asdf
{{{ On Dec 21, 11:19 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote: > >>> Who is this person? > >> Don't know and don't care. The theory you can read up on in any good > >> current textbook on evolutionary biology, who has written it is pretty > >> much immaterial.
> > Every single scientific theory from Keplers laws till today has a > > single human being or two(maybe three) that says so. Kepler said so, > > Newton said so etc.
> If you read any good textbook on the current theory of classical > mechanics, optics, gravity of calculus (to name but some associated with > Netwon) you find considerably more than what Netwon said in it, with > generations of scientists contributing and modifying the theory.
And each modification was done by a person, in every single instance we know who said so, more importantly we can devise a test to falsify it, so it doesn't really matter who said gravity is 10m.s.s, it can be tested with a stop watch. In contrast the very thing materialists are "life" they can't define, yet they want to tell us that have solved it. What is life? And if we don't know how then do materialists know the answer will be materialistic. They don't but believe so by faith, faith is the evidence of things not seen. Materialists don't realize how self-defeating their beliefs are.
The metaphysical statements by Newton was because of his belief that the Lord Jesus was holding everything together with his language, he knew what was the definition of Life itself: Jesus Christ. Quantum mechanics is language, the atoms math language, we don't know for example if electrons exist in actual reality. One need not believe they actually exist to understand the math, but must believe they exist to conform to materialist beliefs or your papers won't be published. See http://www.raherrmann.com retired PHD in math prof. }}}
dan diner
http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Sacred-Muslim-World-Stood/dp/0691129118
palindromes
{{{ On Dec 20, 12:17 pm, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote: > Genes also do not represent anything; they are simply molecules with > particular roles in the production of proteins. They do this in a > regular manner, which allows us to talk of a mapping relationship > between gene sequences and the [primary] sequence of the proteins, > which has been called, honorifically, a "code". Nor is the sequence of > triplets that form codons an "alphabet" - they are not signs or parts > of signs, they are the things themselves (as any Peircean ought to > understand, signs and the things signified are different). And there is > no grammar for genes - they do not have sequential structure or syntax, > and they do not show the kind of distribution of "words" that you get > in natural languages according to Zipf's law. > > Basically, genes are not informational objects in any meaningful sense.
Pieczenick identified Palindromic sequences in genes which he called "grammatical" . See Black Mischief by Berlinski first edition. (p.303) He published it in Journal of Molecular Biology. IF molecular grammars exist they have to be at least as complex as a pushdown storage automaton. IF the genetic code is informed by grammatical constraints of a nontrivial nature , how in turn did they arise if in the first instance they are necessary to the working of the code?
See Journal of Philosophy article by Berlinski on this issue. }}}
Adenine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine are unique objects - molecules like a tiger, elephant ,horse and cow is an object. The palindrome Pieczenick identified was I think 64 in length. Take an elephant, horse,tiger and cow and align them in a palindromic sequence of 64 animals. The sequence represents something other than itself while the individual elephant,horse,tiger and cow only represent themselves. Or take blue,green,white and a yellow marble arranging it a palindromic sequence, the sequence now also represents something other than itself. In the same way the objects or molecules ACGT are arranged in a sequence with the sequence representing something other than the molecules it consists off. If the animal and marble palindromic sequence had to exist in somebodies mind before being represented with objects then in whos mind did the ACGT palindromic sequence exist before being physically manifested ?
asdf
{{{ On Dec 12, 2:01 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote: > >You still haven't told me what is your concept with ns. What is your > >concept?
> i did tell you. i tried to give you an example. i asked you if you > were different than your parents
You did define NS here: http://groups.google.com.mx/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/ac52c73b1fc53deb/5d290643d0d5812d
"...the world's scientific community knows that natural selection is the process that leads to changes in allele frequencies with time...."
Who in the scientific community knows this because Wilkins and rnorman have substantial issues with "change in allele frequencies over time". The change in genes over time is a generalized truism , everything in existence changes over time. In a sense the definition of existing means that something anything (electrons spinning) has to change.
Darwin didn't know about Genes , what chain of reasoning did the "scientific community" (who are they? ) follow in going from this:
OoS: "...This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection...."
and "..I have called this principle, by which each slight variation(a), if useful, is preserved, by the term of natural selection..."
to change in gene frequencies.
