that I would have *detected* the white marbles a bird would *detect* the white moths first. One can say the bird *selected* for the white moths, but only if we understand that the word
- selection* is used to convey the intent in the "detection" sense.
What has the bird *detecting* white moths inside the room got to do with the word *natural*? What naturaled in this process of *detection*. If this process of detecting a color contrast means something got naturaled then everytime my dog sees a white cat on the lawn and goes ballistic he is also getting naturaled. It is tant-amount to painting a red circle around the arrow.