Natural selection like triangular circles can't exist

<< < (10/20) > >>

metari1 (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 ?






ArgumentumAdHominem (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... ::)


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.
metari1 (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?
metari1 (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... ::)

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?
ArgumentumAdHominem (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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page