}}}
asdf
{{{
On Dec 14, 9:34 pm, "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleu...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > > I think a part of you feels sorry for Darwinists----this is how I > > explain your comment that natural selection claims nothing. You cannot > > believe that they actually believe what I wrote rather graphically. My contention that natural selection as some sort of abstract authority just like Mr.Evolution, Mr.Religion (NOMA) and Mr.Science doesn't say anything is motivated for as follows: Only a person , a being can say something, Mr.Natural Selection doesn't exist - he says nothing. The term was coined by http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/PatrickMatthew who probably lifted the tautological concept Matthews associated with NS it from http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/JamesHutton (1794) and DR. w.c Wells(1813), because they both were at Edinbourgh University Scotland (taking wild guess here). :[[PatrickMatthew]]s 1831- "...Those individuals who possess not the requisite strength, fall without reproducing, their place being occupied by the more perfect of their own kind....". This concept was then arbitrarily associated by Matthews with the term "Natural selection", he could also have associated it with "Watermelon Spanner" if he had wanted to: The tautology and fallacious underlying Aristotelian world view remains. Which Darwin in turn lifted from Matthew's book on wood production while on the Beagle because the intent of the Beagle trip was to look for Naval timber. Darwin took the same concept and defined it at two places in OoS: "...This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection...." and "..I have called this principle, by which each slight variation(a), if useful, is preserved, by the term of natural selection..." Both sentences are obvious tautologies with "preservation" and "favourable" , "rejection" and "injurious" making the argumentation narrative indisputable or unfalsifiable, it can in principle not even be tested. But this tautology has nothing to do with the grammatical gargoyle NS, ..... it was an arbitrary choice of words. As explained in the thread "Aristotle and his Tautological influence"(http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/4828cd8302a35bfa/0040ffe978d4e32c?tvc=1#0040ffe978d4e32c) this was a reformulation of Aristotle and Empedocles. Empedocles-(600BC) "...Those animals perished immediately, for they were not fitted to live, and only those random coalitions of elements which were fittest to live survived, and continue to survive today...." :Aristotle(500BC) - "....Things appropriately constituted were preserved and things not appropriately constituted perished...." :Democritus - "...Those in harmony maintained themselves, while the unfit disappear... " What the NYtimes did was infuse Empedoclianism , Lucretius, Epicurianism , Democritus and Aristotelianism into our culture by saying "......Whatever .... exists , exists because it was favored....." Which is a double tautology because "favored" in the context used leaves open for either the pattern or design sense depending on the [[world view]] of the reader. Thus both a Pantheist priest and hard core Atheist will agree not realizing that they could both be committing a logical fallacy and that whatever conclusion they might come to is a non-sequitur.
}}}
asdf
{{{ On Dec 19, 1:43 am, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote: > In addition, you have already been told, several times, that abstract > entities may informally be said to "say" or "tell" things. To educated > English-speakers, the usage is unambiguous and perfectly acceptable.
Phillip Johnson would beg to differ. I lifted the concept from him he said something along the lines of ".....for the record Science doesn't say, accord, explain, infer, extrapolate or proclaim anything, only a person can do this, only somebody with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics......"
NOMA, Mr. Religion and Mr.Science don't have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics
> OK. Got that? Now please understand that making the same obviously
> perverse or irrelevant claims again and again and again over a period of
> years makes people think you are mentally deranged.
It is possible would you then please help me out: Everytime you say Natural Selection are you referring to the specific passages as used by DArwin and Matthews, if not what exactly do you mean by natural selection. Note that even Jerry Fodor asked "....... what then is the intended meaning of natural selection.....the question is wide open as of this writing......" in his LRB article. An article where nobody not even him has an idea of what he was trying to say.
>It does not make
> people see you as a new "Mr Valiant-for-Truth". I'm sorry about this,
> because I'm kind-hearted; but it's a sad fact of a cruel world.
