- 1 Natural as design or pattern
- 2 Wikipedia revisions to natural selection
- 3 get back
- 4 icr on ns metaphor
- 5 notes
- 6 Natural selection and Phlogiston theory
- 7 Is a tautology true by definition?
- 8 Darwin's definitions of Natural Selection
- 9 Darwin on propositions which cannot be disputed
- 10 Natural Selection or Natural Preservation ?
- 11 principle of divergence
- 12 What is the theory of evolution?
- 13 links
Natural as design or pattern
The term 'pattern' does not mean 'random' anymore than natural in natural selection means chance. From the premise of antonymity all semantic objects such as natural, preservation, random etc. can be used to symbolically represent a pattern with a purpose(design) or a pattern without one(pattern).
Erasmus darwin coined 'artificial cultivation' in Zoonomia where Darwin lifted it and used selection as dissimalar term for cultivation or preservation. Artificial selection,preservation is an inversion of logic because it is precisely nature's 'selections', decisions etc. which are artificial and human decisions , preservations, cultivations which are 'natural', the natural effect.
When a materialist use 'natural' he is projecting his premise that all of human thought is merely a subset of natural and thus artificial. YEC consider their thoughts and designs as natural and all metaphorical usage of nature designing,cultivating or preserving as 'artificial' . Depending on the premise two world views have orthogonal meanings with natural and artificial
1) A human went to a party and the hosts expected him to make a choice between tofu and milk. He had a preference for soda, his more 'natural' choice but could not choose it as it was not available. Therefore he made an 'artificial selection' for milk, his more 'natural' choice between tofu and milk. If soda were available he would have made a 'natural selection' for it. He has a preference for soda and would thus make a natural selection or preferential selection for it.
With 1) we have a pattern with a purpose and the term 'artificial selection' was used as metaphor for this concept. Natural selection in this context had nothing to do with the 'natural preservation' or 'unintentional preservation' of those creatures who survived the others in the struggle for life. Dictionaries document the majority usage, in the majority sentences natural would be the metaphor for unintentional or chance. Do not assign any word, term or sentence an actual meaning, we are only dealing with meanings deriving from two conflicting world views - materialism and YEC. Both these world views use the same semantic objects but have different premises.
Darwin meant with natural selection the following: In the malthusian struggle for life the descendants of those who outwitted their competitors for resources gained attributes via this natural(unintentional) means of competitive 'selection' , preservation or cultivation.
The problem with this story is as Prof. Pnyikos on talk.origins pointed out to Howard is that we would be told the exact same thing if the other creature came to dominate his ecological niche and it is thus untestable.
2) I put my hand in a bag with marbles and do a selection at random. This is obviously a design even though it contains the terms random
3) A tornado struck the house, knocking over a bucket with letters, generating a random pattern on the carpet - non-design
4) The painter in Burkhard's video generates random patterns of paint - Design
Therefore the terms random,selection, design,pattern etc. by themselves do not tell you whether the wielder of these tools means a purpose or non-purpose: this is context dependent and premise dependent. The YEC premise of antonymity and the materialist invocation of infinitism.
Wikipedia revisions to natural selection
Below are the various revisions to NS. In each instance replace natural with preferential and selection with decision as with my preferential decision example in this thread. what then could be the actual meaning be of the sentences. some would object and say that selection doesn not mean decision or that decision was not meant. my question is not meant which person
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural_selection&oldid=3400829 22 April 2004 "....The basic concept of natural selection is that environmental conditions (or "nature") determine (or "select") how well particular traits of organisms can serve the survival and reproduction of the organism; organisms lacking these traits might die before reproducing, or be less fecund. As long as environmental conditions remain the same, or similar enough that these traits continue to be adaptive, such traits will become more common within populations. Loss of the species' ecological niche or crowding-out due to population growth can change drastically the adaptive traits required to survive - in such conditions, or in any circumstance where survival is determined by ecology more than by the secondary sexual characteristics, an ecological selection is taking place (this term is used solely to differentiate processes irrelevant to mating, and is of modern usage, having grown up with the field of ecology itself).
Darwin's theory of the evolution of species through natural selection starts from the premise that an organism's traits vary in a non-deterministic way from parent to offspring, a process called "individuation" by Darwin. This theory does not make any specific claims as to how this process works, although more recent scientific discoveries in genetics explain several mechanisms that occur in the process of reproduction: in the case of both asexual and sexual reproduction, random mutation (including DNA transcription errors); in the case of sexual reproduction (which mixes the DNA of two parents into an offspring), gene flow and genetic drift are also important mechanisms. Competition (typically among males to impregnate females) for mates produces sexual selection - a process which Darwin considered secondary to ecological in most species.
