Natural Selection was metaphor for SoF Edit
- Howard wrote: ....Not at the present time. And you have been using SoF as if it were a perfect definition of what biologists mean by NS. It isn't and never had been. SoF is archaic and has been dropped because of its confusing and erroneous implications. SoF, taken literally, only describes some of the features of NS. Like I said, even "survival of the fitter" is better. But I have given you a better *definition* of NS; one that is actually in current usage. That is the one you need to argue against, not game-play with SoF as if it described NS literally.
This is history revisionism. Samuel Butler and Wallace understood natural selection as the metaphor for the phrase SoF
We possess life Edit
We possess an attribute called Life1 and specifically not fitness. There isn't anything 'fitness' about us, therefore fitness can't be measured in the same way that Life1 can't be measured. Life1 can't measured in terms of cause-effect because Jesus Christ said I am life and one can't measure God. God himself is defined as not reducible to a falsifiable construct.
"..survival of the fit enough" is not tautological as it contains an independent criterion of fitness..." by pro fitness concept from a materialist. Theist John Jones replied to this disagreeing with the position.
We need to know about the factors that involve Life1, and these factors aren't merely geographical places.
http://www.groupsrv.com/science/about431656-0-asc-15.html [quote:7dd0e3fc5d]Your "attributes" do not give sufficient information to describe the environment. Multiple organisms can survive/thrive in the same environment and most organisms can survive/thrive in a variety of environments. [/quote:7dd0e3fc5d]
You are confusing an environment with a geographical place. An environment entails the description of what allows an animal to survive, and this description logically entails a creature's attributes.
Immortalist wrote: [quote:c333f5dad6]On Jul 8, 9:51 am, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote: Because scientists know that "survival of the fittest" is a tautology (they are not stupid you know) they came up with a new formulation of the phrase that gave us an independent criterion of fitness - the environment. Success in survival is now tick-boxed as: "better adapted for the immediate, local environment".
We cannot determine whether evolutionary theories or scientific theories are tautological or not. [/quote:c333f5dad6] I say we can make that determination by examining grammar.
[quote:c333f5dad6]They are theoretical and based upon probabilities. [/quote:c333f5dad6] No, they are base on grammar, not existential considerations
Matt Silberstein wrote: [quote:9bbc66ed68]On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 03:55:02 +0100, in alt.atheism , John Jones
And, yet, Natural Selection is one of the most powerful tools we have for understanding the biological world. Fitness is a measurable quality of a population. [/quote:9bbc66ed68] Fitness isn't a measurable quality. A creature is, by being an existing creature, fit. The creature doesn't "have" fit parts or alleles. If parts and alleles constitute the creature, then they don't also require a property called "fitness" that helps it exist.
Wikipedia's Fitness article uses John Tyndall's interpetation of Democritus Edit
This section is an attempt at showing why "You are adapted to your environment or condition of existence" , "....measuring fitness ....." , "....differences in individual genotypes affect fitness.....", "....fitnesses of individuals depend on the environment in which the individuals live......" , "....fitness is the height of the landscape....." , "....fitness measures the quantity genes in the next generation...." is really just as meaningless as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously.
"You are adapted to your environment" is another example of where our use of language went wrong - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry%27s_paradox. A rock,human and penguin isn't adapted to their condition of existence, their state is already defined by their attributes. In the same way that a lump of copper can' be "better adapted" can a human or penguin be "better adapted" to their state.
DavidBerlinski wrote Black Mischief first edition ".... if pigs had wheels mounted on ball bearings instead of trotters, on what scale of porcine fitness would they be..?" In other words Berlinski is saying that "fitnessx" can't be measured.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest uses [[JohnTyndall]'s interpretation of DemoCritus: "....That great enigma, 'the exquisite adaptation of one part of an organism to another part, and to the conditions of life, more especially the construction of the human body, Democritus made no attempt to solve....."
Which was reformulated as "... Darwin meant it is a metaphor for "better adapted for immediate, local environment", not the common inference of "in the best physical shape....." on Wikipedia. Darwin meant no such thing, he meant "suitable" with fitness the meaning intended by Spencer. [Note: not so sure about this paragraph, it must be reviewed]
JohnTyndall in 1870 interpreted Darwin in terms of Spencer, who Darwin referred to as one of the greatest thinkers in the history of mankind. Always remember that Darwin was read in terms of Spencer in 1870, back then Spencer's writings were like Gould's today.