The sad fact is that everybody is using "natural selection" like some sort of brainwashed KGB trained Zombie trained to respond on que, simply saying "natural selection" means a person is in a sense insane because of its oxymoronic nature. IT is destroying our collective mental health , making it impossible for people to say "Jesus be my Lord" with the greatest threat coming from the YEC (I am YEC) using this term as part of their apologetics, which is imagine the Apostle Paul inserting "coca-doodlie-doo" every 1000 words in his letters. An abyss of madness is what have plunged into now and the Christian world is no longer a Christian world but apostates and herretics.. }}}
asdf
"favored" like selection can be used in the pattern or design sense. "....Whatever .... exists , exists because it was favored....." is an open ended tautology by Nytimes, if http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/JohnBurroughs used it he would mean "...favored by accident or natural selection..", his concept was accident with NS from his book Last Harvest 1922. If a Gaia pantheist priest used the sentence it would mean "...favored by the Jedi nature Force....", thus the sentence is really a "double tautology". A double tautology is the term I coined for a concept irrefutable under all and any conditions , patterns or designs. When ever you read an Empedoclian infused world view article replace every instance of "evolution, selection,genotype,phenotype...etc..." with WHH (what happens happens).
DOUBLE TAUTOL WEHN INDUSPUTALBE IN PATTERN OAND DESIGNS SENSE......
Add favoured by accident, said was "favoured" but in einglish could bmeab= "mean faovored by accdident"!! oxymoroinic nature oaf NSsaf, burroughts given his view would be chnce, if you are panteh9st favored by gtaia selectionforc. what hap, happsn, thus to says what happens happens with each discovery of genes, math, polyptetice , etct isn't wrong, just not insightlufl to illimunate the real reason for soemthing.
phd;s philsopy all done to study the empedcoliainconcept : what happens happens and means of createing large vocab. of word terms entences, phrases to propound this world vidw.,, topological math theory, chaos theory , unfolding of embrios is actually a dense math theory behind it which has to do with organ placement and interaction of control algorithms with such organs toget a funcital animal. , thjey way the heart forms and liver differsfrom a human because of our difsin shape , eanch organ placement is done along sometoolploigcal math curve with dense partia dife eqauaions . Teh empedocians seized on this embio issue to prpos common descent from fossils to diusguisethe ciruclarity of fossisls being anscestoros , the tuatol was formalated to disgues the circu reasoning, becaus e the bettla sruvive myuth to be pproagated from Gandalf 3000bc.
Add favoured by accident, said was "favoured" but in einglish could bmeab= "mean faovored by accdident"!! oxymoroinic nature oaf NSsaf, burroughts given his view would be chnce, if you are panteh9st favored by gtaia selectionforc. what hap, happsn, thus to says what happens happens with each discovery of genes, math, polyptetice , etct isn't wrong, just not insightlufl to illimunate the real reason for soemthing.
phd;s philsopy all done to study the empedcoliainconcept : what happens happens and means of createing large vocab. of word terms entences, phrases to propound this world vidw.,, topological math theory, chaos theory , unfolding of embrios is actually a dense math theory behind it which has to do with organ placement and interaction of control algorithms with such organs toget a funcital animal. , thjey way the heart forms and liver differsfrom a human because of our difsin shape , eanch organ placement is done along sometoolploigcal math curve with dense partia dife eqauaions . Teh empedocians seized on this embio issue to prpos common descent from fossils to diusguisethe ciruclarity of fossisls being anscestoros , the tuatol was formalated to disgues the circu reasoning, becaus e the bettla sruvive myuth to be pproagated from Gandalf 3000bc.
