South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

May 26, 2018, 17:41:02 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 ... 4 5 [6] 7   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Natural selection like triangular circles can't exist

 (Read 22239 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
bluegray
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107



saskeptics
WWW
« Reply #75 on: December 10, 2007, 09:30:34 AM »

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

Summary of Darwin's theory
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.

No it's not a tautology (see link below and summary above). And please explain why something 'which is true by definition can't be Godless'.
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.

Some would disagree...
Evolution is unfalsifiable
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3719


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #76 on: December 10, 2007, 10:12:47 AM »

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?

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

I didn't say Darwinism is a tautology, I asked you to define for me what is Darwinism and who says so.



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.



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.
You creationists do not read, apparently.  Not even that which is placed directly in front of you, metari1.  So let me try to put it in language that you might actually understand and react to:

Wakey-wakey!  Clicky-clicky!  Right here!



A tautology is defined as something which is true by definition and something which is true by definition can't be falsified.
Close enough.

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.
Rubbish.  You’re sounding like a stuck record.  Read through this thread.  Then read a science book.

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.
If we are to accept this statement at face value, your god excludes his/her own existence by existing.  Nice.

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.
That’s because you creationists don’t comprehend what you read.  Darwin’s statement is the evolutionary analogue of saying about gravity that it is universally present without specifying anything (magnitude, gradient, direction) of the gravitational field.



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.
No.  The fraud is all yours.  There’s a word – “cumulative” – conspicuously absent from your rephrase.

'Luthon64
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3719


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #77 on: December 10, 2007, 10:57:32 AM »

Quote from: Craig Venter, at Edge:A DNA-DRIVEN WORLD
We and others have been working for the past several years on the ability to go from reading the genetic code to learning how to write it.  It is now possible to design in the computer and then chemically make in the laboratory, very large DNA molecules. A few months ago we published a scientific study in the journal Science where we described the ability to take a chromosome from one bacterium and place it into a second bacterial cell.  The result was astonishing - the new DNA that we added changed the species completely from the original one into the species defined by the added DNA. You could describe this as the ultimate in identity theft.

Again, maybe this sounds like science fiction, but I think it is actually a key mechanism of evolution, that could be largely responsible for the wide range of diversity that we see.  Instead of evolution happening only due to random mutations that survived selective pressure, we can see how by adding chromosomes to or exchanged between species, that thousands of changes could happen in an instant.

Now they can happen not just by random chance but by deliberate human design and selection.  Human thought and design and specific selection is now replacing Darwinian evolution.


Link.  Now, how does man’s ability to create artificial life forms from long DNA strands that were themselves manufactured in the laboratory not show the power and value of evolutionary theory?  Equally important, how does it still require your creator-god to account for the huge diversity of life that we observe?

'Luthon64
Logged
metari1
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +0/-5
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #78 on: December 10, 2007, 18:02:56 PM »

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html
"..Darwin did not claim that evolutionary change is slow and continuous..."

But this is exactly what Uncle Darwin claimed, saying that there can hardly be a doubt about it. Gould differs from Uncle Darwin but
he uses the word "evolution" - his intent differs from Darwin's intent with the word.

Uncle 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. That many species have been evolved in an extremely gradual manner, there can hardly be a doubt...."
Logged
metari1
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +0/-5
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #79 on: December 10, 2007, 22:44:43 PM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution#Defining_evolution

"...In colloquial contexts, evolution can refer to any sort of progressive development, and often bears a connotation of gradual improvement: evolution is understood as a process that results in greater quality or complexity...."

This differs from the Sapolsky version:
"..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 taste for schnitzel and goose-stepping..."

Thus the word "evolution" is undefined and it is no wonder that there is no Theory of Evolution. And if there is a theory then tell me who says so and how was it established and why didn't this person get a Nobel prize for his Theory of Evolution then?
Where did this person provide ways of disproving his theory.
Logged
bluegray
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107



saskeptics
WWW
« Reply #80 on: December 11, 2007, 00:04:25 AM »

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html
"..Darwin did not claim that evolutionary change is slow and continuous..."

But this is exactly what Uncle Darwin claimed, saying that there can hardly be a doubt about it. Gould differs from Uncle Darwin but
he uses the word "evolution" - his intent differs from Darwin's intent with the word.

The quote with a little bit more context:
Quote
4.  Gradualism. According to this theory, evolutionary change takes place through the gradual change of populations and not by the sudden (saltational) production of new individuals that represent a new type.
...

At first blush, (4) Gradualism seems like it might conflict with Gould & Eldredge's "punctuated equilibrium" theory; but on closer examination, not so.

