backspace wrote: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection > "....Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that > make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully > reproduce become more common in a population over successive > generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution...."
> === rephrase === > The process by which.... traits that make it more likely for an > organism to .... reproduce become more common in a population over > successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution...."
> === rephrase === > The ... traits that make it more likely for an organism to .... > reproduce become more common in a population over successive > generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution...."
> === rephrase === > The ... traits that .....enables .... reproduction become more common > in a population................ It is a key mechanism of > evolution...."
> === Indisputable tautology === > The traits that enables reproduction become more common.
> Do you that the "truth of the proposition cannot be disputed"(Darwin's > exact words), there is no way to falsify or test this. How could it > possibly be incorrect.
Easy. If they are not inheritable to start with, something genetics can tell you. Or if there are no such traits to start with. Or if the ecosystem works in such a way that once a fixed number of individuals is reached, the "excess" dies, which woudl result in stable distribution of traits.
We are told that certain traits became more
> common. But why did they become more common. Ans: Because the traits > were enabling. But obviously the traits were "enabling" or they > wouldn't have become more common now would they?
And that is tautological way? Every correct explanation can be read backwards.
> tautological essence form OoS where Darwin explained that the > dinosaurs went extinct because they were "less improved"- which is an > irrefutable proposition.
> Now over here at http://creationmuseum.org/ AIG is damning the souls > of kids by not comprehending that this tautology was ad-hocly > associated with "natural means of selection", an arbitrary choice of > words. Darwin, Aristotle, Epicurus, Empedocles , James Hutton and > Patrick Matthews tautology, if labeled Ninja Turtles wouldn't make a > turtle putting on a ninja suite a tautology. Nobody gets this, not > Ham, Dembski or Fodor - they just don't comprehend that no single > sentence or term has a single true meaning. Only an argument > containing a motive from some individual can be a tautology, such an > argument might contain the term "natural selection", but if the person > doesn't define what he means with NS his argument isn't even wrong.
> Also noted is that http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use > have removed the section that "natural selection is a tautology" > shouldn't be used. I agree because getting naturaled has nothing to do > with Aristotle explanation of everything past, present and future. But > then again it isn't defined what Ken Ham means with natural > selection.
On Nov 4, 1:41 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Do you that the "truth of the proposition cannot be disputed"(Darwin's > > exact words), there is no way to falsify or test this. How could it > > possibly be incorrect. > Easy. If they are not inheritable to start with, something genetics can > tell you.
Opening paragraph said nothing about genes, we are talking about Darwin, Matthews, Aristotle , not genes, if you want to bring in genes then explain how Darwin solved genes as a cybernetic abstraction if he couldn't define it. How did darwin solve a problem he couldn't define?
> We are told that certain traits became more
> > common. But why did they become more common. Ans: Because the traits > > were enabling. But obviously the traits were "enabling" or they > > wouldn't have become more common now would they?
> And that is tautological way? Every correct explanation can be read > backwards.
Let me try again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection "....Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution...."
:'''rephrase': ''The traits that enables reproduction, become more common.'' "Enables" and "more common" are a play with words that alludes to the same fact: It says the same thing twice.
backspace wrote: > On Nov 4, 1:41 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote: >>> Do you that the "truth of the proposition cannot be disputed"(Darwin's >>> exact words), there is no way to falsify or test this. How could it >>> possibly be incorrect.
>> Easy. If they are not inheritable to start with, something genetics can >> tell you. > Opening paragraph said nothing about genes, we are talking about > Darwin, Matthews, Aristotle , not genes, if you want to bring in genes > then explain how Darwin solved genes as a cybernetic abstraction if he > couldn't define it. How did darwin solve a problem he couldn't > define?
Your question was how the statement can be falsified, claiming it to be a tautology. I showed you how it can be falsified. That Darwin did not have some of the _means_ to falsify it himself does not matter a bit. Being a tautology is a logical property of a statement, it doesn't change with time or the progress of empirical knowledge. The statement "The moon is made from cheese" is not and never was a tautology, even though people in the 16th century would not have been able to falsify it themselves.