Natural selection does not distinguish between ecological selection and sexual selection, as it is concerned with traits, e.g. dexterity of movement, on which both may operate simultaneously. If a particular variation makes the offspring which manifest it better suited to survival or to successful reproduction, that offspring and its descendants will be more likely to survive than those offspring without the variation. The original traits, as well as any maladaptive variations, will disappear as the offspring who carry them are replaced by their more successful relatives.
Therefore, certain traits are preserved due to the selective advantage they provide to their holders, allowing the individual to leave more offspring than individuals without the trait(s). Eventually, through many iterations of this process, organisms will develop more and more complex adaptive traits....."
2 Sept 2010 Natural selection is the process by which traits become more or less common in a population due to consistent effects upon the survival or reproduction of their bearers. It is a key echanism of evolution.
2 Sept 2010 Natural selection is a natural process by which genetically heritable traits become more or less common in a population over successive generations. This selection in interaction with the production of variation determines the evolution of the species.
1 Sept 2010 Natural selection is a natural process by which genetically heritable traits become more or less common in a population over successive generations. This selection in interaction with the production of variation, the possible genetic fixation process and possibly, in several cases, with little epigenetic process determine the evolution of the species.
28 Aug 2010 Woland , changed law back to process Natural selection is a natural process by which genetically heritable traits become more or less common in a population over successive generations. This selection in interaction with the production of variation, the possible genetic fixation process and possibly, in several cases, with little epigenetic process determine the evolution of the species.
Present 25-27 Aug 2010 revision "...Natural selection is a natural law by which genetically heritable traits become more or less common in a population over successive generations. This selection in interaction with the production of variation, the possible genetic fixation process and possibly, in several cases, with little epigenetic process determine the evolution of the species...."
2007 -2008 revision:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural_selection&oldid=259 "....Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes...."
Sept 2009 revision:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection "...Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natural_selection/Archive_8 Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with unfavorable traits.
Question: Other than noting that the traits survived how was their favorability measured? more likely and favorable alludes to the same fact guaranteeing the truth of the proposition and is thus fallacious. The tautology also assumes the underlying premise, thus begging the question: It is assumed that all species today are descendant from other species, this is the very issue that must be proven. See this thread for further clarity by author NoShellSwill on Google groups - http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/ac52c73b1fc53deb/8a86863346c98d5d?#8a86863346c98d5d
The term natural selection Darwin lifted from PatrickMatthew natural means of selection. The concept with NS though was from JamesHutton in 1794 and can be traced back all the way to Aristotle and EpiCurus. No word or sentence has a single true meaning or concept. SoF for example is either a tautological proposition or expression depending on who says SoF, just like "Beer is Beer" has an intention, either fallacious or poetic depending on who uttered the phrase, as this http://maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com/posts/1114725461.shtml. SoF and Beer-is-Beer etc. doesn't have a single true meaning. JamesHutton(1794), PatrickMatthews, Wallace,HerbertSpencer, Darwin and others reformulated Aristotle and EpiCurus original tautology in many different ways. The grammatical gargoyle natural selectionwas the term coined to associated this tautology with by Darwin.
- talk archive revision of Natural selection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natural_selection/Archive_8 Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with unfavorable traits.
- Dec 2008 to Dec2007 revision of natural selection on Wikipedia main article
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural_selection&oldid=259585753 "....Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes...."
- Sept 2009 revision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection Sept 2009 "...Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution...."
Neither of these revisions cite any pages in Darwin's OoS , who wrote these paragraphs ? The 2008 one had "Genes", which Darwin and Aristotle didn't know about. Why was genes removed in the 2009 revision, it is like imagine somebody removes the word "Newton" in a revision of the gravity article.
Wikipedia natural selection Nov.2009 revision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection "....Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution...."
- rephrase:The process by which.... traits that make it more likely for an organism to .... reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution...."
- rephrase:The ... traits that make it more likely for an organism to .... reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution...."
- rephrase:The ... traits that .....enables .... reproduction become more common in a population................ It is a key mechanism of evolution...."
- rephrase:The traits that enables reproduction, become more common.
"Enables" and "more common" are a play with words that alludes to the same fact: It says the same thing twice. The "truth of the proposition cannot be disputed"(Darwin's exact words), there is no way to falsify or test this. How could it possibly be incorrect. We are told that certain traits became more common. But why did they become more common?
- Ans: Because the traits were enabling. But obviously the traits were "enabling" or they wouldn't have become more common now would they? It is the same tautological essence form OoS where Darwin explained that the dinosaurs went extinct because they were "less improved"- which is an irrefutable proposition.
http://creationmuseum.org/ AIG is adding to the confusion by not comprehending that this tautology was ad-hocly associated with "natural means of selection" from PatrickMatthews, an arbitrary choice of words. Darwin, Aristotle, EpiCurus, EmpeDocles , JamesHutton and Patrick Matthews tautology, if labeled Ninja Turtles wouldn't make a turtle putting on a ninja suite a tautology. No sentence or term has a single true meaning. Only an argument containing a motive from some individual can be a tautology, such an argument might contain the term NaturalSelection, Roger rabbit or Wizard of Oz. http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use have removed the section that "natural selection is a tautology" shouldn't be used. Many in the academic world from JerryFodor to others realize that there is serious issues with this term and the concepts associated with it.
