Natural selection like triangular circles can't exist

[ArgumentumAdHominem]

... this is part 3 continued from part 2

"....Darwin all but ignored the fossil record, complaining about the imperfections of the geologic record ..."
Hs'fc, Kenneth J., “Sedimentary Petrology and Biologic Evolution”

You are making (of Kenneth Hsue) a convenient bedfellow, he is a geologist and will (in his discussion of Sedimentary Petrology) use timespans of millions and billions of years. You can conveniently ignore that because he agrees with you on evolution and you can get back to the problem of geologic timespans later.  But again, I digress ...

Okay, there are a couple of things we need to discuss here: (1) in Darwin's time geology wasn't what modern geology is classified as today; and (2) Darwin consulted the fossil record in devising the theory with its known imperfections, he did not ignore the record at all.

Geology is not what it used to be
Today geology is a branch of geography as it was in the 17th century, but in the 17th century there was no science of palaeontology and the study of fossil records was also undertaken in geology.  When Darwin uses the word "geology" it is sometimes intended literally as "geology" and at other times as "palaeontology" or "the fossil record".  So if Darwin had said that the theory is at odds with the geologic record, he would not have meant the geology that Hsue practices, he would have meant palaeontology or the fossil record.  By the way, Darwin didn't say that the theory is at odds with the fossil record either, this was a rhetorical point to demonstrate the varied meaning of "geology".  Darwin referred to geographical geology (as apposed to palaeontology) in "the origin" a few times and noted how the geology of strata and Earth's formations are consistent with long passages of time.

"It is hardly possible for me to recall to the reader who is not a practical geologist, the facts leading the mind feebly to comprehend the lapse of time.  He who can read Sir Charles Lyell's grand work on the Principles of Geology [...] and yet does not admit how vast have been the past periods of time, may at once close this volume. [...] Therefore a man should examine for himself the great piles of superimposed strata, and watch the rivulets bringing down mud, and the waves wearing away the sea-cliffs, in order to comprehend something about the duration of past time, the monuments of which we see all around us."

The theory and fossil records
Darwin knows that the fossil record is imperfect.

"The noble science of geology [palaeontology] loses glory from the extreme imperfection of the record. The crust of the earth, with its embedded remains, must not be looked at as a well-filled museum, but as a poor collection made at hazard and at rare intervals. The accumulation of each great fossiliferous formation will be recognised as having depended on an unusual occurrence of favourable circumstances"

"That the geological record [fossil record] is imperfect all will admit; but that it is imperfect to the degree required by our theory, few will be inclined to admit. If we look to long enough intervals of time, geology [the fossil record] plainly declares that species have all changed; and they have changed in the manner required by the theory, for they have changed slowly and in a graduated manner. We clearly see this in the fossil remains from consecutive formations invariably being much more closely related to each other than are the fossils from widely separated formations."

[Anacoluthon64]

What I find acceptable or not is irrelevant, what is relevant is that everybody is talking about the ToE but hasn't the faintest clue as to what exactly is the ToE.

No, I’m afraid that you’re the one without even the faintest clue.  First, you gave us your foolish “natural selection is an oxymoron” argument, which supposedly shows that Darwinism doesn’t exist/is incoherent/is nonsense/something else (take your pick).  Now we are asked to consider seriously an even more stupid “there’s no actual theory” argument.  So, instead of wasting everyone’s time, including your own, on preparing such tritely asinine waffle, why don’t you spend some useful time reading this crisp summary of The neo-Darwinian Synthesis.  Absorbing it might keep you from opening your mouth for the sole purpose of changing feet.

'Luthon64

[scienceteacherinexile]

I agree Luthon, and I have tired of this inanity.
Here is a post with addtional links to a lot of info on evolution.

http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/57103

try this one:

http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2007/12/what_is_fact_without_theory.php

[bluegray V]

I'm continuing a different discussion related to this topic at: On the usefulness of debating with fundamentalists.

[metari1]

What I find acceptable or not is irrelevant, what is relevant is that everybody is talking about the ToE but hasn't the faintest clue as to what exactly is the ToE.