Here [thanks to Robert Low] are two relevant quotes from On the Origin of Species:

    "... it is probable that the periods, during which each [species] underwent modification, though many and long as measured by years, have been short in comparison with the periods during which each remained in an unchanged condition." (from the final 6th edition, 1872)

    "Varieties are often at first local...rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will simply be classed as new species."

Darwin did not claim that evolutionary change is slow and continuous -- only that it does not proceed by "jumps" in a single generation (what Mayr calls "saltational" change). That is, despite the distortions of some anti-evolutionists, Darwin explictly did not think that evolution proceeds by the production of "hopeful monsters" -- Darwin himself never proposed that a fully-dinosaur parent gave birth to fully-bird progeny. Rather, the change took place in a series of intermediate, perhaps nearly insensible, steps in successive generations. Note that change over a thousand generations of any species appears as "sudden" or "abrupt" change in the fossil record, because a thousand generations is such an infinitesimally small fraction of Earth's history.

I think what is meant by 'slow and continuous' here is a constant slow gradual change. They all agree that change is gradual, but on the evolutionary scale, that change is sometimes fast (punctuated) and sometimes slow (equilibrium).
Logged
bluegray
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107



saskeptics
WWW
« Reply #81 on: December 11, 2007, 00:18:37 AM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution#Defining_evolution

"...In colloquial contexts, evolution can refer to any sort of progressive development, and often bears a connotation of gradual improvement: evolution is understood as a process that results in greater quality or complexity...."

This differs from the Sapolsky version:
"..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 taste for schnitzel and goose-stepping..."

Thus the word "evolution" is undefined and it is no wonder that there is no Theory of Evolution.

Not so. Again from the source you quoted with a bit more context:
Quote
One of the main sources of confusion and ambiguity in the creation-evolution debate is the definition of evolution itself. In the context of biology, evolution is simply the genetic change in populations of organisms over successive generations. However, the word has a number of different meanings in different fields, from evolutionary computation to chemical evolution to sociocultural evolution to stellar and galactic evolution. It can even refer to metaphysical evolution, spiritual evolution, or any of a number of evolutionist philosophies. When biological evolution is mistakenly conflated with other evolutionary processes, it can result in errors such as the claim that modern evolutionary theory says anything about abiogenesis or the Big Bang.[5]

In colloquial contexts, evolution can refer to any sort of progressive development, and often bears a connotation of gradual improvement: evolution is understood as a process that results in greater quality or complexity. This common definition, when misapplied to biological evolution, leads to frequent misunderstandings. For example, the idea of devolution ("backwards" evolution) is a result of erroneously assuming that evolution is directional or has a specific goal in mind (cf. orthogenesis). In reality, the evolution of an organism does not entail objective improvement; its suitability is only defined in relation to its environment. Biologists do not consider any one species, such as humans, to be more "highly evolved" or "advanced" than another.[6]

And if there is a theory then tell me who says so and how was it established and why didn't this person get a Nobel prize for his Theory of Evolution then?
Where did this person provide ways of disproving his theory.

From the link I provided earlier, and from which you quoted:
Evolution is unfalsifiable
Darwin did not receive a Nobel Prize because he died before the prize started. Posthumous nominations for the Nobel Prize is not allowed.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3719


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #82 on: December 11, 2007, 10:11:21 AM »

"...In colloquial contexts, evolution can refer to…"



This differs from the Sapolsky version: …



Thus the word "evolution" is undefined…
(Emphasis added; snipped for brevity).  Your nonsense, metari1, answers itself if only you’d take the trouble and actually look, instead of spending all your efforts on fabricating such laughable “disproofs.”



… and it is no wonder that there is no Theory of Evolution.
Repeating it ad nauseam won’t make it true.



And if there is a theory then tell me who says so and how was it established …
This has been satisfactorily discussed and answered repeatedly in several different ways by several different people.  Have a look through the posts in this thread.



… and why didn't this person get a Nobel prize for his Theory of Evolution then?
Answered by bluegray V.



Where did this person provide ways of disproving his theory.
Darwin himself wrote that complex organs, e.g. the eye, appeared to challenge his ideas, but he introduced gradualism in partial answer to these objections.  He also wrote that the sudden appearance of complex body “plans” such as occurred during the so-called “Cambrian Explosion” are difficult to account for.  Both of these self-criticisms have been seized upon by creationists, without properly informing themselves of the realities, as “proof” that evolution is false, and this ignorance continues unabated to this day.  But here are a few examples that would seriously confront evolution:

  • A clear message from your creator-god, saying, “Ididdit! Me!”;
  • Finding the fossil of a creationist amidst trilobite fossils;
  • Finding an organism or part thereof that can be proven to be irreducibly complex;
  • Finding a thick-furred lizard that survives preferentially in the Namib, or
  • Finding a creationist who no longer recites the same tired litany of bunk.