- Dec 2008 to Dec2007 revision of natural selection on Wikipedia main article
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural_selection&oldid=259585753 "....Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes...." But no citation is given of any modern or ancient works, nor do we know who was the author and what is his world view, background knowledge or Pragmatics and who he was interpreting. If Darwin was interpreted how did Darwin explain something he didn't know about: Genes? What was this Wikipedia contributor's view on the question of: WhatIsLife - http://seedmagazine.com/news/2007/09/the_meaning_of_life.php?page=all The meaning of Life? For all we know a cat could have walked over a keyboard.
Natural selection, preservation, survival aren't tautologies
An argument is said to be a rhetorical tautology if it cannot be false, such as: "Those that were favorable became common and those not favored become less common". This tautology is usually encoded for with the symbol 'natural selection', an arbitrary choice of words. Note that "natural selection, preservation, survival or accumulation" isn't a tautology, it's not even a sentence. Any of these terms can be used in the pattern or design sense.
Only the idea NS1 symbolically represented by Darwin could be a tautology. Natural selection, preservation, survival or accumulation itself as a symbol has no meaning, like a hammer has no intent to strike by itself. Darwin wrote in a letter to a friend that he regrets using NS in OoS, he prefered natural preservation due to the volitional overtones of selection(who did the selecting?).
NS Darwin got from PatrickMatthew's natural means of selectoin by which was meant natural means of preservation. The favorable ones were naturally preserved(selected), while the unfavorable ones weren't preserved(selected, accumulated,chosen etc.). This was a tautological idea that extends back to Empedocles, Sumerian and Babylonian religions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_mythology, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonia , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian
With NS1 Darwin , in addition, meant 'natural internal spontaneity', 'spontaneous generation' and 'natural fitness' an extension or reformulation of Aristotle's constituted internal spontaneity or internal fitness. See PierreMaupertuis for his usage of fitness . He most probably used it in the context of 'spontaneous generation' - 1759. (will need citations for this view)
'Natural preservation' was Darwin's preferred term to convey a concept like a mammoth being 'naturally preserved' or 'naturally accumulated' in ice, there was no intent or volition but a chance preservation(pattern sense) process. Fitness and selection were used interchangeably to refer to this concept of 'natural preservation' with the premise of 'spontaneous generation'(falsified by Pasteur). See JohnTyndall(1872 around, Belfast address).
Charles Hodge descrbied the concept in the knowledge context of 1874 that was understood with NS1(Naming Conventions) by listing the five pages where Darwin made clear what he meant with NS1 or natural preservation(the Aristotle section I added as well). In our knowledge context(genes, information theory) usage of NS should be NS2,3,4,5 etc, due to the fact that the modern day Epicureans re-use the symbol. They are in a state of confused cognitive shock with the object 'selection', they don't grasp that 'selection'(pattern sense) was only the non-preferred term for 'preservation'(pattern sense), with the whatever word Darwin could have used as a proxy for 'chance' as understood in 1874. Darwin could have used 'natural accumulation' as in the mammoths were 'naturally frozen' or 'naturally preserved'(accumulated), Pattern or design. In the context of 1863(CharlesKingsley) preservation, accumulation and selection are objects all referring to the same blind, chance concept.
When using 'natural selection' in the context of 1874 we must use 'natural means of preservation', natural preservation or natural accumulation as a proxy for the MalThus idea that Darwin extended and expounded upon in OoS. That is, if we are referring to Darwin's ideas. Today the same symbol NS is used but not necessarily the same chance idea, which is why subscripts must be added to the object NS to avoid confusion.
Darwin plagiarized extensively the works of Buffon, Wells(1813), Prof. Owen('Doctrine of Derivation' became Theory of Evolution) etc. ToE was first used by Herbert Spencer(Darwin's Predecessors) in Leader Magazine 1852. Only in the third edition of OoS did Darwin use ToE without crediting Spencer or Owen. He took the same essential ideas formulated by preceding authors, restating it under the semantic object natural selection, a term used over 300 times when type setting was done by hand. His 'breakthrough' was in stripping Owen's Doctrine of Derivation of all remnants of theism , turning it into a CharlesKingsley(1863) 'absolute empire of accident' idea.
It will be shown in this wiki that Owen, Wells, James Hutton, Empedocles, Aristotle etc. formulated a RT(rhetorical tautology) narrative which allows one to come to any arbitrary conclusion(blind chance, divine intervention), since the structure of the argument is formulated in such a way, that it cannot be disputed, making any conclusion no matter how correct it might be a non-sequitur.