Nor by the way do my falsifications _require_ genetics. I can observe directly if a trait is inheritable or not. "Having a fast car" improves reproductive success, or so I'm told. But as we can observe "having a fast car" is not an inheritable trait, and hence not a trait that is becoming more common. If we observed that all traits that increase reproductive success are like this, Darwin's theory would have been falsified.
More generally, you have claimed on numerous occasions tat one of your rewordings of Darwin's theory results in a statement that cannot be falisfied. Every time you did this, a very simple falsification was shown to you. Don't you think you can draw an inductive inference from having been wrong every single time so far that you are unlikely to ever find a reformualtion that cannot be falsified?
>>> common. But why did they become more common. Ans: Because the traits >>> were enabling. But obviously the traits were "enabling" or they >>> wouldn't have become more common now would they? >> And that is tautological way? Every correct explanation can be read >> backwards.
> Let me try again: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection > "....Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that > make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully > reproduce become more common in a population over successive > generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution...."
> :'''rephrase': ''The traits that enables reproduction, become more > common.'' > "Enables" and "more common" are a play with words that alludes to the > same fact: It says the same thing twice.
On Nov 4, 9:05 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let me try again:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection > "....Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that > make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully > reproduce become more common in a population over successive > generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution...."
> :'''rephrase': ''The traits that enables reproduction, become more > common.'' > "Enables" and "more common" are a play with words that alludes to the > same fact: It says the same thing twice.
uh no. you're an inveterate liar but your language skills are marginal at best. let's look at what your quote ACTUALLY says so that my claim you're a liar is seen to be correct.
your quote says (sic):
"natural selection is the PROCESS...' (emphasis added)
you completely DELETED any reference to PROCESS in your 'rephrase'. by eliminating the word PROCESS you take the quote out of context and twist its meaning to delete any reference at all to the idea evolution is a PROCESS. a PROCESS that can be experimentally tested.
and, of COURSE you do this; you have no choice. you're a creationist, therefore a liar, and are unable to understand science because of your religious beliefs.
you should be sentenced to write on a blackboard the word "PROCESS" 1000X until you realize that lying, especially in the name of god, is not a particularly nice thing to do.
On Nov 4, 6:05 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 1:41 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > Do you that the "truth of the proposition cannot be disputed"(Darwin's > > > exact words), there is no way to falsify or test this. How could it > > > possibly be incorrect. > > Easy. If they are not inheritable to start with, something genetics can > > tell you.
> Opening paragraph said nothing about genes, we are talking about > Darwin, Matthews, Aristotle , not genes,
This newsgroup is about evolutionary science, not history. You are the one who babbles about finding some authority to define words. It doesn't work that way. A word's definition is what people who use it intend for it to mean. Generally we prefer either the literati or the experts in a technical field as references.
Theories, ideas, processes, are best described rather than defined.
Darwin knew that his theory was falsifiable in principle. Several of these ways are: If the fossil record failed to continue to demonstrate a progression form early forms of life to modern forms. If new organisms were found in significant numbers that could not be placed in the nested hierarchy of morphology. If breeding domestic animals and plants produced anomalous results.
Since we know more now, there are more ways in which the evolutionary theories can be falsified. There are actually several closely-related theories: Natural selection is the major process driving evolution. The pool of inheritable variability is produced by mutations which are unbiased to the needs of the organism. Common ancestry for current species. And a couple of others.
> if you want to bring in genes > then explain how Darwin solved genes as a cybernetic abstraction if he > couldn't define it.
Genes aren't something to be "solved", but rather, understood. They are not an abstraction. Why does Darwin have to know what genes are? Science learns, even if you do not.
> How did darwin solve a problem he couldn't > define?
> > > common. But why did they become more common. Ans: Because the traits > > > were enabling. But obviously the traits were "enabling" or they > > > wouldn't have become more common now would they?
> > And that is tautological way? Every correct explanation can be read > > backwards.
> Let me try again:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection > "....Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that > make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully > reproduce become more common in a population over successive > generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution...."
> :'''rephrase': ''The traits that enables reproduction, become more > common.''
Wrong. You dropped heritable. Why? Are you unable to read for comprehension, or are you being dishonest? You dropped the explanation for *why they become more common. It depends on differential reproduction.
