South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

July 15, 2019, 22:32:06 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Follow saskeptics on twitter.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Natural selection like triangular circles can't exist

 (Read 23175 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
metari1
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +0/-5
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #45 on: November 25, 2007, 20:09:37 PM »


I also thought that you might like to read "the origin" on page 118 where the dear departed Darwin refutes your original argument from the grave.  I guess this "natural selection is a gramatical gargoyle" thing is that predictable...

Others have objected that the term selection implies conscious choice in the animals which become modified; and it has even been urged that, as plants have no volition, natural selection is not applicable to them!  In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a false term; but who ever objected to chemists speaking of the elective affinities of the various elements? --and yet an acid cannot strictly be said to elect the base with which it in preference combines. It has been said that I speak of natural selection as an active power or Deity; but who objects to an author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of the planets? Everyone knows what is meant and is implied by such metaphorical expressions; and they are almost

"...Others have objected that the term selection implies conscious choice in the animals which become modified; and it has even been urged that, as plants have no volition, natural selection is not applicable to them!..."

Darwin is begging the question, he assumes the very thing he is supposed to independently specify in different terms - NS. And plants don't have volition or will or motives or goals. Can one specify "triangular circles" in different terms? No, on a point of
logic there is no such thing. If Darwin had said "nature selection force" we would understand his intent. But he said Natural Selection and there is no such thing on a point of logic. I have never in my life executed a "natural" selection, but contemplated, hasty, thoughtful, quick and slow - but natural? What is a natural selection, what naturaled ?






Logged
ArgumentumAdHominem
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +6/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 134


This husk is no longer used


« Reply #46 on: November 25, 2007, 20:15:21 PM »

Lets move the debate on and I will tell you why you won't find an actual ToE on Wikipedia: Because there is no theory. [...] And on the Evolution page they tell you to go and read OoS to get the actual ToE... Roll Eyes


Are you not reading the article?  The opening paragraphs give you the theory of evolution.

Quote from: Wikipedia:Evolution 25 Nov 2007
In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next. These traits are the expression of genes that are copied and passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations in these genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in heritable differences between organisms. New traits can also come from transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.

Natural selection is a process that causes heritable traits that are helpful for survival and reproduction to become more common, and harmful traits to become more rare.


When we say "Society evolves" we are not talking about the notion of a monkey turning into a human (or common ancestor or whatever you want to call the ape). Thus the intent with "evolution" depends on the context in which a person uses it. The Theory of Evolution is not the same thing as "evolution", a theory is specific formulation that attempts to provide at the very least a well reasoned description of what we observe. Darwin couldn't even define the problem, how could he therefore have formulated a theory?


True.  The term "evolution" can be seen as a change in anything such as "the evolution of a free market in Russia" or "the evolution of the keyboard".  These other common uses of the term "evolution" have been around for a long time (since 1615) and originally meant "gradual or pieceful change" and "any process of formation, growth or development".  Don't take my word for it, consult the dictionary ...

ev·o·lu·tion      /ˌɛvəˈluʃən or, especially Brit., ˌivə-/
–noun
1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane. 
2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research. 
3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. 
4. a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions. 
5. a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine. 
6. a pattern formed by or as if by a series of movements: the evolutions of a figure skater. 
7. an evolving or giving off of gas, heat, etc. 
8. Mathematics. the extraction of a root from a quantity. Compare involution ( def. #8 ). 
9. a movement or one of a series of movements of troops, ships, etc., as for disposition in order of battle or in line on parade. 
10. any similar movement, esp. in close order drill


See, like most words it has multiple meanings, just like "selection" earlier in the discussion.  But when the word is used in the biological context it refers to the theory as you can see from Dictionary.com - there is a separate meaning and intent (yet again) from the day-to-day use of the word.

And the above quote is obviously not a theory that explains inverted pendulum control in birds.


Agreed ... see my previous post from tonight.
Logged
metari1
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +0/-5
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #47 on: November 25, 2007, 20:19:23 PM »

Well, the inverted pendulum control for balance is a designed system, and seeing as you have asked us to demonstrate this design in nature you are asking us to prove Intelligent Design.

