Natural selection like triangular circles can't exist

(1/20) > >>

metari1 (October 11, 2007, 20:30:44 PM):
There is a such a thing as a hasty selection, or a prompt decision but there is no such thing as a natural selection. A selection is a choice, decision and preference. Nature is not conscious and can't make decisions or make choices. Darwin introduced a grammatical
mistake into the English language confusing YEC, atheists and agnostics. The entire edifice of evolution pivots on this grammatical
mistake - a mistake responsible for two world wars.
mdg (October 12, 2007, 10:25:09 AM):
The term natural "selection" does not mean a conscious choice , it means a "sorting" out in various ways by an organism for a better way to survive or multiply within it's environment - which I don't find confusing at all. Organisms will adapt and modify to their environments in order to propagate their species in order to survive - yes there will be mistakes during this process and those mistakes usually are short lived, but it is this "sorting" out that is the basis of evolutionary theory.

What interests me more is your last sentence:

Quote
The entire edifice of evolution pivots on this grammatical
mistake - a mistake responsible for two world wars.

please explain how Darwins grammatical error was responsible for two world wars.
ArgumentumAdHominem (October 12, 2007, 11:00:18 AM):
Hi metari1, welcome to the forum. Judging by the pattern of similar posts I'm not sure that you are interested in returning, but I'll endeavour to start a discussion. :)

A selection is a choice, decision and preference.


A direct translation of the individual words will lead you to make the deduction that you have made. Not that the words together define a concept, and specifically a biological concept. In science, day-to-day words are often redefined and have a meaning different from the original use, this is where a lot of confusion can come in. According to most dictionaries (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/selection will show you some of them) the word "selection" has a specific meaning in Biology and is indicated that way. It describes a process, there is no tie-in to the day-to-day uses of the word "selection".

Nature is not conscious and can't make decisions or make choices.


Isn't that attacking religion? Isn't that an argument against a master plan?

Darwin introduced a grammatical mistake into the English language confusing YEC, atheists and agnostics. The entire edifice of evolution pivots on this grammatical
mistake


As described above, Darwin introduced a new definition into the biological lexicon. Darwin didn't introduce a grammatical error into regular English. Perhaps he can only be accused of introducing confusion into people who do not understand that the concept is separate from the words being used. The words do not describe the process and the process is not "summarised" by the words. It would probably have been better if the term Shoefla-bogra was used instead so that there is no confusion with other English words. (But "Shoe" is based on walking and steps and Nature doesn't work in steps).

a mistake responsible for two world wars.


Ah yes, the very slightly disguised Agrumentum-Ad-Nazium (as it is popularly referred to or Genetic Fallacy http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Genetic_Fallacy). This argument was popularised by William Jennings Bryan. Eugenics was an idea that was thrown into society's face by a man called Sir Francis Galton (he happened to be the cousin of Charles Darwin and was inspired by "The Origin" to kickstart his idea). Unfortunately we don't get to choose our family. There is no record of Darwin supporting or opposing Galton, so the family link is a mute point.

But eugenics (not the word, the concept) is far older than Darwinian Evolution. Plato wrote in The Republic that
Quote from: Plato
The best men must have intercourse with the best women as frequently as possible, and the opposite is true of the very inferior.


Also, non-genetic eugenics was practiced in Sparta where newborn children were judged for their apparent fitness to survive to adolescence and the inferior were thrown from a mountain top. This was ultimately Hitler's inspiration because he praised Sparta for its primitive form of eugenics.

Had the theory of evolution come after World War II it is still likely that Hitler would have practiced these principles. The "Evolution caused World War II" argument doesn't hold water.
ArgumentumAdHominem (October 12, 2007, 19:54:11 PM):
Hmm, guess I didn't proof-read ...

Not that the words together define a concept, and specifically a biological concept.

Note that the words together define a concept, and specifically a biological concept.


:-[
I do that "not" / "note" thing a lot and spell-checkers love it.
metari1 (October 13, 2007, 17:20:09 PM):
The term natural "selection" does not mean a conscious choice , it means a "sorting" out in various ways by an organism for a better way to survive or multiply within it's environment - which I don't find confusing at all. Organisms will adapt and modify to their environments in order to propagate their species in order to survive - yes there will be mistakes during this process and those mistakes usually are short lived, but it is this "sorting" out that is the basis of evolutionary theory.