Fast forward to 2011 and one will notice that the same tautological concepts are formulated by Allan Orr(Scientific American), Dawkins etc. but their conclusion differs from Darwin. They insist that evolution doesn't happen by chance. (they mean that our world is one of trillions of possibilities, which as Berlinsnki pointed out is the RetrospectiveSpecification fallacy). Because we are dealing with a tautological structural flaw in our culture, politics etc. the secular high priests(Nytimes, Economist etc.) are able to change their stories as new discoveries are made. This is why the AAAS was effortlessly able to modify their story that evolution is a chance process(1991) to non-random(whatever they mean by this) one today. A hidden tautological flaw allows one to come to any non-sequitur conclusion.
Nobody has ever refuted nor verified Darwin, because his tautological constructs can be definition not be refuted or verified. Failure to grasp this has allowed a 'refuting evolution' or 'confirming evolution' cottage industry to arise: Ken Ham, Dembski, Behe, Dawkins etc.
Indeed, his colleagues were at pains to point this out to him and his reply is very interesting indeed. He says that 'natural selection' is no worse than chemists speaking of 'elective affinities' of elements or physicists speaking of 'gravity as ruling the movements of the plants'. 'Everyone knows what is meant and is implied by such metaphorical expressions.'
icr on ns metaphor
get back to this
If natural selection is blind, why isn't it stupid?
Kenneth Miller said in his Youtube video concerning IC that :"..... natural selection is blind......" But if NaturalSelection is blind then why isn't it stupid? Only a conscious being can be blind and stupid , the OxyMoron NaturalSelection allows a duel meaning to be intended by a user. If NaturalSelection is conscious then what is a NaturalSelection? Is it a being, a monster with a tail and long teeth on which is written NaturalSelection , what precisely is Kenneth Miller trying to communicate. Did he use "blind" as a metaphor and if so why are metaphors even being used because they are a means to cloud a concept if the user doesn't know what he is trying to say. Miller is wielding the term Natural Selection as some sort of universal mechanism which would make it just as implausible as a single differential equation explaining all of physics, depending though on what he defines as a Natural selection.
The wikipedia page on sof uses ns as a metaphor for SoF. (get citations for this or remove, might be wrong) But on the main wikipedia ns page (SoF) in brackets behind ns isn't allowed. They insist that sof does not mean ns. depends what one means with ns, ns isn't even a sentence, thus can be used to convey any meaning. SoF is a full sentence used as short hand for PatrickMatthew natural competitive selection(survival, preservation) process.
the man making a Preferential decision for cake over sweets results in the cake becoming less common. Now take the ns wikipedia article paraphrase "..... ns is the process where things become more or less common ...."
if ns is a pd then cake becoming less common is preferential(positive,good etc). YOu see we can't escape infusing our pattern - design, good-bad ,progress- regression, success-failure volition into our descriptions.
- .....Natural selection chooses out for reproduction the individuals that are best equipped for the struggle for existence, and it does so at every stage of development; it thus improves the species in all its stages and forms....
Rephrase: Via the natural means of competitive selection those individuals out competing the others are the best in the struggle for existence.
NOTES: We would be told the same thing if the other individual won, thus the story isn't Popper falsifiable, it is constructed so that its truth is guaranteed making any conclusion a non-sequitur.
Natural selection and Phlogiston theory
JohnWilkins says that ".... NS is now more accurately defined ..." which is just as erroneous as saying the round rock Darwin had on his porch in 1859 itself is now more accurately defined as population genetic math equation. "NS" like a round rock has no meaning, it is merely a symbol which represents only its own shape a series of zig-zags(N) and a snake shape(S). The idea Darwin represented with NS and his synonym SoF can be no more "accurately defined" then the historical fact of Napoleon shooting the sphinx with his canon be made undone. The idea Darwin had is history and how his idea with NS were interpreted as SoF by Osborn, Burroughs, Kingsley ,JohnTyndall etc. can't be wished away. One can't redefine their idea in terms of the knowledge of today. By using Darwin's symbols confusion is created as to what idea is being referred to in terms of our present knowledge.
The symbol "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory" represented an idea. The idea has been discarded, now imagine that every theory in physics includes Phlogiston , where you have to deduce from the context that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger_equation etc. is meant. We have this exact same madness in biology: NS is inserted everywhere but has no bearing on understanding the mechanism or gene relationships as per PhilipSkell rap. A modern day Empedoclian (not evolutionist , YEC are evolutionists we believe in progress towards our higher destiny) would for example say: By the process of natural selectionx we evolved from a Common Ancestor. Would this person refer to the idea of SoF that JohnTyndall had in his interpretation of Darwin - who is being interpreted?
Is a tautology true by definition?