No, I’m afraid that you’re the one without even the faintest clue.  First, you gave us your foolish “natural selection is an oxymoron” argument, which supposedly shows that Darwinism doesn’t exist/is incoherent/is nonsense/something else (take your pick).  Now we are asked to consider seriously an even more stupid “there’s no actual theory” argument.  So, instead of wasting everyone’s time, including your own, on preparing such tritely asinine waffle, why don’t you spend some useful time reading this crisp summary of The neo-Darwinian Synthesis.  Absorbing it might keep you from opening your mouth for the sole purpose of changing feet.

The Neo-Darwinian theory of Modern Synthesis as it is called surfaced around 1930 and is not defined:
"There is no canonical definition of neo-Darwinism, and surprisingly few writers on the subject seem to consider it necessary to spell out precisely what it is that they are discussing. This is especially curious in view of the controversy which dogs the theory, for one might have thought that a first step towards resolving the dispute over its status would be to decide upon a generally acceptable definition over it. ... Of course, the lack of firm definition does, as we shall see, make the theory much easier to defend." P.T. Saunders & M.W. Ho, "Is Neo-Darwinism Falsifiable? - And Does It Matter?", Nature and System (1982) 4:179-196, p. 179

I am not talking about Fisher's theories but about Uncle Darwin. Wikipedia's evolution page tells us to go and read OriginSpecies for Charles Darwin's actual theory. I don't want your theory or what you wish the theory to be but what Darwin actually said. And as I have quoted his Theory of Gradual Evolution he didn't give a theory but a tautology. Nobody has yet said a word about Darwin's theory of gradual evolution as quoted, but are instead changing the time frame from 1859 to 1930 - I talking about Darwin since wikipedia evolution page tells us they are talking about Darwin't theory.

[Anacoluthon64]

Let’s do this a little bit back-to-front, okay?

I am not talking about Fisher's theories but about Uncle Darwin.

At the risk of pointing out the manifestly obvious, the work of Fisher and others on the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis did not arise in a vacuum.  The very first sentence of the article linked to earlier puts it about as plainly as can be: “In broad terms, contemporary evolutionary theory builds on the synthesis of Darwin’s ideas of natural variation and selection and Mendel’s model of genetic inheritance… .”  That is why it’s called “the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis” (emphasis added).  Now, which part, exactly, of “Darwin’s ideas of natural variation and selection” are you missing?

I don't want your theory or what you wish the theory to be…

Maybe you should turn that around and aim at yourself too.

… but what Darwin actually said.

Then follow the Wikipedia’s advice and read Darwin’s works.

And as I have quoted his Theory of Gradual Evolution he didn't give a theory but a tautology.

Not true.  You quoted an explanatory paragraph, one you don’t seem to grasp properly, not a scientific theory, the actual meaning of which term has been pointed out to you repeatedly in several ways.  In said paragraph, Darwin gave reasons for supposing that speciation occurs gradually, not abruptly.  Gradualism, however, is just one aspect of the original Darwinism.  But what, pray tell, is tautological about Darwin’s exposition?

Nobody has yet said a word about Darwin's theory of gradual evolution as quoted, but are instead changing the time frame from 1859 to 1930 - I talking about Darwin since wikipedia evolution page tells us they are talking about Darwin't theory.

And you obviously don’t pay much mind when reading the things that others here go to some considerable trouble in collating and drawing to your attention.  Of necessity, any writing about Darwin’s evolutionary theory is an abstract and/or summary of the most important aspects thereof, otherwise everyone interested in the topic might as well learn about it by reading the original works.  If you want the full picture, read those originals.  Moreover, when Darwin wrote those works, they constituted, in today’s terms, a hypothesis, and only later became a full-blown scientific theory.  Furthermore, the Popperian epistemological conception of science didn’t exist in Darwin’s time, so who’s shifting time frames now?  Even more, the mechanisms of Darwinism have not yet been fully explored, and much lively debate is still being conducted about how evolution proceeds, so the theory can hardly be considered complete.  And yet more, Darwinism, not being mathematical, won’t at this time yield to a neat three-line symbolic synopsis à la Maxwell’s EM.  But if you want a précis and a clarification, try this.

In the light of all of the above, all of your pedantic quibbles about Darwin not writing according to your tastes are revealed for the risible farce that they are.