> "Enables" and "more common" are a play with words that alludes to the > same fact: It says the same thing twice.
No it doesn't. "Enables" is a transitive verb, and specifies a certain causal relationship. "More common" is an adjective, and a relative quantification. They are not the same thing at all.
> == PENDING ==http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection > "....In evolutionary biology, group selection refers to the idea that > alleles can become fixed or spread in a population because of the > benefits they bestow on groups, regardless of the alleles' effect on > the fitness of individuals within that group....."
> The words 'evolutionary' , selection, alleles and fitness are > arbitrary irrelevant ornamentation around the tautological core in > order to disguise the mythological premise of Gods slaying see- > monsters with the battle now between organisms themselves, the strong > allele outwitting the weak allele. > Let us replace these weasel words to expose the tautology:
> === rephrase1 === > "....In the land of OZ , the God Zeus refers to the idea that rabbits > can become fixed or spread in a population because of the benefits > they bestow on groups, regardless of the rabbit's effect on the > fitness of individuals within that group....."
> === rephrase2 === > "....In the land of OZ , the God Zeus refers to the idea that rabbits > spread in a population because of the benefits they bestow on groups > of rabbits, regardless of the rabbit's effect on the suitability > (Spencer used suitable for fitness) of individuals within that > group....."
> === rephrase3 === > Suitable rabbits spread in a population because of the benefits they > bestow on groups of rabbits.
> === rephrase4 === > "...........The suitable spread because of the benefits they > bestow............." > "suitable" and "benefits" alludes to the same fact, the proposition is > formulated in such a way that it cannot be disputed.
> === rephrase5 === > "....The suitable are beneficial. ..."
> Can you think of anyway to refute this, any test that could falsify > it? Those that are suitable implies that they will be beneficial and > those that are beneficial implies they are suitable - how could be any > other way. This tautological core is then fleshed out with semantic > trivia such as selection, allele, strong selection, weak selection, > group selection, evolution etc.
First place, who are you claiming to be responding to? You appear to be responding to yourself.
Second, stop lying about what people write. You are liar and a bigot.
On Nov 4, 8:48 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Darwin knew that his theory was falsifiable in principle.
What was his formally defined theory? Nowhere in OoS did he state a theory, he used the words "theory of evolution" but didn't actually provide a theory, something that must in principle be refutable.
As for the fossils, we don't know whether a single fossil was the ancestor of anybody, we don't know whether they had kids. How do you knw Tiktaalik had kids, if he had no kids how could he be the ancestor of anybody. The premise is being assumed in the conclusion, it is circular reasoning , which isn't the same as a tautology or saying the same thing twice.
On Nov 4, 3:12 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 8:48 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Darwin knew that his theory was falsifiable in principle.
> What was his formally defined theory? Nowhere in OoS did he state a > theory, he used the words "theory of evolution" but didn't actually > provide a theory, something that must in principle be refutable.
IOW you don't know darwin invented the idea of natural selection via differential reproduction...an idea that every single evolutionary biologist has evaluated and tested for the last 150 years...
they should use your brain as shielding at the LHC it's that dense...
> As for the fossils, we don't know whether a single fossil was the > ancestor of anybody, we don't know whether they had kids.
are you human (i have my doubts). so when they find your fossilized skeleton they'll be able to tell you're human by the level in the soil where your bones appeared and the fact that NO similar bones are in ANY level earlier than 200,000 years ago.
so your point is irrelevant unless you think there's only 1 human being in the world.
How do you
> knw Tiktaalik had kids, if he had no kids how could he be the ancestor > of anybody. The premise is being assumed in the conclusion, it is > circular reasoning , which isn't the same as a tautology or saying > the same thing twice.
uh...no. the mechanism of natural selection is laboratory testable and DOES produce descent with modification...which is AKA 'evolution.'
nowhere in this entire post have you shown the SLIGHTEST understanding of evolution. many creationists DO know a bit about it.
On Nov 4, 10:40 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 3:12 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 8:48 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Darwin knew that his theory was falsifiable in principle.
> > What was his formally defined theory? Nowhere in OoS did he state a > > theory, he used the words "theory of evolution" but didn't actually > > provide a theory, something that must in principle be refutable.