JohnTyndall's "...The exquisite adaptation of one part of an organism to another part, and to the conditions of life..." reduces to "....the adaptation of ... an organism .... to its environment...." Fitness, like quark and natural selection have no meaning. There are two senses to the word environment: 'Conditions of life' and 'geographical location' sense. Wikipedia's Fitness article used it in the geographic location sense and is thus erroneous. A "local environment" is a geographic location. Your condition of existence isn't a geographical location.
"better adapted for immediate, local environment" is somewhere between a TauTologyx and Tautology5(Naming_Conventions). Where else could a penguin possibly be other then the "immediate" geographical location and condition of existence sense? A penguin, rock and human can only experience a state in the present.
The concept back then was "suitability". There is an attempt at history revisionism by downplaying the effect Spencer had (sold over a million books) on Victorian society back then and how his ideas influenced them. The wikipedia Aristotelians stress that Spencer's SoF was only entered in the 5th edition. What they don't mention is that Darwin referred to Spencer as ".... one of the greatest thinkers in history...." Spencer's writings aren't cited today by the Aristotelians for PC reasons due to the strong racialist overtones by Spencer. No matter how insightful (not everything Spencer wrote could have been erroneous or correct) or advantageous to the materialist cause he might have been , he can't be cited for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politically_correct reasons. His entire works can be found on Gutenberg press.
Darwin was interpreted in terms of Spencer as JohnTyndall usage of SoF shows. The understanding back then was that whites were more suitable, fit or better fitted then blacks, such a suitability metric isn't a "local geographic location" but an abstract "condition of existence", an arbitrary social cultural subjective contrivance. Today different ideas are represented under the rubric of "fitness". Because the symbol "fitness" doesn't mean anything it is used to convey "physical strength" in one context and "better suited for marriage" in a another context. A reader in 1870 such as JohnTyndall used "fitness" in the "better suited for marriage" sense. Such suitability isn't a "local geographic location". The Aristotelians rewriting history on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest are infusing their arbitrary ideas into the article instead of providing a historical narrative of ideas that were symbolically represented with the word the last 300 years from Buffon , Treviranus etc. English is a crippled language and it doesn't allow complex ideas to be expressed using single words so easily.
The conditions of life or conditions of existence an organism experiences is not a geographical location but is defined in terms of its attributes. A description of such an environment is rendered in terms of the attributes of the creature in the same way that the SQL computer code environment is described in terms of its attributes. SQL code exists only as a description in terms of its attributes, it inhabits an abstract "condition of existence" by virtue of an attribution description, which like the number 7 is neither here nor there: It exists only as an abstract concept in somebodies mind. The algorithm it implements is done in some physical space, but the physical space doesn't define its condition of existence. In the same way a complex organism real existence isn't physical space but in somebodies mind. The only reason it or anything else in the universe exists is because somebody knows about it. This is from the premise that Mind came before matter. A metal table is in a condition of existence, it symbolically represents not hard indivisible atoms but pure Language at the atomic level where there is no matter , just pure consciousness: Jesus Christ who as God in the flesh is the quantum mechanical force that holds every "lepton", "quark" and "electron" (electrons as particles don't actually exist) together. He is separate from matter , space and time itself because he created space, time and matter 6000 years ago, he made everything and nothing that was made wasn't done without him. Everything that exists , exists only because He knows about it. Consciousness is the greatest force in the universe.
Because scientists know that "survival of the fittest" is a tautology (they are not stupid you know) they came up with a new formulation of the phrase that gave us an independent criterion of fitness - the environment. Success in survival is now tick-boxed as: "better adapted for the immediate, local environment".
[NOTE: Fitness as a symbol has no criteria or meaning. The modern idea(whatever that might be) has an criteria. Some modern day Aristotelian is representing his idea and criteria that survival is now tick-boxed as: "better adapted for ...... the environment". The idea a reader of Darwin and Spencer had in 1860 with "fitness" was suitability. As in whites being more suitable than blacks. Osborn noted how DR. W. C. WELLS, in 1813 first promulgated the theory of natural selection by noting the skin of white female that had negro characteristics. The idea that was represented with natural selection had strong racialist overtones. On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection there is little if none racialist overtones as the editors infuse their particular ideas under the symbol natural selection. Same term but different concepts. Democritus battle between good and bad atoms became the battle of survival between good whites and bad blacks with the term natural selection in the social context of 1863, today it is different.]