Charles Darwin used the term "intelligent design" in a letter to his friend. In another letter he admitted that he made no sense of mathematics and could do no higher algebra or calculus. What is your intent with "Intelligent Design". Only humans can communicate intent.
Intelligent design like love and mortal is just normal language, what exactly about the term ID do you object to?
Logged
metari1
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +0/-5
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #48 on: November 25, 2007, 20:29:19 PM »

Lets move the debate on and I will tell you why you won't find an actual ToE on Wikipedia: Because there is no theory. [...] And on the Evolution page they tell you to go and read OoS to get the actual ToE... Roll Eyes

Are you not reading the article?  The opening paragraphs give you the theory of evolution.
And the opening paragraph is nowhere to be found in OoS - I want Darwin's Theory of Evolution not some unknown author on Wikipedia ramblings.

But when the word is used in the biological context it refers to the theory as you can see from Dictionary.com - there is a separate meaning and intent (yet again) from the day-to-day use of the word.

Define for me what exactly is a biological context. What is this what does it mean? Biology is basically just life. All living things are part of the biological world and thus "biological" just a different way saying "life". And thus your intent is
the "life context". But what is life?
Logged
ArgumentumAdHominem
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +6/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 134


This husk is no longer used


« Reply #49 on: November 25, 2007, 20:36:48 PM »

"...Others have objected that the term selection implies conscious choice in the animals which become modified; and it has even been urged that, as plants have no volition, natural selection is not applicable to them!..."

Darwin is begging the question, he assumes the very thing he is supposed to independently specify in different terms - NS. And plants don't have volition or will or motives or goals. Can one specify "triangular circles" in different terms?

Please read the quote again.  That plants have volition is not what Darwin is saying (others have objected that the term selection implies conscious choice ... [and they go on to say that] ... plants have no volition [therefore] natural selection is not applicable to them).  He is summarising the criticism before he addresses it.  You have stopped your quote of Darwin at the criticism of his view, not the refutation of the criticism - the rest of what he says is the argument.

Darwin is not begging the question, you have to read the chapter to understand what natural selection means and just extracting one sentence which contains the term doesn't mean that it is begging the question.

Charles Darwin used the term "intelligent design" in a letter to his friend.

Personally I haven't seen that letter so I can't comment on it.  Darwin was a christian and did call for god to start it all off.  As Darwin saw it, god started everything because he knew how it was going to "end".

In another letter he admitted that he made no sense of mathematics and could do no higher algebra or calculus.

Relevance? Or do you want to bring-up the Ad Hominem argument that you brought-up previously.

What is your intent with "Intelligent Design". Only humans can communicate intent.
Intelligent design like love and mortal is just normal language, what exactly about the term ID do you object to?

I don't object to the term at all.  I am objecting to the attempt to get an evolution proponent to prove a central tennet of ID - that birds are perfect because they were designed to be perfect. The assumption is that studies in robotics (like inverted pendulum control) is proof that the balance of a bird is maintained via a designed system, when in actuality they have no common ground.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2007, 20:38:29 PM by ArgumentumAdHominem » Logged
ArgumentumAdHominem
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +6/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 134


This husk is no longer used


« Reply #50 on: November 25, 2007, 20:42:44 PM »

Define for me what exactly is a biological context. What is this what does it mean? Biology is basically just life. All living things are part of the biological world and thus "biological" just a different way saying "life". And thus your intent is
the "life context". But what is life?

Gosh, I'm so glad that you can deduce some wild conclusions on my behalf.  I thought that the privelage was reserved for Darwin.  Of course your deduction is nothing even close to my intention.

When biologists speak to one another they use biological language (normal English language in a biological context).  Refer to the Dictionary.com quote for an example of the difference between the meaning of words spoken in a normal (day-to-day) context and in a biological context.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2007, 20:52:53 PM by ArgumentumAdHominem » Logged
metari1
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +0/-5
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #51 on: November 25, 2007, 21:22:15 PM »

Define for me what exactly is a biological context. What is this what does it mean? Biology is basically just life. All living things are part of the biological world and thus "biological" just a different way saying "life". And thus your intent is
the "life context". But what is life?