The waves sorting the sand on the beach is a pattern not a design. I sorting the rocks in a specific pattern is a design. The context in which the word "sorting" is used will indicate the intent of the author either in the "pattern" or the "design" sense. All language is an attempt at communicating motive, will, intent or pragmatics. All language must contain four things as signal sender communicates his intent to signal receiver.
Grammar(Alphabet)
Syntax(rules of a language)
Semantics(meaning of a word or dictionary definition
Pragmatics(will, motive or intent)

I have given you two sentences where my intent with "sorting" is clear. When the intent is not clear we then have what the linguists call a "structural ambiguity" - http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Linguistics-and-Philosophy/24-903Spring-2005/CourseHome/index.htm
The cartoon at MIT shows what I mean "...Sherlock saw the man holding binoculars..."

Let me give you another sentence: You have a green light. What does this mean?
a) You are holding a green light bulb.
b) You have the go ahead for your project
c) You can drive your car.

Three completely different meanings all based on intent. Without knowing my intent with the sentence is not even wrong. You have a green light has syntax, grammar and semantics but no pragmatics or intent just as it is. In order for us to communicate our will,motive,intent or pragmatics we need to agree on a communication protocol or "semantics". The semantics is the meaning or defined meaning of a word. There are words for which the meaning can never change like love,hope,honor, hate, integrity and valor,choice and selection. No man can make hate suddenly mean love, not even Darwin. Darwin for example couldn't do any algebra or higher math, he was actually quite lacking in the upstairs department and Darwin can't by his authority as Darwin redefine the meaning of choice, preference, decision or selection. This would be tantamount to redefining hope as meaning pig excrement.

Darwin was a language terrorist. 1+1 = 2 is an axiomatic statement, I can't prove it. There is no such thing as a triangular circle and no such thing as an artificial and natural selection not now , not ever. I can't prove it, its an axiomatic statement. There is no casual relationship between organisms, surviving, adaption and anybody making a choice or implementing a decision. By using "selection" in the same breath as talking about organisms "surviving" we are conflating two concepts that has got absolute nothing to do with each other on a casual basis. It is personifying nature and invoking nature as some sort of cause in and of itself. Given your materialist premises that there is no God the word "selection" is simply not available to you. You can't deny your cake and then proceed to eat it to!

Ken Ham a YEC for example says:"I believe in Natural Selection". But so does Dawkins. Both Ham and Dawkins are wrong and
no amount of naturaling is going to make natural selection actually mean something. Since both are wrong their entire debate is meaningless, because of this fundamental fissure in the structure of their language. Is natural selection Godless? No, something which doesn't exist can be Godless. Is the theory of evolution Godless, no since there is no theory of evolution.
A theory which doesn't exist can't be Godless. Noam Chomsky says that natural selection can't explain the origin of language, if only he would come out of the closet and admit that NS is grammatical gargoyle. Natural Selection as some sort of universal mechanism is just as implausible as having a single differential equation explain all of physics. And some consider
natural selection as the mechanism of apes slowly transforming into humans. An ape transforming into a human is not a theory but a conjecture. A theory would be the actual explanation as to how the interdependent relationship between the control algorithms, feed back control loops, transfer function and actuating muscles was maintained as the chimpanzee transformed into a human being. The dead bones can't tell you this of course, since the soft brain parts are not available.

Selection is a choice because that was the meaning and the intent with the word choice since the dawn of mankind with whatever word was used back then. One can coin new technical jargon terms such as quantum mechanics. But words fundamental to expressing the very essence of consciousness the very nature of being human - selection, choice, hope, love, decision - these words can never change meaning nor have any other intent other than what they had before some fool made the English language undefined in 1859.

Our language have become undefined and confused and if your language is confused your mind is confused and your descriptions of the world around you will reflect this confusion as it can be plainly seen in YEC literature accepting "natural selection" as actually meaning something.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page