* http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/4828cd8302a35bfa/d5d1bc415669f3d8 * http://www.evolutiondebate.info/ThoughtsonNS.pdf
Quote:<Eric>This is an amazing argument, but I have seen it in more than one place (including an indirect nod by Howard Hershey in the last section below) so it must be making the rounds. Apparently Patella believes that in order for there to be tautology problem natural selection must argue that the fitter ³always² survive.<end Eric>"
Wilkins wrote: Well yes. That's rather what "tautology" means - it can never not be true. If it can be false at any point then it is simply not a tautology, no matter what one might think of the claim as a statistical likelihood.
Both Wilkins and Patella didn't discern between a tautological expression, proposition and logical validity. "A or not-A" can't every be false, it is a logical validity. But the sentenc "A or not-A and therefore a monkey gave birth to a human" is a rhetorical tautology, the conclusion is a non-sequitur.
Survival of the fittest in certain context is a type Tautology1 or logical validity. They way Spencer and Darwin used it, it became a rhetorical Tautology3 because their premise descent from a Common Ancestor was a non-sequitur. In a sports match expressing SoF to impress on the fact that the athlete won the race is a Tautology2 expression and not fallacious. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics with SoF is the issue, because SoF has no meaning itself.
Is a tautology defined as something which is true by definition or something which is a necessary truth? This depends what is meant with "tautology", no word has a single true meaning as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics. There are a range of concepts for which one word will not suffice particularly in the English language , Greek in contrast has single words with a single meaning such as Agape. A rhetorical tautology involves a deceitful attempt at persuasion by coming to a conclusion which is a non-sequitur. Tautological expressions are used in poetry and informal speech. The logical validity A or Not-A could also be a rhetorical tautology or tautological proposition if used in a different context such as:A or Not-A and therefore a monkey gave birth to a human(Non_sequitur_(logic)).
It depends on the context in which terms and words are used by signal sender and how signal receiver decodes it. In computer generated theorem verification the idea is to avoid logical tautologies such as X=X since this is not the result to be obtained. The result would be logically valid but unintended and thus a Logical Tautology( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)) If X=X is generated it is assumed that the set theorist wasn't trying to deceitfully convince others of his world view, hence logical tautology and not rhetorical tautology. Obviously A or Not-A but when tutoring entry level set theory A or Not-A might not be so obvious and the logical validity of A or Not-A needs to be grasped as a low level concept. A or Not-A in one context says the same thing twice in order to convince of a world view which is a Non_sequitur. In another context affirms it as a logical validity for its pedagogical use and in another context is a logical validity but not intended(logical tautology).
JohnWilkins confuses these subtleties by defining a tautology:".... something which is defined as being true by definition..." due to his particular world view and his realization that SurvivalOfTheFittest by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Reinhold_Treviranus, Buffon and Spencer was a tautological proposition. See JohnWilkins for his post on this issue. There are threads by Wilkins on Usenet talk.origins dealing with the http://www.talkorigins.org tautology article that he wrote where he stated that the article is out of date, and needs to be rewritten. Quantum physics, mathematics etc. or what is considered as the hard sciences are formulated in such a way that the Empedoclian world view is embraced.
A or Not-A and what happens, happens are true by definition but what is the context in which it is used or the Pragmatics? The issue isn't the semantic definition of a word but the multiple concepts that can be communicated with words such as for example "random,selection, accumulation etc.", which elsewhere in this document is shown to be able to be used in both the volitional and non-volitional sense. There are five Greek words for love: Agape, Phile, Eros. Agape is used in the New Testament to describe God's love for man.
In English the context or Pragmatics with the word "love" determines what is meant by signal sender to signal receiver. The Neo-Aristotelians, -Neo-Empedoclians (not Evolutionists , a word coined by Darwin in OoS) are exploiting the English language to hide what they mean by words such as selection(who did the selecting?), modification(who did the modifying) accumulation, evolution etc: What will be , will be. Their Premise is the RetrospectiveSpecification fallacy: A widely held premise is the multi-universe theory,out of billions of possible universes we were the one that happened to be in existence, but the sample space is actually two: Either we exist or we don't.
- A or Not-A, and therefore a monkey gave birth to a human(Non_sequitur) - Rhetorical tautology' or fallacious.
- A or Not-A, in an entry level class on algebra stated for its pedagogical use -
Logical validity and not fallacious.
- X=X, in computer theorem verification, but unintended result - Logical tautology and not fallacious.
- X=X, Jokingly said by one set theorist to another - Tautological expression and not fallacious.
- (A or Not-A), Random paper picked up in the street what does it mean? It depends on who said X = X - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics. And the same goes for natural selection which like You have a green light has no single true meaning.
- 4=3, random paper picked up in the street means what? Without knowing who wrote it isn't even wrong.
- Hidden tautology or Truthiness-tautology - Fallacious.
Darwin's definitions of Natural Selection
His usage of natural selection or natural preservation(his preferred term) must be viewed in the light of Fitness and its meaning in 1800's. "...I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate ...."
"...This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection...."