> IOW you don't know darwin invented the idea of natural selection via > differential reproduction...an idea that every single evolutionary > biologist has evaluated and tested for the last 150 years...
Download Oos from Gutenberg press.com and indicate where darwin said 'differential reproduction', my copy gives "not found" in notepad.
On Nov 4, 12:12 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 8:48 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Darwin knew that his theory was falsifiable in principle.
> What was his formally defined theory? Nowhere in OoS did he state a > theory, he used the words "theory of evolution" but didn't actually > provide a theory,
You have been corrected on this a number of times. In any event, theories are best described rather than defined. His whole book was a description and justification for his theory. If you want to understand something, sometimes it's best to actually read, rather than looking for soundbites.
And why do you obsess over Darwin? Evolutionary science does not depend on a prophet; it is a dynamic body of knowledge covering several disciplines. You should read a short introductory book on it rather than try to throw Aristotle in the mix or play dishonest and simple-minded word games.
> something that must in principle be refutable.
I gave you three ways in which Darwin knew that it could be falsified, there are others. But why bother? You just dismiss them without reading them and then claim - in the very next post - that you don't have that information.
> As for the fossils, we don't know whether a single fossil was the > ancestor of anybody,
Yes, as we explain over and over. Why does that matter?
> we don't know whether they had kids.
So? Its parents had kids, if it was sexually reproducing.
> How do you > knw Tiktaalik had kids, if he had no kids how could he be the ancestor > of anybody.
What, do you think an animal which left a fossil was one of a kind? If there was one tiktaalik there were thousands, possibly millions. It or an animal closely related to it was one transitional species between fish and amphibians.
> The premise is being assumed in the conclusion, it is > circular reasoning , which isn't the same as a tautology or saying > the same thing twice.
No, we have made it quite clear that this species may not be our direct ancestor; it may be an uncle instead. What tautology are you talking about? Shubin and his friend predicted the characteristics of the organism and where it would be found. How is that circular? It is as good as a testable hypothesis gets.
> On Nov 4, 10:40 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 3:12 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 4, 8:48 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Darwin knew that his theory was falsifiable in principle.
> > > What was his formally defined theory? Nowhere in OoS did he state a > > > theory, he used the words "theory of evolution" but didn't actually > > > provide a theory, something that must in principle be refutable.
> > IOW you don't know darwin invented the idea of natural selection via > > differential reproduction...an idea that every single evolutionary > > biologist has evaluated and tested for the last 150 years...
> Download Oos from Gutenberg press.com and indicate where darwin said > 'differential reproduction', my copy gives "not found" in notepad.
Why would he have to? He described it; now we prefer a simpler and more precise term. In any event, evolutionary science has had millions of researchers and technicians contribute to it, from all countries, for 150 years.
Most biologists do not study Darwin any more than engineers study da Vinci or medical doctors Galen. Nor do microbiologists study Dutch so they can read Leeuwenhoek in the original.
So far, your criticisms of evolutionary science has consisted of dramatic and extravagant displays of your inability to read. You have not addressed the evidence, nor offered any alternative, testable theories to explain the data.
Try actually reading the "Origin of Species" rather than searching for 21st century terms in it. Better yet, read a contemporary introduction to the subject.
> On Nov 4, 10:40 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 3:12 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 4, 8:48 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Darwin knew that his theory was falsifiable in principle.
> > > What was his formally defined theory? Nowhere in OoS did he state a > > > theory, he used the words "theory of evolution" but didn't actually > > > provide a theory, something that must in principle be refutable.
> > IOW you don't know darwin invented the idea of natural selection via > > differential reproduction...an idea that every single evolutionary > > biologist has evaluated and tested for the last 150 years...
> Download Oos from Gutenberg press.com and indicate where darwin said > 'differential reproduction', my copy gives "not found" in notepad.
ROFLMAO!! who cares whether he used the 'term' or not? the concept of variations in populations providing relative fitness for reproduction is a concept you simply can't understand
FIRST you say he didn't 'state a theory'. it's quite obvious he did.
NOW you move the goalposts and want his theory to be NAMED what later scientists named it
fuck, you're stupid. honestly. you creationists are dazzling in your stupidity. it's like watching a supernova of stupidity.