Actually, the last could be construed as evidence in support of evolution.

'Luthon64
Logged
bluegray
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107



saskeptics
WWW
« Reply #83 on: December 11, 2007, 23:09:45 PM »

@topmedia. I moved your reply here:
Logged
metari1
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +0/-5
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #84 on: December 12, 2007, 20:48:04 PM »

Would you say that directed is a synonym for non-random ?
Logged
bluegray
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107



saskeptics
WWW
« Reply #85 on: December 12, 2007, 21:08:48 PM »

Maybe, what is the context?
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3719


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #86 on: December 12, 2007, 21:34:37 PM »

Would you say that directed is a synonym for non-random ?
Uhm, no, not generally if “directed” implies conscious striving towards some goal.  While a non-random effect can be directed, conscious direction is not a necessary condition for non-randomness.  For example, crystal lattices in materials are non-random, but the laws of nature determine how the non-randomness will manifest, not some deliberating agent.

In the case of evolution, “random,” as applied to mutations, is not to be confused with “haphazard” or “necessarily unpredictable” because the environment often determines which kinds of mutations will occur.  The word “random” in this context means “without any preordained purpose.”

'Luthon64
Logged
metari1
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +0/-5
Offline Offline

Posts: 58


« Reply #87 on: December 12, 2007, 23:53:04 PM »

Uhm, no, not generally if “directed” implies conscious striving towards some goal.


What does "directed" then imply in your language universe? What do you define as a synonym for directed.

While a non-random effect can be directed, conscious direction is not a necessary condition for non-randomness. 


What is non-randomness?

For example, crystal lattices in materials are non-random, but the laws of nature determine how the non-randomness will manifest, not some deliberating agent.
In the case of evolution, “random,” as applied to mutations, is not to be confused with “haphazard” or “necessarily unpredictable” because the environment often determines which kinds of mutations will occur.  The word “random” in this context means “without any preordained purpose.”


Who has defined or established that "random" means without purpose? Prof.Herrmann from the US naval academy has shown mathematically that the concept of "randomness" is meaningless. He proposes that "random" be replaced with "mindom". The worlds leading probability theorist have stated that we don't know what randomness is, but we know what it isn't.
http://www.serve.com/herrmann/main.html#5E Randomness a strong delusion
http://www.serve.com/herrmann/random1.htm Abuses of randomness
http://www.serve.com/herrmann/gsa.htm How mind control is exerted using 'positivist' statements

You say "...in the case of evolution...". Which definition of evolution are you using, the evolution version of 1859 which meant the unrolling of prefabricated beings by God? If not then which version defined where by whom of the word evolution are you using.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3719


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #88 on: December 13, 2007, 10:22:17 AM »

What does "directed" then imply in your language universe? What do you define as a synonym for directed.
Quote from: Answers.com, Definition of “direct”…
di•rect (dĭ-rĕkt', dī-)

v., -rect•ed, -rect•ing, -rects.

v.tr.


  • To manage or conduct the affairs of; regulate.
  • To have or take charge of; control.
  • To give authoritative instructions to: directed the student to answer.
  • To cause to move toward a goal; aim.
  • To show or indicate the way for: directed us to the airport.
  • To cause to move in or follow a straight course: directed their fire at the target.
  • To indicate the intended recipient on (a letter, for example).
  • To address or adapt (remarks, for example) to a specific person, audience, or purpose.
    • To give guidance and instruction to (actors or musicians, for example) in the rehearsal and performance of a work.
    • To supervise the performance of.

v.intr.

  • To give commands or directions.
  • To conduct a performance or rehearsal.

Source.
Clearly, a conscious agent striving towards a predefined objective is implicit in the verb “direct.”



What is non-randomness?
Quote from: Answers.com, Definition of “random”…
random (răn'dəm)

adj.


  • Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements.
  • Mathematics & Statistics. Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
  • Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance.

idiom:
at random


  • Without a governing design, method, or purpose; unsystematically: chose a card at random from the deck.

Source.
The antonym of “randomness.”  Constructing the negations to arrive at the meaning of “non-random” should not be difficult.



Who has defined or established that "random" means without purpose?
See above.  In particular, pay close attention to meaning No. 1.



The worlds leading probability theorist have stated that we don't know what randomness is, but we know what it isn't.
Curiously, though, we are still able to devise meaningful statistical tests for gauging randomness; we are able to distinguish between statistical and procedural randomness, and we are able to construct such things as pseudo-random number generators that have recurrence lengths of arbitrary size.  Monte Carlo simulations, which are based on our understanding of statistical randomness, are powerful tools for gathering useful information about the world.  So you’ll have an uphill battle convincing assorted scientists that “randomness” is meaningless and/or useless.