"...favourable variations would be ...preserved, and unfavourable ones ... destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a theory by which to work" (Charles Darwin, Autobio:120)...., interpreting MalThus".
- How did Darwin measure the variations usefulness other than noting they were preserved?
- How did Darwin measure the variations preservability other than noting they were useful?
- The idea symbolically represented with "preservebility" and "usefullness" is the same at the Pragmatics level. They aren't semantic dictionary synonyms but the ideas they represent self-referentially refers to one another, it says the same thing twice. It alludes to the same concept, making the concept the sentence symbolically represents a tautology. Natural selection for example isn't a tautology, it isn't even a sentence but a cluster of two symbols that like a round and square rock means nothing.
Darwin on the preservation of individuals
"....All these results, as we shall more fully see in the next chapter, follow from the struggle for life. Owing to this struggle, variations, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if they be in any degree profitable to the individuals of a species, in their infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to their physical conditions of life, will tend to the preservation of such individuals, and will generally be inherited by the offspring..."
Which reduces to: Variations that are profitable will result in the preservation of such individuals. "profitable" and "preservation" alludes to the same fact guaranteeing the truth of the proposition. It reflects Aristotle and EpiCurus, Democritus underlying philosophy : What happens, happens.
Which version of natural selection with what concept?
Selection was the synonym for "survival" and Darwin's writings was interpreted as such by Osborn in 1898 - EpiCurus#selection_or_survival. Wilkins wrote: "...The core of the criticism against natural selection is that it is a logical tautology, which amounts to it being an a priori truth (which most philosophers now consider a problematic notion at best, anyway)...."
The problem with this sentence is Wilkins never defines to which concept exactly he is referring to as used by which person. Only a person can have a concept, PatrickMatthews the originator of the term "natural means of selection" had a very specific concept. The term "natural selection" like the term "Ninja Turtles" isn't a concept but a the semantic means of encoding the Pragmatics that a specific user has. A Ninja turtle could be a ninja putting on a turtle suite or a turtle putting on a ninja suite,it all depends on who uses the semantics. We are for example told that evolution "happens in populations but not individuals", the only thing we are not told is who established it and whether it is established at all. All scientific theories are always formally established.
Darwin on propositions which cannot be disputed
There are key passages where Darwin reformulated PatrickMatthews, JamesHutton, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baptiste_Julien_d%27Omalius_d%27Halloy, EpiCurus, Democritus, Spencer and Aristotle labeling their concept natural selection and makes his argument irrefutable or Unfalsifiable by using the phrase propositions which cannot be disputed. d'Halloy's concept with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_with_modification in 1848 was labeled natural selection by Darwin.
- OoS For if each part is liable to individual variations at all ages, and the variations tend to be inherited at a corresponding or earlier age--propositions which cannot be disputed--then the instincts and structure of the young could be slowly modified as surely as those of the adult; and both cases must stand or fall together with the whole theory of natural selection.
- OoS".......... That many and serious objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification through variation and natural selection, I do not deny. I have endeavoured to give to them their full force. Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex organs and instincts have been perfected, not by means superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good for the individual possessor. Nevertheless, this difficulty, though appearing to our imagination insuperably great, cannot be considered real if we admit the following propositions, namely, that all parts of the organisation and instincts offer, at least individual differences--that there is a struggle for existence leading to the preservation of profitable deviations of structure or instinct--and, lastly, that gradations in the state of perfection of each organ may have existed, each good of its kind. The truth of these propositions cannot, I think, be disputed. ........."
The words preservation, profitable, perfection, perfected and good are a synonymous play with words that alludes to same fact as shown by reducing the passage it to its core proposition which cannot be disputed: Species are engaged in a struggle for existence leading to the preservation of those profitable structures that allowed them to survive.
- OoS:".........IF under changing conditions of life organic beings present individual differences in almost every part of their structure, and this cannot be disputed; if there be, owing to their geometrical rate of increase, a severe struggle for life at some age, season, or year, and this certainly cannot be disputed; then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of life, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variations had ever occurred useful to each being’s own welfare, in the same manner as so many variations have occurred useful to man. But if variations useful to any organic being ever do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterised will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance, these will tend to produce offspring similarly characterised. This principle of preservation, or the [survival of the fittest], I have called Natural Selection. It leads to the improvement of each creature in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life, and consequently, in most cases, to what must be regarded as an advance in organisation....."
- Question: Other than noting the offspring survived how was their fitness or suitability(Spencer's word) measured?
Natural Selection or Natural Preservation ?
Howard when you say "...planetary attraction follows an inverse square law..." you aren't formulating a new theory but interpreting an existing theory. In every single established theory following a process where the formulator provided a description that at very least was well reasoned(not science - nobody knows what that word means) , we know who this person was - without exception.