Gosh, I'm so glad that you can deduce some wild conclusions on my behalf.  I thought that the privelage was reserved for Darwin.  Of course your deduction is nothing even close to my intention.

When biologists speak to one another they use biological language (normal English language in a biological context).  Refer to the Dictionary.com quote for an example of the difference between the meaning of words spoken in a normal (day-to-day) context and in a biological context.

Read an article "The meaning of Life" p.98 in the latest edition of popular mechanics dec.2007 in SA and read what they have to say about Life itself. I will get back to this issue, my view is that "biology" is just "life" and the article states that we don't know what is life hence "biology" needs to be carefully defined in the light of our premises. But get hold of the article or we won't really be able to have a thoughtful discussion around here.
Logged
ArgumentumAdHominem
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +6/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 134


This husk is no longer used


« Reply #52 on: November 26, 2007, 07:00:07 AM »

Read an article "The meaning of Life" p.98 in the latest edition of popular mechanics dec.2007 in SA and read what they have to say about Life itself. I will get back to this issue, my view is that "biology" is just "life" and the article states that we don't know what is life hence "biology" needs to be carefully defined in the light of our premises. But get hold of the article or we won't really be able to have a thoughtful discussion around here.

Thanks for the recommendation.  I'll gladly read the article in Popular Mechanics as soon as I can.  Many articles I have read from the publication have bordered on woo-woo (for example how the study of Quantum Mechanics and water molecules is unlocking the "secrets" of homeopathy).  But again I digress ...

There is no need to read someone else's article to understand what I meant when I said "biological context".  Because you say that "biology = life" doesn't mean that my intention was to say biological = everything in life.

By your logic when someone says "The word difference means having dissimilarities in day-to-day language, but the word difference has a unique meaning in the mathematical context - the unique meaning is that difference means subtraction."

Quote from: Lingual obfuscator
But mathematics is the study of sets, numbers and relations. Mathematics describes processes and dimensions all around us and because numbers are in everything we can say that "mathematical" is just another way of saying "everything" and thus your intent is the "everything context", so when we see everything we see subtraction, a negative, destructive thing.

Let me re-itterate that my meaning is that the "biological context" is the context of discussions about the science of biology or the context of discussions about biological processes.  My meaning is not the "life context" and so there is no need to go down the garden path of "what is life" which has no bearing on this present discussion.  You can protest as much as you want to but the theory of evolution is "the origin of species" not "the origin of life".  Don't confuse evolution with abiogenisis.
Logged
scienceteacheragain
godlike, humble, know-it-all
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +2/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 176



« Reply #53 on: November 27, 2007, 16:28:33 PM »

Metari1:
This thread was started based on what I consider rhetoric not on any real discussion of the mechanism of natural selection.
These later posts have confused me even further.  Are you saying that the Theory of Evolution does not exist because you can't find a definition of it that is acceptable to you?
You mention ID.  Do you accept the Discovery Institute version of ID as a theory?

And for people in general, I am following DI like a stalker as it is at the front of the culture wars back home (the United States).  I was wondering how familiar people on this forum are with it and if you think I should start a post on it?? 
Logged
scienceteacheragain
godlike, humble, know-it-all
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +2/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 176



« Reply #54 on: November 27, 2007, 16:39:01 PM »

And that's ID as in intelligent design that I stalk.
The DI get's paranoid if someone says something like that. Undecided
Logged
metari1
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +0/-5
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #55 on: November 27, 2007, 21:30:30 PM »

Are you saying that the Theory of Evolution does not exist because you can't find a definition of it that is acceptable to you?

Let me quote you Darwin's actual theory. Everybody talks about the Theory of Evolution but nobody seems to know that what this actually refers to is Darwin's Theory of Gradual Evolution
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. That many species have been evolved in an extremely gradual manner, there can hardly be a doubt.

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. A theory is according to somebody - who's ToE are you referring to? You tell me since you claim that you have an actual ToE. So then please give it to me then! So let me try this just one more time, when you refer to the
ToE are you refering to the passage I quoted from OoS, is this what you have been talking about all these years. Or were you just refering to ToE as some sort of abstract concept that nobody knows what it is supposed to be. In other words my dear materialists are you confused?