lkjlkj
{{{ On Dec 10, 1:44 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote: > On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:21:29 -0800 (PST), backspace > > > > <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > === rephrase take out NS red herring === > >> > "....Whatever .... exists because it was favored by Roger rabbit..." > > >> > === Tautology === > >> > "....Whatever .... exists , exists because it was favored....." > >> > favored and exists alludes to the same fact, NY times guaranteed the > >> > truth of their proposition and then associated it with the term NS. > > >> Argument lay-out, and your conclusion, is brilliant. > > >> The way I see it: the claims of natural selection is the evidence of > >> refutation. > > >My contention is that "natural selection" doesn't claim > >anything > > and since your lanugage skills, conditioned by religious > fundamentalism, are so rudimentary that you think it's 'only a theory' > that you're not identical to your parents, we know how accurate your > assessment of 'natural selection' is
One can only assess a concept as articulated by a being, are you referring to the concept http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/JohnBurroughs had with NS or more specific the concept he encoded for using the semantics of NS? NS like cow spanner, watermelon chopper, afgan zipper isn't even wrong unless we know the individual that used the terms and what was his concept. }}}
lkj
{{{ On Dec 9, 2:23 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 6, 12:08 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html?scp=1&sq=%... > > > "..........This and other research is pointing to a new perspective on > > religion, one that seeks to explain why religious behavior has > > occurred in societies at every stage of development and in every > > region of the world. Religion has the hallmarks of an evolved > > behavior, meaning that it exists because it was favored by natural > > selection. It is universal because it was wired into our neural > > circuitry before the ancestral human population dispersed from its > > African homeland.............." > > > === rephrase === > > "...Religion has the hallmarks of an evolved behavior, meaning that it > > exists because it was favored by natural selection...." > > > === rephrase === > > "....Whatever has the hallmarks of an evolved behavior, meaning that > > it exists because it was favored by natural selection...." > > > === rephrase === > > "....Whatever .... exists because it was favored by natural > > selection...." > > > === rephrase take out NS red herring === > > "....Whatever .... exists because it was favored by Roger rabbit..." > > > === Tautology === > > "....Whatever .... exists , exists because it was favored....." > > favored and exists alludes to the same fact, NY times guaranteed the > > truth of their proposition and then associated it with the term NS. > > Argument lay-out, and your conclusion, is brilliant. > > The way I see it: the claims of natural selection is the evidence of > refutation.
My contention is that "natural selection" doesn't claim anything,Patrick Matthews sucked his thumb and coined "natural means of selection" after lifting the tautology from Hutton, Aristotle, lucretius, Mapertius, Wells(1813), NS has no single true meaning but is generally used by the neo-empedoclians to reformulate Empedocles for modern man, something my fellow YEC at AIG , Creationism.org etc. sadly don't comprehend ,causing more damage to Xianity than DAwkins.
> "....Whatever .... exists , exists because it was favored....." > > That's all that "survival of the fittest" says. "Whatever exists, > exists because it was fit or is fitter." That was the concept as understood by Spencer , which he lifted from Treviranus as posted elsewhere.
}}}
asdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html?scp=1&sq=%22natural%20selection%22&st=cse
"..........This and other research is pointing to a new perspective on religion, one that seeks to explain why religious behavior has occurred in societies at every stage of development and in every region of the world. Religion has the hallmarks of an evolved behavior, meaning that it exists because it was favored by natural selection. It is universal because it was wired into our neural circuitry before the ancestral human population dispersed from its African homeland.............."
rephrase
"...Religion has the hallmarks of an evolved behavior, meaning that it exists because it was favored by natural selection...."
rephrase
"....Whatever has the hallmarks of an evolved behavior, meaning that it exists because it was favored by natural selection...."
rephrase
"....Whatever .... exists because it was favored by natural selection...."
rephrase take out NS red herring
"....Whatever .... exists because it was favored by Roger rabbit..."
rephrase
"....Whatever .... exists had to be in some way favored ..."
Tautology
"....Whatever .... exists , exists because it was favored....." favored and exists alludes to the same fact, NY times guaranteed the truth of their proposition and then associated it with the term NS. If they associated with "Wizard of Oz" the tautology would still remain.
post 8
{{{ On Dec 6, 4:22 pm, "g...@risky-biz.com" <g...@risky-biz.com> wrote: > > === Tautology === > > "....Whatever .... exists , exists because it was favored....." > > favored and exists alludes to the same fact, NY times guaranteed the > > truth of their proposition and then associated it wit the term NS.
The NYtime rephrased Aristotle: "....those constituted weren't perishable...." which reduces: What happens , happens because the hapstance happened and thus be somehow favored or it wouldn't have happened..."
FAct is something happened: Many are religious. The question is why are they religious? Nothing is explained by saying that because being religious exists it was "favored", obviously it was "favored" or being religious wouldn't have existed. This fallacious reasoning has nothing to do with the term natural selection.
}}}
In addition the intent by the author isn't clear because "favored" can be used in the pattern or design sense: A storm hit a mountain assembling the rocks in their favored position. Or the campers packed the rocks their favored position. If being religious had no
IUT IS A DOUBLE TAUTOLOGY