What many do today such as Wilkins is inventing their own theories , whole new conceptualizations but are to modest to announce that they have brand new idea because of the possible peer pressure or non-favorable reception, especially by those who would decide on tenure positions. Wilkins said of Dawkins "....if you read his books you are guaranteed to get it wrong...." which didn't go down very well with Myers , leading to Wilkins leaving Scienceblogs. Both Dawkins and Wilkins says "selection" , but as a single word it is a proxy for conflicting viewpoints when used by either user: They are not neccessarily talking about the same thing. All language , sentences, phrases and words either conveys the concept of a patter or a design and a clear cut distinction between these two. The sentence "Outside was formed a selection of rocks" means what? Without knowing who says so we can't infer whether "selection" is used in the pattern or design sense. If a tornado hit a mountain it would be a "pattern", but if John selected the rocks it would be a "design". Not being able to distinguish between patterns or designs indicates a mental illness (Tautological Oxymorons). Elsewhere you wrote: "... design is subset of pattern...." , you specifically left the "a" out. is a different way of saying order is subset of disorder.
What one needs to get clarity about what you are writing Howard, are you interpreting various authors or are you actually formulating your own theory? Lets presume you are interpreting Darwin who wrote to Wallace that he made a mistake with his choice of "selection" because it anthromorphosizes nature and he should have used "preservation" to formulate the concepts surrounding the Malthusian struggle for existence. (The struggle for existence is a False Dichotomy and unfalsifiable, it doesn't explain how complex chemical reactions results in control algorithms or whether the algorithms are even dependent of the chemical processes or the transition matrix that maps polypeptide space into frog-space.)
Thus lets replace every instance of "selection" by "preservation" because that was the intent of Darwin. Perhaps you would say that you are not dealing with Darwin, but who then? No conclusion can then be inferred because we wouldn't know to what concept you would be referring to. It could for example be a brand new theory that you personally crafted but haven't shared yet. A reader reading Dawkins on how Darwin was the greatest scientist that ever lived , who has deeply immersed himself in Dawkins view might then come to an erroneous conclusion when reading your post.
The insistance on knowing whose concept with "selection" we are referring to isn't unreasonable or meant to be disingenious, but rooted in a Biblical world view where who said what when and where defines the force of the sentence. Note that I said "sentence" not "word" , with "selection,preservation,survival,random" we are dealing with a word, a tool or device , a mechanism or means for communicating whatever concept the wielder of the tool wishes it to be: No single true pattern or design can be associated with it. Even the word "random" when used in a sentence can actually be used by the user to communicate design or intent. For example when you do a probability sample by "selecting at random" any marble from either of ten bags filled with marbles , there was an intentional decision being made at random not a completely "random" occurence. Which is why the English language is such huge fun, it can be used to say one thing but mean something completely different. "By the process of selection this organism evolved" - Selection what? Or as one professor wrote on his bio:"....I study selection...." - What selection? Wilkins says he is in the "Selectionist camp" , but if we read Darwin this should be "I am in the Preservationist camp"..... depends though if Wilkins is interpreting himself or another person or Darwin we can't come to any conclusion as to his work: It isn't even wrong.
Elsewhere Wilkins wrote that the distinction between AS and NS is incorrect it should just be selection(whatever this is supposed to mean). Lets combine this view with what some unknown author on Wikipedia with his yet to be defined concept with NS between 2007 and 2008 wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural_selection&oldid=259585753 "....Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes...." wrote with what Darwin wrote that he meant "natural preservation" and replace "natural selection" with just "preservation":
rephrased wikipedia quote: Preservation is the process by which favorable.... traits become more common .... and unfavorable ....traits become less common....
rephrase again: Preservation is the process by which favorable.... traits become more preserved .... and unfavorable ....traits become less preserved....
How must we interpret this in terms of Darwin, Wilkins and some unknown author. Was "preservation" used in the pattern or design sense and what would this mean in terms of Howards "....design is subset of pattern....", which is another way of saying order is subset of disorder.
principle of divergence
To answer the question: What is the principle of Divergence or more specific the difference between the concept Darwin had with it and the concept he had with Theory of Evolution? None: ToNS, ToE, selection, divergence, Survival of the most suitable (Spencer)...., etc..... were all different word fillers for the same tautological essence from PatrickMatthews: Those that didn't reproduce were less perfect while those that did reproduce were more perfect or what is adapted is adapted from JamesHutton, Which Darwin restated as "....The preservation of individuals, which were favorable, and the destruction of those which weren't favorable......" , labeling it ToE which he also called Theory of Natural selection 36 times, which was that the dinosaurs died because there were less improved.
With the error continuing here at Harvard http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/06/wrangham-we-are-what-we-eat-and-what-we-cook/ ",,,Wrangham says. “We are biologically adapted to cook food. It’s part of who we are and affects us in every way you can imagine: biologically, anatomically, socially...” How did Wrangham deduce that were are adapted to cook food other than noting we do cook food? He might as well have said a rock is adapted at being a rock.