But this is a tautology too. An environment, like a destination, isn't a geographical place. A description of an environment is cast in terms of a creature's attributes. As my environment is already described by my attributes I can't be adapted TO my environment. And even less can I be "better adapted" to my environment. What am I saying then? "Survival of the fittest" There is only one thing being considered here. "Survival" describes the "fittest" as the scientists know. Adaption/environment There is STILL only one thing on offer here, as adaption describes an environment, as the scientists have failed to notice.
Fitness isn't a measurable quality. A creature is, by being an existing creature, fit. The creature doesn't "have" fit parts or alleles. If parts and alleles constitute the creature, then they don't also require a property called "fitness" that helps it exist.
http://omgili.com/newsgroups/alt/atheism/h32j297jh1newseternal-septemberorg.html don't see the significance of saying that evolution is about populations. Like the term "fit" can't apply to individuals, the term "evolve" can't apply to populations. There aren't properties and processes (fit, evolve,) above and beyond the individual and the population. An environment is, at the same time, logically entails, a description of a set of attributes.
At a superficial level a rock is adapted to its environment or a rock is adapted at being a rock. Anything that exists is thus adapted to its condition of existence , which says the same thing twice - a tautology. Thus it is syntactically meaningless to say an organism is adapted to its environment, it sounds as though a meaningful statement is being made, it has a pleasing grammatical nuance to it, but in reality is just as meaningless as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously.
Such an environment or condition of existence , like the destination of an IP packet on the Internet isn't a physical location. There are two senses to the word environment: 'Conditions of life' and 'geographical location' sense. Note that the word "random" can also be used in two senses, the "probability sampling"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sampling#Quota_sampling) or "non-random" sense and in the devoid of all intent sense.
As the organism's environment is already described by its attributes it can't be adapted TO its environment. To a greater extent it can't be "better adapted" to its environment. SQL code can't be adapted to its environment, neither can it be better adapted. With an organism we are dealing with a more advanced code than SQL a mechatronic AI algorithmic processing device that also flips switches , just like SQL code flips transistors on and off: It makes no sense to talk of SQL being adapted to its environment, it exists purely because of its descriptive attributes, which had to exist in somebodies mind, likewise it makes no sense talk of organisms being adapted to their environment. An organism, rock or any other living and non-living thing expresses only a condition of existence due to its descriptive attributes existing in somebodies mind (that would be the Lord Jesus Christ from the YEC view).
An environment logically entails a description of a set of attributes. With the "Adaption/environment" clause we are only referring to one thing, as adaption describes an environment or conditions of life, melting pot or set of social and cultural conditions affecting a community. Fitness isn't a measurable quality. A creature is, by being an existing creature, fit. The creature doesn't "have" fit parts or genes. If genes constitute the creature, then they don't also require a property called "fitness" that helps it exist. I don't see the significance of saying that evolution is about populations. Like the term "fit" can't apply to individuals, the term "evolve" can't apply to populations. There aren't properties and processes (fit, evolve,) above and beyond the individual and the population.
SQL is the coda or semantics that conveys the idea of a master/slave database relationship or dictionary key:value pairs in Python. By saying SQL, signal sender and signal receiver understand a set of algorithms that achieves key:value iteration or database mapping. That's the concept , saying that "..SQL is intended to be independent of its condition of existence...." is just as meaningless as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously and "...SQL is adapted to its condition of existence..." Your sentence is grammatically correct though.
SQL isn't separate, independent or adapted to anything. You can't be adapted or independent from your condition of existence because your "existence" is who you are. Cheese isn't "adapted" to being cheese, cheese condition of existence or environment is defined by its attributes (soft, tasty , yellow etc.)
http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B14117_01/appdev.101/b10807/13_ele... "...A cursor variable declared in a PL/SQL host environment and passed to PL/SQL as a bind variable. The datatype of the host cursor variable is compatible with the return type of any PL/SQL cursor variable. Host variables must be prefixed with a colon......"