The Neo-Darwinian theory of Modern Synthesis as it is called surfaced around 1930 and is not defined

See earlier: in this regard, what applies to Darwinism largely applies also to neo-Darwinism.  But be that as it may, biologists, geneticists, palaeontologist, biochemists, geologists, biophysicists, etc. will no doubt be deeply, deeply shocked to learn of this.  After brief contemplation, they will then sigh and carry on their research as usual.  That research, by the way, is aimed at clarifying the definition of evolution, a point about science that seems to have eluded you.

'Luthon64

[Anacoluthon64]

Broken link, past modification expiry : "But if you want a précis and a clarification, try this."

'Luthon64

[metari1]

Is natural selection a cause or an effect?

[scienceteacherinexile]

cause or effect of what?
I don't see how you could put natural selection so simply into either.

[metari1]

cause or effect of what?
I don't see how you could put natural selection so simply into either.

Chris Colby says it is an effect, but he never tells us what then is the cause. By logic if something is an effect then something
had to be the cause.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html#natsel
"....Selection is not a force in the sense that gravity or the strong nuclear force is. However, for the sake of brevity, biologists sometimes refer to it that way. This often leads to some confusion when biologists speak of selection "pressures." This implies that the environment "pushes" a population to more adapted state. This is not the case. Selection merely favors beneficial genetic changes when they occur by chance -- it does not contribute to their appearance. The potential for selection to act may long precede the appearance of selectable genetic variation. When selection is spoken of as a force, it often seems that it is has a mind of its own; or as if it was nature personified. This most often occurs when biologists are waxing poetic about selection. This has no place in scientific discussions of evolution. Selection is not a guided or cognizant entity; it is simply an effect.

A related pitfall in discussing selection is anthropomorphizing on behalf of living things. Often conscious motives are seemingly imputed to organisms, or even genes, when discussing evolution. This happens most frequently when discussing animal behavior. Animals are often said to perform some behavior because selection will favor it. This could more accurately worded as "animals that, due to their genetic composition, perform this behavior tend to be favored by natural selection relative to those who, due to their genetic composition, don't." Such wording is cumbersome. To avoid this, biologists often anthropomorphize. This is unfortunate because it often makes evolutionary arguments sound silly. Keep in mind this is only for convenience of expression..."

[bluegray V]

I would say, random genetic mutations causes change, which affects the organism positively or negatively. Over time this has the effect that only the beneficial mutations survive.

[metari1]

I would say, random genetic mutations causes change, which affects the organism positively or negatively. Over time this has the effect that only the beneficial mutations survive.

Darwin never used the term "random mutations" and didn't know about genes. RM only surfaced in 1910 in the journals. Which individual established what you just posted and where was it published - what is your theory and where did you get it because it wasn't Uncle Darwin. Where did for example get term random genetic mutations and how do you know it is random or is it just an assumption given your apriori commitment to materialism?

[metari1]

And as I have quoted his Theory of Gradual Evolution he didn't give a theory but a tautology.

Not true.  You quoted an explanatory paragraph, one you don’t seem to grasp properly, not a scientific theory, the actual meaning of which term has been pointed out to you repeatedly in several ways.  In said paragraph, Darwin gave reasons for supposing that speciation occurs gradually, not abruptly.  Gradualism, however, is just one aspect of the original Darwinism.  But what, pray tell, is tautological about Darwin’s exposition?

What, pray tell was the original Darwinism. Define it for me, spell it out exactly and then tell me who says so.

A tautology is defined as something which is true by definition and something which is true by definition can't be falsified.
Which is why the passage below by Darwin isn't Godless. Darwin's theory of evolution isnt' Godless because it isn't a theory but a
tautology and something which is true by definition can't be Godless. Natural Selection also isn't Godless because it like triangular circles is a semantic impossibility - there is no such thing. And something which doesn't exist by definition can't thus be Godless. If only my fellow brainwashed YEC would somehow get to grips with this.

Darwin
"..This difficulty, as in the case of unconscious selection by man, is avoided on the theory of gradual evolution, through the preservation of a large number of individuals, which varied more or less in any favourable direction, and of the destruction of a large number which varied in an opposite manner...."