What is the theory of evolution?
What is the difference between the concepts encoded with the word "evolution" or "evolvere"(Latin) and the term "Theory of evolution" and who is encoding for such a concept from what knowledge base? On Wikipedia "Theory of evolution" redirects to the page marked Evolution: Why? Who is the person that decided that the concept Darwin encoded for with the word couplet "Theory of evolution" , used only twice in OoS can't have a separate page nor be allowed to be quoted in the main article of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution. There are multiple concepts from many authors (punk-eek, gradualism) who are encoding for different ideas with the word "evolution". Why isn't there a separate entry dealing with the concept Darwin had with the term "Theory of gradual evolution" or "Theory of evolution". Gould's PunkEek concept with "theory of evolution" differs from Darwin's concept with "Theory of gradual evolution", used only once. Darwin objected to "evolution" the word because back then it meant God was involved, "evolution" appears only a few times in the book.
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation/atlas_creation_01.php doesn't say what exactly is the ToE, what he is refuting isn't clear.
Natural selection as successful algorithm from patent filings
- "....Natural selection is the most successful algorithm known for the generation of solutions to problems. Some philosophers of science characterize the algorithm in quite general terms--the differential reproduction of randomly generated successful variations--and assert that it is the only solution-generating algorithm there can be....."
"...the differential reproduction of randomly generated successful variations-...". Which rephrased reduces to: Successful variations replicate. "replicate" and "successful" alludes to the same fact, it says the same thing twice. Natural selection, differential , randomly are word fillers obscuring the underlying Aristotelian tautological fallacy.
The subtleties and nuances of what it means to say the same thing twice can't be separated from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics, the context, time era, background knowledge and assumptions of the user. The editors of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric) don't incorporate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics with it due to their Aristotelian, Empedoclian and Epicurian world view. This world view of atoms fighting on another with the best atom surviving have been retold for modern man as the battle between organisms, resulting in an unfalsisfiable tale because if the dingbat won instead of the wombat we would be told the same story.
Original the tale was the battle between the Gods and see-monsters, narrated by the tribal wizard 5000 years ago to village peasants, in return he got free food and didn't have to do back break work. The myth was modified by Empedocles, Aristotle, Atomists, Democritus and Lucretius etc.. as the battle between the atoms to explain the origin of the universe due to their atheistic world view. If atoms became established because the "good" atom outwitted the "bad" atom then the story can't be falsified because if it was the other way around we would be told the same thing. The fact that atoms do exist means thus that one of the atoms had to "win the fight" so to speak but this doesn't allow for a third option and presents a FalseDichotomy. JamesHutton(1794), Darwin, Wells(1813), PatrickMatthews(1836) extended the Lucretius myth by having the "good" animal outwit the bad, not knowing about genes. Our modern day secular priests extended the myth by having the "good" Allele or gene outwit the "bad" allele, as can be seen with the book "The Selfish Gene" by dawkins, which is incorrect because genes are a CyberneticAbstraction. It really is bringing a cowboys-and-indians fight for survival fantasy world into science, where imagine that the existence of cowboys is explained by telling a tale of how they killed all the Indians, which raises the question where did the Indians and Cowboys come from in the first place.
Genotype, phenotype,allele,evolution,selection,group selection,punk-eek,gradualism and specifically the terms fitness and reproductive success with its battle for survival overtones are the word terms that enables the narration of the underlying mythology, it doesn't explain the transition matrix that maps polypeptide space into frog space for example: There is no math because these terms aren't meant to provide a mechanistic description but as a means for the Neo-Aristotelians to perpetuate the Lucretius world view in their universities and science. They are intermixed with mathematical equations but are superfluous to the actual descriptions. For example the term "fitness landscape" might just as well have been called "Conan banana landscape" or fitness coefficient mathematical variables was arbitrarily called that in population genetics but has no bearing on comprehending the actual differential equations explaining inheritance.
Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace co-authored only one article together in 1858 titled "On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection" which was published in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London. Zoology 3: 46-50.
Eigenvalues of natural selection
- http://webarchive.iiasa.ac.at/Admin/PUB/Documents/CP-85-020.pdf, Eigenvalues of natural selection, article by David Berlinski
In Darwinian thought, the effects of randomness are played off against what biologists call the constructive effects of natural selection, a mechanism that philosophers have long regarded with sullen suspicion. Wishing to know why a species that represents nothing more than a persistent snore throughout the long night of evolution should suddenly (or slowly) develop a novel characteristic, the philosopher will learn from the definition of natural selection only that those characteristics that are relatively fit are relatively fit in virtue of the fact that they have survived, and that those characteristics that have survived have sur- vived in virtue of the fact that they are relatively fit. This is not an intellectual exercise calculated to inspire confidence.
Natural selection is a force-like concept; and, as such, acts locally if it acts at all.