Explain how saying "....SQL is either adapted, independent,separate , linked or in love with its condition of existence......" relates to the Pragmatics of the above SQL tutorial. ?
On a scale of adaptability 1-10 , how would I measure your adaptation to your condition of existence ? Magnetic flux is measured using Gauss , and current is measured in a standardized way. In order to measure something we agree apon a standardized metric so that 3amps has some sort conceptual meaning universally understood as the ratio between voltage and resistance. What standardized metric other than being in existence was agreed apon to measure the fitness of an elephant and how would such a measurement differ from a gazelle? If a pig had wheels mounted on ball bearings instead of trotters , on what scale of porcine fitness would it be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Survival_of_the_fittest#Reproductiv... "....Such misunderstandings have been normal rather than the exception ever since 1900. This page unfortunately seems to have misunderstood the meaning the word "fit" had in the 1800s, and it should be radically revised. "Fit" meant suitable or appropriate. For example, women of the middle class could often be considered "not a fit wife for her excellent son"(Anne Bronte's novel "Agnes Grey"). The modern and usual meaning of the word is a product ot the 1900s, and Darwin and Spencer had no concept of physical fitness -- a modern luxury. The old concept "fit" represents in itself a relative quality, relative to something, , just like the verb "to fit", as a lid fits on its box. Darwin wanted such a relative concept, so he adopted Spencer's expression. It expressed "suited or adapted to its environment", which is exactly his basis for natural selection. It follows that he could have written "survival of the fit", it expresses almost the same idea. But "fittest" makes the idea of selection of only the best suited characteristics clearer. Mondin (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC) ...."
One person's view of marriage suitability is dependent on the cultural context and is subjective. A reader of Darwin understood "fitness" to be "suitable" the word meaning intended by Spencer. Spencer sold over a million books and Darwin was interpreted within the Spencer reference frame with Spencer's terminology and world view. Current is measured in amps, would "fitness" or "suitability" then be measured in "naturals"? The measurement of a women's "suitability" is an emotionally charged subjective assesment, not something that can be measured as current is measured, which is emotion free. There is no scale of suitablity 1-10 like there is with amps 1-10 , suitablity and its modern synonym fitness can't be measured, they aren't measurable qualities but emotion laden subjective comparisons by people in the Spencerian/Darwinian cultural context. She didn't take a Gauss meter and measure "suitability flux" on a scale of 1-10 with the women coming in at 7,2 naturls but the cut-off point for "fitness" or suitability being 8 naturals. What was understood in the 1800s context by a reader of Darwin and Spencer's usage of "suitable" or "fitter" was that the white people were more "Fit" or "better fitted" or "suitable" to dominate the world then black people.
If fitness is a measurable quantity then on what scale of "fitness" would black and white people be in the socio-cultural context of the 1800's? On what scale would they be in the context of a politically correct driven social studies class at Harvard. Obviously at Harvard in 2010 they would be at exactly the same point, mentally, culturally etc.. Which thus demonstrates the point: Fitness(suitability) can't be measured. But the word "fitness" is widely used in the Neo-Empedoclian community(not evolutionary or Darwinian) in reference to human beings. Thus the usage of of "fitness" in a narration that is supposed to provide a well reasoned description of what we observe(not science, nobody knows that that word means) is just as sense destroying as trying to include "Julio cranks his wooden cheese" - it makes no sense.
Natura non facit saltum, nature makes no sudden leaps. In the context used "nature" is a synonym for "environment" which is used in the "the condition of existence" sense. To rephrase the sentence it means: "Your condition of existence makes no sudden leaps". By definition your condition of existence can't speed up or slow down, at the pragmatics level the sentence is a Truthiness-Tautology. Always bear in mind that words such as Nature, selection, decision, random etc have no meaning, they can only symbolically represent an idea in a specific context which allows one to use synonyms where one wouldn't ordinarly do so.
Everything that is in a condition of existence plays out in a linear time trajectory, such a time can't "jump" into the future speed up or slowdown. I am part of nature in the sense that my nature is in a condition of existence in the here and now, my existence isn't slowing down or speeding up. In the condition of existence sense nature is a synonym for environment. Try and measure "nature" on a scale of 1-10 and point out where the demarcation is between sudden and slow in the same way one would demarcate between a weak and strong magnetic field in Gauss units. What would be the units of measurement, "naturals" perhaps?