You say "...in the case of evolution...". Which definition of evolution are you using, the evolution version of 1859 …
Why, the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis.



… which meant the unrolling of prefabricated beings by God?
Nope.

'Luthon64
Logged
bluegray
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107



saskeptics
WWW
« Reply #89 on: December 13, 2007, 10:24:02 AM »

Who has defined or established that "random" means without purpose?

That is the definition of the word. If there is purpose, then it is not random.

Prof.Herrmann from the US naval academy has shown mathematically that the concept of "randomness" is meaningless. He proposes that "random" be replaced with "mindom". The worlds leading probability theorist have stated that we don't know what randomness is, but we know what it isn't.
I hope by ' The worlds leading probability theorist' you don't mean Prof.Herrmann. That would be laughable.

From http://www.serve.com/herrmann/random1.htm:
Quote
Suppose that it's possible to conduct the following experiment with photons and a piece of flat glass. You place a photon detector that will "click" each time a photon is "reflected" from the glass at the angle of 45 degree to the flat glass surface. You also count the photons, one at a time, as they leave a photon generator. You know the photon speed and can tell whether a specific generator emitted photon has caused the detector to "click;" indicating whether the generated photon is "reflected" or scattered within the glass. When there is no "click" for a generated photon, you write down a 0. But, when for an emitted photon there is a "click," you write done a 1. During each of three days you conduct this experiment with 20 generated photons. This yields the following three lists of zeros and ones.

    (a) 00100100101110011011

    (b)10000110001110000101

    (c)11110010100100010111

Studying these partial sequences of zeros and ones, it might appear that there is no mathematical expression that will deterministically generate partial sequences that "look" exactly like these. Indeed, one might conclude that they appear to be "randomly" selected. Suppose that these zeros and ones pass every statistical test for independent or individual "random" behavior. If we, however, add the numbers 0 and 1 in succession and create a ratio of the result of these additions divided by the number of zeros and ones we have added, we get the following partial sequences of rational numbers.

    (a) 0/1,0/2,1/3,1/4,1/5,2/6,2/7,2/8,3/9,3/10,4/11,4/12,6/13,6/14,6/15,7/16,

    8/17,8/18,9/19,10/20

    (b)1/1,2/2,2/3,2/4,2/5,3/6,4/7,4/8,4/9,4/10,5/11,6/12,7/13,7/14,7/15,7/16,

    7/17,8/18,8/19,9/20

    (c)1/1,2/2,3/3,4/4,4/5,4/6,5/7,5/8,6/9,6/10,6/11,7/12,7/13,7/14,7/15,8/16,

    8/17,9/18,10/19,11/20

Notice that under this addition law, the last ratios in each case are equal to or nearly equal to 1/2. This does not mean that these ratios will stay "near to" 1/2 if I continue these experiments to say 30 generated photons. But, statistical analysis seems to indicate that there is a high probability that if I continue these partial sequences "far enough," then the last term in the sequence will more closely cluster about the number 1/2 and stay "near to" this number as I continue adding more and more of the zeros and ones. Suppose that you use certain statistical tests that assert that this is a type of "randomness" for individual events and indicates indeterminate unguided behavior. One might conclude that such sequences of zeros and ones cannot be deterministically generated. That with the language you use you cannot predict from your knowledge of the previous event, the 0 or 1, the value of the next event and still maintain such "randomly" generated sequences of zeros and ones.
...
One can state as fact that it is rational to assume that such sequences depicting these photon events are intelligently designed and guided by an intelligent agent via such a deterministic expression.

What he describes here is the probability distribution of the photon to be reflected. In his example there is a 50% chance that the photon will be reflected. He then jumps to the conclusion that this process is 'guided by an intelligent agent' because the probability distribution is known. I fail to see how he can arrive at that conclusion. And from reading that article, it's not difficult to see why he wouldn't be taken seriously.

Random in this case means that you can't predict what the next individual photon will do, but you can predict the probability that it will be reflected or not.

You say "...in the case of evolution...". Which definition of evolution are you using, the evolution version of 1859 which meant the unrolling of prefabricated beings by God? If not then which version defined where by whom of the word evolution are you using.
Please stop wasting time asking for evolution to be defined. I think we all have a good idea with what is meant by the word. From now on assume that it is the theory as first presented by Darwin (and others) and further refined and improved as new evidence came along, to the modern theory we have today.

In evolution, mutation is just one of the causes for genetic variation. Randomness plays a part in this in the sense that there is no way to predict how a gene might mutate.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 1.437 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page May 14, 2018, 03:38:39 AM
Privacy Policy