On Nov 4, 4:37 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> So far, your criticisms of evolutionary science has consisted of > dramatic and extravagant displays of your inability to read. You have > not addressed the evidence, nor offered any alternative, testable > theories to explain the data.
exactly. he plays lexicographical masturbation, which is illegal in texas. he should be glad he lives in s. africa.
creationism is being reduced to nothing more than a thesaurus for stupidity.
On Nov 4, 11:37 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Download Oos from Gutenberg press.com and indicate where darwin said > > 'differential reproduction', my copy gives "not found" in notepad. > Why would he have to? He described it; now we prefer a simpler and
What did he describe? Spell it out, he described the titmouse(paribas major) saying how the feet size indicates that if God had made, he didn't know what he was doing. But the feet size is optimized for both flight and branch grasping, to large and you have wind drag, to small and it can't hold on to twigs. Do a search on titmouse in OoS and read what Darwin wrote, his inability to understand optimized design.
> more precise term. In any event, evolutionary science has had millions > of researchers and technicians contribute to it, from all countries, > for 150 years.
And how did they explain life if they can't define it? They keep on using the word life(biology) but don't what it is, it indicates a form of madness really.
> So far, your criticisms of evolutionary science has consisted of > dramatic and extravagant displays of your inability to read.
No, i have asked you to define what precisely is evolutionary science and how the word "natural" helps us in understanding how the inverted pendulum control algorithm is transmitted from chicken to chicken, human to human.
> You have > not addressed the evidence, nor offered any alternative, testable > theories to explain the data.
You mean how a palindromic sequence arose in the genome without it being in somebodies mind first?
> On Nov 4, 3:53 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 10:40 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 4, 3:12 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 4, 8:48 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Darwin knew that his theory was falsifiable in principle.
> > > > What was his formally defined theory? Nowhere in OoS did he state a > > > > theory, he used the words "theory of evolution" but didn't actually > > > > provide a theory, something that must in principle be refutable.
> > > IOW you don't know darwin invented the idea of natural selection via > > > differential reproduction...an idea that every single evolutionary > > > biologist has evaluated and tested for the last 150 years...
> > Download Oos from Gutenberg press.com and indicate where darwin said > > 'differential reproduction', my copy gives "not found" in notepad.
> ROFLMAO!! who cares whether he used the 'term' or not? the concept of > variations in populations providing relative fitness for reproduction > is a concept you simply can't understand
> FIRST you say he didn't 'state a theory'. it's quite obvious he did.
What then is the theory?
> NOW you move the goalposts and want his theory to be NAMED what later > scientists named it
No, i want to know what theory did he formulate to explain life, if we today still don't know what it is. The problem is what is life.
> On Nov 5, 2:52 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 3:53 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 4, 10:40 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 4, 3:12 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 4, 8:48 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Darwin knew that his theory was falsifiable in principle.
> > > > > What was his formally defined theory? Nowhere in OoS did he state a > > > > > theory, he used the words "theory of evolution" but didn't actually > > > > > provide a theory, something that must in principle be refutable.
> > > > IOW you don't know darwin invented the idea of natural selection via > > > > differential reproduction...an idea that every single evolutionary > > > > biologist has evaluated and tested for the last 150 years...
> > > Download Oos from Gutenberg press.com and indicate where darwin said > > > 'differential reproduction', my copy gives "not found" in notepad.
> > ROFLMAO!! who cares whether he used the 'term' or not? the concept of > > variations in populations providing relative fitness for reproduction > > is a concept you simply can't understand
> > FIRST you say he didn't 'state a theory'. it's quite obvious he did.
> What then is the theory?
the theory is this. of course, this is the 1,000,000th time it's been explained to you and i'm sure you'll completely ignore it
1. there exists variations in populations 2. some of these variations confer a reproductive advantage 3. these reproductive advantages will spread through a population with time, changing the population from the parent population
do you deny variations exist? are you the same as your parents?
do you deny that some organisms can run faster, jump higher than others?
do you deny that organisms which have these advantages...which are MEASUREABLE and QUANTIFIABLE...have a reproductive advantage...IOW they will have more offspring than other organisms?
if you do NOT deny these, then you agree that evolution is a fact.