In other words the term "Natura non facit saltum" is just as meaningless as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously. By saying that the condition of existence makes no sudden leaps it invokes an image of increasing or decreasing slopes, such as those "fitness landscapes" abstractions. Whatever the graphs are supposed to represent, they can't represent a "fitness landscape" or "suitability landscape" - there is no such thing that can be measured or calibrated on scale of -10 to +120 in the same sense an A/D converter Span and Zero would be calibrated to digitally represent a physical measurement.. If a "fitness landscape" can be measured how would one then calibrate its Zero and Span ?
Note that no matter in what context "Natura non facit saltum" is used with whatever intent(Darwin had a specific intent) it remains just as invalid as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously in any context.
The same logic applies to "NS acts". A selection is a decision, decisions aren't "natural" but could be contemplated or hasty etc., decisions don't act on anything because only a being can make a decision or act on something. Darwin used the term "natural selection acts" but the idea he had was in the pattern and not design sense. Even though he used "acts" he didn't mean there was a conscious entity "acting". Which is why he shouldn't have written the book and kept silent, instead out of anger towards God for the death of his daughter he has induced Aristotelian mental illness from YEC to Atheist. Neither YEC, ID and atheist comprehends that words such as "natural selection acts" don't mean anything, only ideas have meaning.
Neither can one "add in selection" as a Discovery institute bacterial resistance video narrated by Stephen Myer claimed. You can't "add in selection" to the bacteria but could make decisions influencing the outcome of bacteria interacting. (Which is why the ID and Ken Ham YEC side are doing more damage than Dawkins because they use the same terminology, the Neo-Aristotelians get to define the rules of the game and the game with words is rigged if you play by their rules, you can't win the argument because you can't win an argument against a mentally ill person thinking that decisions can be natural. YEC is correct view though because that is what Christ implied) What is a natural decision or a natural preservation(Darwin meant preservation with selection)? What is a colorless green idea.....
“Natural Selection acts on genes, not individuals or groups of individuals.” True or false? could just as well have been http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously. True or false? The question is a false dichotomy, both answers are wrong because the sentence is grammatically correct but meaningless. The Neo-Empedoclians are using grammatically correct but meaningless sentences formulated in a tautological way to induce one to accept their world view. Using grammatically correct by meaningless sentences is just as mentally damaging as believing a traffic light can be green and red at the same time. We are dealing with an insidious assault on our language, that not a single YEC dinosaur adventure land will solve. In the Bible it is forbidden to make images of things in heaven, because one then focuses on the images instead of the words, engaging in visualizations instead of trust by faith in the words of God alone. Job engaged in a whole dialogue where the words carried forth power. Jesus Christ asked Job:"....Who darkeneth council by words without wisdom ?...." AIG, Dembski, http://www.icr.org are using words without wisdom (natural selection, differential reproductive success, adapted to its environment) which darkeneth council. The language guile and deceit of the Neo-Aristotelians won't be solved by museums stuffed with dinosaur bones.
What does Fitness mean Edit
The problem with the huge language confusion we have in 2010 is that virtually everybody before 1858 believed Mind came before matter and their language reflected this innate volition. As JohnWilkins wrote:"..... lets face it , ordinary language with its volition isn't suitable for discussing concepts in biology...."
Today the same symbols are used by those who believe that matter came before Mind. 2000 years ago Selectus was used to express the concept of making a decision. Today the Neo-Aristotelians tell us that "selection" doesn't mean that anymore. They are incorrect, 'selection' like 'quark' has no meaning, they symbolically represented specific concepts (decision, will volition). By invoking the HumptyDumpty principle the Neo-Empedoclians represent arbitrary ideas with selection - which they certainly can do, but like Alice protested nobody knows what they are trying to say. They have invented a sort of Falun-Gong secret language. In China the Falun-Gong cult have resulted in children inventing their own dialect of Chinese so that even their own parents can't understand them. The language confusion extends from 'group selection', 'kin selection', 'selection-for', 'selection-about', 'memes to 'fitness landscape' to 'differential reproductive success'.