Notice what he says - "...varied more or less in any favourable direction..." And thus no matter what happens we will always be told after the event the exact same story, which makes it unfalsifiable. No test can be devised to prove it wrong.

[scienceteacherinexile]

"Darwinism is a tautology"  is a very tired and moronic argument made by creationists who do not understand evolution in the slightest.  Much like yourself. Others here have patiently tried to point you to information that you say doesn't exist and you don't seem to be able to grasp it.  Or perhaps you do not wish to actually grasp it.
Scientific theories are not static, so expecting the modern theory of evolution to have been succintly defined by Darwin is not realistic.

[metari1]

"Darwinism is a tautology" is a very tired and moronic argument made by creationists who do not understand evolution in the slightest.

I didn't say Darwinism is a tautology, I asked you to define for me what is Darwinism and who says so. The passage as quoted from OoS is a tautology though and the word Darwinism didn't appear in the quote. And what is "evolution" , what does it mean? Darwin didn't use the word in his earlier editions because it meant the unrolling of prefabricated beings by God. Today nobody knows what it is supposed to mean, hence I don't know what your pragmatics is with the word. During the 5,6th edition of OoS it meant "Species transition" or the transmutation(Darwin's word) of one species into another. Thus you say I don't understand transmutation of species, yet you can't even specify the problem as to how birds implemented inverted pendulum control in an interdependent manner.

Scientific theories are not static, so expecting the modern theory of evolution to have been succintly defined by Darwin is not realistic.

I am not talking about the Neo-Darwinian theory of 1930 about, I talking about Uncle Darwin's theory, I want to know what was his theory and you are incapable of telling me in your own words because Darwin never gave any theory, he just used the word theory. Darwin talking about the Theory of evolution is like somebody in 1100AD talking about the Theory of sunshine, since the person couldn't even have defined the problem - nuclear fusion how could he possibly have had a theory.

Read the article by Prof.Cleland where she says that we don't know what life is. Biology is just another word for life. http://seedmagazine.com/news/2007/09/the_meaning_of_life.php?page=all

And who has defined what is "biology"? From genes to a dog wagging its tail there is a single word that is implied: Life. And Dr. Cleland has said that we don't know what is life within the materialist framework. Do you know what is life and why Dr.Cleland is mistaken?

A 6-year old being told about "evolution" or species transition and then told that he is evolving his lego castle he is building doesn't know about the SapolskyPragmatics.
"..Scientific American March 2003 "Bugs in the Brain" Robert Sapolsky p. 73: "... most of the deeply entrenched idea that evolution is directional and progressive: invertebrates are more primitive than vertebrates, mammals are the most evolved of vertebrates ... Some of my best students fall for that one, no matter how much I drone on in lectures. If you buy into that idea big-time, you're not just wrong, you're not all that many steps away from a philosophy that has humans directionally evolved as well, with the most evolved being northern Europeans with a teste for schnitzel and goose-stepping...."

This is fraud, the kid is being indoctrinated by the misuse of the word evolution. Strangely Behe, Morris, Ham Ruse and Dembski seems to be in on the scam - they never define what they mean by evolution, nobody does. It is obvious that we need additional terms to communicate our intent. Sapolsky's intent differs from the intent a 6-year old has with evolution, hence we must define additional terms to communicate the different intent.

A person not convercent with the Sapolsky pragmatics interprets Dave Scott incorrectly when he says that evolution is Godless. It is as though Scott had said that the progressive, positive intent by individuals to innovate is "Godless". But the ID folks don't want this senseless debate to stop. O'leary wrote a book,Behe is writing books, Ken Ham tours the land and money is being made by exploiting the fact that nothing is defined.

Lets take another look at the opening paragraph on the Wikipedia Evolution page: "..evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next...."

Let rephrase this with what Darwin intended with the word evolution: Species transition: "..Species transition is the change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next...."

Notice the fraud, there certainly are changes in the inherited traits, but from this it doesn't follow logically that we had a cow, whale transition or ape - human species transition. In a sense all biological life can be defined as inheriting traits, of course or the organism wouldn't be there to begin with - it had to inherit the traits, how else could it possibly be in existence ?