Logged
metari1
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +0/-5
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #56 on: November 27, 2007, 22:08:01 PM »

This quote will help you understand why I say there is no actual ToE and the continued insistence by YEC, ID and materialists that there actually is a ToE indicates a form of mental illness and I say this as a fundamentalist King James YEC myself:

 "We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;' but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists." Smith, Wolfgang (1988) Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books & Publishers Inc., p.2
Logged
metari1
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +0/-5
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #57 on: November 27, 2007, 22:24:24 PM »

"....Darwin all but ignored the fossil record, complaining about the imperfections of the geologic record. He and his followers wrote the history of life on the basis of what they thought the history should be. The Darwinistic dictum of variation/adaption/natural selection/speciation has been supposed to be the rule in the history of life. This method of writing history is very much like attempting to develop a history of the antique by studying sociology, psychology, and political science of the present world...."
Hs'fc, Kenneth J., “Sedimentary Petrology and Biologic Evolution,” Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, vol. 56 (September 1986), pp. 729-732.


See his home page http://www.kennethjhsu.com/mylife.html#mylife . The author has a PHD in geology and note how he basically says that only fools believe Darwin's stories.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2007, 22:31:52 PM by metari1 » Logged
ArgumentumAdHominem
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +6/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 134


This husk is no longer used


« Reply #58 on: December 02, 2007, 14:16:12 PM »

A theory is according to somebody - who's ToE are you referring to? You tell me since you claim that you have an actual ToE. So then please give it to me then!


A theory is according to somebody? Here I think you are mistaken.  In popular culture we are taught about "Einstein's Relativity" or "Friedmann's Big Bang", but that is only in popular culture, not in science. Every theory changes over time as it finds better answers for the "to do" parts of the theory.  Instead of labelling a theory with a person's name (which would wipe-away all the work of subsequent scientific study) we refer to the "modern" theory of evolution.  Consider this from the following example;

Nicolaus Copernicus first postulated that the sun did not orbit the Earth but that the Earth and all planets orbited a fixed sun in a heliocentric model.  So do we have "Copernicus' theory of planetary motion"? No, he had an hypothesis, not a theory. Copernicus was an accomplished astrologer (and talented in maths and the physics of the day) who made a living from observing the planets and (with it being early in the Renaissance) there was little science involved.  He didn't know why the planets moved so he described them the way they had always been described; as being pulled or pushed by angels and other heavenly beings in a perfectly circular path around the sun.  His hypothesis was quite an accomplishment in a time before the telescope was invented.

Many decades later Galileo Galilei improved the newly invented telescope and made observations of the planets which appeared to corroborate the heliocentric model hypothesis, it was becoming a theory.  It was beginning to gain two of the most important aspects of any theory; that it is falsifiable and that it makes quantifiable predictions. So, do we have "Galileo's theory of planetary motion"? No, but this one could be argued because the hypothesis was reaching the tipping-point of being a theory.

A contemporary of Galileo, Johannes Kepler, used observations through Galileo's telescope to devise a mathematical model for the orbits of planets, and in a further revolution, showed that his equations yielded an elliptical orbit, not a circular one.  Kepler introduced what are known as Kepler's Laws which are a set of three equations.  So, do we have "Kepler's theory of planetary motion"?  You could say so, yes, but don't jump the gun and say were finished.

A few decades later, Sir Isaac Newton introduced some of the most well-known theories in science.  I don't need to cover them because I'm sure you are well aware of them.  Newton's part in the development of the theory was to explain in detail why the planets moved according to Kepler's laws and further used calculus to prove Kepler's laws were expressable in terms of his own laws of motion.  Newton made Kepler's equations have greater explanatory value (broader predictive power).

Newton's equations had great accuracy and predictive power, and any observation which contradicted the equations could falsify the theory.  When challenges arose to the theory, in the form of anomalous observations, did they immediately discard the theory? No, not yet because there was no better alternative, actually there was no alternative whatsoever.  Instead the anomalies were explained by the presence of unseen planets (more predictive power, rather than ad-hoc revisioning) and many of these assumed planets were only discovered centuries later with direct observations.  So do we have "Newton's theory of planetary motion"? Yes, we also have that one.  But we are still not done.