The Aristotelians run the public education system and they are just as destructive as a mother pointing to the color red with her baby on her lap and saying "Green". We find ourselves in a sort of a mad-hatters language mad house where "selection" no longer represents making decisions. The IEEE society have defined ATM protocol as using fixed byte widths of 57. What the Aristotelians like Pinker and Dawkins are doing is imagine that by government decree ATM packet width because anything any engineer wishes it to be, our telecoms system will jam and the Internet won't work. In the same way our language isn't working anymore as means to consistently convey specific concepts. It is an assault on our collective mental health a situation worsened by http://www.icr.org, Ken Ham and Dembski who have capitulated to the Inquisition like mental torture of having the Neo-Empedoclians continually use "selection" but then not mean "decision". It is like imagine every driver decides to invent his own reality and drive when the robot is red instead of green. The symbol selection represents and arbitrary idea in either the pattern or design sense, a red robot represents an arbitrary idea. Look beyond the symbol and ask what is the idea. Decisions(selection) can be no more natural or artificial then green can be colorless and circles square.
The debates between YEC, materialists and ID are doomed because of this. Steven Pinker as the professorial overlord intimidates his students to think like him, speak like him and invent their own language reality as they invoke the HumptyDumpty principle.
Especially the ID movement Dembski etc. have worsened the situation and are being sucked into the Aristotelian language madness. YEC apologetics movement is no longer defending the Word of God, they can't because their brains have been scrambled by the sheer force of mass media, Pinker , Dawkins , the attack of mass media as they went straight for the jugular: Language, semantics, words and the meaning they used to symbolically represent the last 5000 years before language became undefined in 1859.
The Aristotelians are caught in a tautological feedback loop that sucks in ever more words and terms. Especially 'differential reproductive success' is an interesting term because Darwin never uttered the phrase and nobody can explain what sort of technical significance it is supposed to have, see DarwinNeverSaidDifferentialReproduction. 'Differential reproductive success' has no meaning it can only represent an idea - which idea by whom? For who is what a success. A success is some predetermined goal that has been reached, who had this goal. If the frog is a 'successful' frog then why isn't it a happy frog. If natural selection is blind , why isn't it stupid.
Where Dembski, Ken Ham and http://www.irc.org have lost the whole argument form the word go, is that you can't win an argument against multi-universe theorists inventing their own real-time reality in HumptyDumpty space as the atoms in their head collides. The molecules in PZMyers head for example have undergone a sort of quantum flux making him animated for the purpose of proving that he is purposeless. If the atomic spin in his head is correct and there is no God ,the YEC will die with their delusions and the atheist will die never knowing he actually was correct and thus so what? Why the frantic animation from the atheists, if they actually believed that there really was no God they would be tolerant towards the YEC and give them an indifferent shrug. Instead they are very concerned about what the "truth" is not knowing how self-defeating their own position really is because if there is no God and they die , they will never find out.
By forcing through ridicule, dismissal , economic sanction they have intimidated even Atheists to say selection doesn't represent decision in the usual sense of the word. A selection is a decision, there is no such thing as natural or artificial decision, this is by arbitrary decree in the same way that we have arbitrarily defined ATM as being fixed and Ethernet variable frame rates.
Imagine the reaction we would get from IEEE engineers if Pinker and Dawkins decrees that ATM is no linger fixed packet widths but variable like Ethernet. But this is the exact same mess we know have with the term "natural selection": What naturaled (VerbingNouns) and who did the selecting? The IEEE would protest such lunacy , but http://www.icr.org, Ken Ham and Dembski aren't even raising the issue. As Ken Ham said: ".... I believe in Natural Selection...". A YEC saying NS in any context other than to ask "what naturaled and who did the selecting" is imperiling his soul whether he realizes it or not. The early Xtians could worship Christ, they just had to say:"...Caeser is Lord..." but they refused and were tortured to death. And the same with Natural Selection: Dawkins , Wilkins and the US/EU funded Aristotelian tautological inducing mind control institutions expect Xtians to have one set of beliefs on Sunday and another on Monday. It makes a mockery of the Xtian faith and will not be tolerated by Jesus Christ who is Truth incarnate.