In the early twentieth century, astronomers like Friedmann, Slipher, Einstein, Hubble and Lemaître all realised that the sun wasn't the centre of the universe.  Further, Einstein's relativity went on to improve the calculations of planetary motion due to the effect that gravity has on time and we now know that Newton's calculations could introduce minor errors which grow larger over time if time is considered to be a universal constant.

But all of this planetary motion bunkum you don't believe either because the King James Bible tells you so.  Okay, okay, I'll stay on topic.  We can start another discussion thread about astronomy if you would like.

If we call it "Copernicus' theory" then we're wiping-away all the work of later scientists, the same if we call it "Kepler's theory" or "Newton's theory", etcetera. Further, we can't call it "Einstein's theory of planetary motion" because he didn't invent the theory.

So what does this mean for the theory of evolution?  We shouldn't label it as "Darwin's theory of evolution" because it will disregard all of the work of subsequent scientists in fleshing-out the theory.  Recall that I have said all along that Darwin gave us an imperfect theory, he said that he can explain natural selection and concepts of speciation over time but he didn't know how to explain what physical mechanism caused variation and inheritance.  In our modern theory of evolution we have these explanations from genetic science.  So if you go back to the definition of the theory on Wikipedia you will see that it incorporates all of the modern aspects as well as Darwin's theory.  It doesn't matter that it is written by someone anonymous because it is repeated again and again in different words but the same concept is expressed in unchanging form from textbook to textbook, website to website.
Logged
ArgumentumAdHominem
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +6/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 134


This husk is no longer used


« Reply #59 on: December 02, 2007, 14:24:06 PM »

...  this is part 2 continued from the previous entry

... the continued insistence by YEC, ID and materialists that there actually is a ToE indicates a form of mental illness ...

You asked earlier if we were confused?  Appears that you are confused.  You are saying that everyone; people for evolution (materialists) and people against evolution (Young Earth Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents) are all mentally ill.

... and I say this as a fundamentalist King James YEC myself ...

I can't see what you mean, you are labeling yourself as mentally ill because you say you are a Young Earth Creationist?  Huh? I'm not following this part of your argument. I thought that it might be a typo but I can't imagine any sentence that was mistakenly typed which would make any sense.

"We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;' but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists."

The author quotes an unknown source in saying

Quote
is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;

I imagine that the quote is rhetorical, or perhaps parodical.  Either way it is not true; no scientist would say that.  We know that no theory is immune from contradiction and it is a hallmark of science that theories should be falsifiable.  The important thing in science is that the theories that we have are contingently true; they are true based on our current knowledge and may be replaced at a later date by a different theory.  It applies to all theories including gravity, photosynthesis, combustion, electricity, molecular biology, etcetera.  So when, in the 19th century we thought that heat was caused by Caloric fluid, it was true to scientists of the day based on our knowledge at the time but was later proven to be better explained by Kinetic heat.

And you want to know where the evidence is? 
  • It is in DNA which shows our common ancestry with the great apes and mitochondrial DNA shows the lineages of every human on this planet came from one of six early humans more than 120 000 years ago,
  • It is in the fossil record including the 2004 discovery of Tiktaalik linking fish to amphibians,
  • And also because the scientific theory of evolution makes predictions that new species are always evolving we can test it.  Evolution is not directly observable, so this is more difficult because there are thousands of years required to form new species and as scienceteacherinexile pointed-out, we draw the border between species ourselves. Nevertheless, it has been verified, such as the strain of cancerous human cells (called HeLa cells) which have evolved to become a wild unicellular life form (Van Valen and Maiorana 1991) - is god still creating?
There is far more evidence (if you want it) at TalkOrigins.org in the Quicklinks you'll find the evidence for evolution from Douglas Theobald's 29+ evidences for macroevolution.

Continued in part 3 ...
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 2.11 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page February 26, 2019, 15:45:30 PM
Privacy Policy