Pinker and Dawkins can't kill you for refusing to say "natural , natural I am going to get all naturaled" but they can refuse that degree and thus a job. Xtianity involves persecution and today it is becoming ever more impossible to be a Xtian. Expecting a Xtian to say "natural selection" is expecting him to say "Aristotle is Lord".
- At http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2009-10/msg08585.html poster iain_inkster@DOMAIN.HIDDEN wrote: "...Each time somebody here uses the phrase 'natural selection', your quibble is that ' "selection" implies intent'. It does not. In whatever respect you say " 'selection' implies intent ", you are wrong......"
My reply to iain_inkster is that they symbol Selection like the symbol Fitness has no criteria nor can it imply anything since it means nothing. Only a conscious being can imply something and used the symbol 'selectus' 2000 years ago to do such implying. What "selectus" was used to symbolically represent or imply the last 2000 years was the the concept of intent or making a decision. Such decisions by Augustus were neither "natural" nor "artificial", in the same way that square circle can't exist. Note that JohnWilkins wrote elsewhere that "natural selection" and "artificial selection" should really just be "selection". What that means within in his premise we don't know. What Dawkins and Pinker have done is like imagine Harvard University forces all their students to drive from now on as though a red robot means go and green means stop. Any protestations from the students would result in immediate dismissal from the university. The third time you ask Pinker "What naturaled and who did the selecting" you will be kicked out of Harvard.
University students are the mercy of their Empedoclian professorial overlords, they are induced into the cult of Aristotelian, Empedoclian and Democritean tautological thinking because that is the official belief of the US federal government and EU. The symbol string natural selection is a sort of means to bind societies collective mind into a common purpose, to make everybody think the same. It has been so successful that even Ken Ham says".... I believe in Natural selection....." , he is a sever danger to the mental health of society. God expects you to be in your sane mind when you reason with him. Decisions aren't natural and green isn't colorless. Ken Ham is correct on YEC but his argumentation scheme is wrong.
We have Ken Ham supposedly representing the YEC view and Pinker representing the atheist view. One is forced to choose between the two sides, what about the option that Ken Ham, Pinker, Dawkins and Dembski could all be wrong? Ken Ham is obviously correct that the earth was made 6000 years ago, but that is what Genesis says, but his argumentation scheme suffers from an Aristotelian logical fallacy as does Dembski and Dawkins. You could be correct but for the wrong reasons.
Because they all use the grammatical gargoyle natural selection in a meaningful sense. Which means they are just as mentally ill as trying to use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously in a meaningful sense. The only option nobody is willing to consider is that we are in an abyss of language undefinedness, where YEC, atheists and ID are having endless debates not realizing that their arguments are doomed because neither of them comprehend what they mean with the symbol "selection". Who did the selecting? Nobody, well then why is a word that symbolically represented exactly that meaning then being used!?
If you tell the driver:"The robot is red!" , you are telling him to stop. We have arbitrarily by some decree if you wish decided that "red" represents stop. Now we could have used "green" is we wished but didn't. With "selectus"(Latin) 2000 years ago and "Selection" 200 years ago the intended meaning was plain: Making of a decision. It the last 150 years where the confusion over this has come in.
By government decree "red" is being used to mean stop. The same US government have also decreed to Pinker that "selection" no longer means "decision". The question: Who did the selecting? is forbidden. Xtian students studying Biology are given litmus tests where they have to answer multiple choice questions concerning 'natural selection'. The only answer they can give: "What naturaled and who did the Selecting" isn't on the question sheet. It amounts to imagine forcing Paul to answer the question with either Zeus or Apollo: " ...Which God made the universe, Zeus or Apollo...?" We are thus presented with a false dichotomy.
Thus wehave a huge language mess on on our hands where the the ruling elite from our universities are arbitrarily decreeing that "red" no longer means "stop" so speak, that "selection" no longer means "decision". The last 150 year we have witnessed a process that amounts to making people believe they can all invent their own language reality where "non-random" no longer is the synonym for "directed". We witness the same phenomena in China where the spiritual void left by atheism is filled with the Falun Gong cult, the spiritual void in atheist society is dealt with by making language itself undefined really.
Survival is necessarily of the fittest. No matter what survives - John Jones