> > NOW you move the goalposts and want his theory to be NAMED what later > > scientists named it
> No, i want to know what theory did he formulate to explain life, if we > today still don't know what it is.
the question of 'what is life' is meaningless. it's like asking 'what is absolute entropy'. no one cares. as a chemist, i NEVER ask 'what is the absolute entropy of a reaction'. i just care about the CHANGE in entropy
On Nov 5, 2:45 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > What then is the theory? > 1. there exists variations in populations
Who says so, Theories are always formally defined by somebody.
> 2. some of these variations confer a reproductive advantage > 3. these reproductive advantages will spread through a population with > time, changing the population from the parent population
=== rephrase === "...Those that confer an advantage will spread ..." "advantage" and "spread" alludes to the same fact , it says the same thing twice making your argument water tight, irrefutable, unfalsifiable.
> > No, i want to know what theory did he formulate to explain life, if we > > today still don't know what it is. > the question of 'what is life' is meaningless.
But you are alive and thus to you, your existence is meaningless, should we therefore interpret everything you say as meaningless?
On Nov 5, 8:10 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 2:45 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:> > What then is the theory? > > 1. there exists variations in populations
> Who says so, Theories are always formally defined by somebody.
honest to christ...this response floors me.
hey you IDIOT language freak...this is not a 'theory'...it's an OBSERVATION. that's why i asked you a basic question:
are you the same as your parents?
you can't even address a simple question, can you? you tie yourself in knots, thinking yourself wise, when in reality YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!
> > 2. some of these variations confer a reproductive advantage > > 3. these reproductive advantages will spread through a population with > > time, changing the population from the parent population
> === rephrase === > "...Those that confer an advantage will spread ..." > "advantage" and "spread" alludes to the same fact , it says the same > thing twice making your argument water tight, irrefutable, > unfalsifiable.
rephrase:
-i'm the same as my parents. i'm male and female. i have blonde hair and brown hair. blue eyes and brown eyes.
he can't even address the fact that not all organisms in a population are DIFFERENT.
jesus these creationists are STUPID!!
> > > No, i want to know what theory did he formulate to explain life, if we > > > today still don't know what it is. > > the question of 'what is life' is meaningless.
> But you are alive and thus to you, your existence is meaningless, > should we therefore interpret everything you say as meaningless?
ROFLMAO!!
ANOTHER dodge!! fucking christ what an idiot.
we're talking BIOLOGY, not METAPHYSICS
what a FUCKING IDIOT
you can't even understand this basic sentence:
THERE EXISTS VARIATIONS IN POPULATIONS
that single sentence is beyond his mental capacity.
jesus god, there's no hope for creationists at alln
> On Nov 5, 8:10 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 2:45 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:> > What then is the theory? > > > 1. there exists variations in populations
> > Who says so, Theories are always formally defined by somebody.
> honest to christ...this response floors me.
> hey you IDIOT language freak...this is not a 'theory'...it's an > OBSERVATION. that's why i asked you a basic question:
> are you the same as your parents?
> you can't even address a simple question, can you? you tie yourself in > knots, thinking yourself wise, when in reality YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!
> > > 2. some of these variations confer a reproductive advantage > > > 3. these reproductive advantages will spread through a population with > > > time, changing the population from the parent population
> > === rephrase === > > "...Those that confer an advantage will spread ..." > > "advantage" and "spread" alludes to the same fact , it says the same > > thing twice making your argument water tight, irrefutable, > > unfalsifiable.
> rephrase:
> -i'm the same as my parents. i'm male and female. i have blonde hair > and brown hair. blue eyes and brown eyes.
> he can't even address the fact that not all organisms in a population > are DIFFERENT.
> jesus these creationists are STUPID!!
> > > > No, i want to know what theory did he formulate to explain life, if we > > > > today still don't know what it is. > > > the question of 'what is life' is meaningless.
> > But you are alive and thus to you, your existence is meaningless, > > should we therefore interpret everything you say as meaningless?
> ROFLMAO!!
> ANOTHER dodge!! fucking christ what an idiot.
> we're talking BIOLOGY, not METAPHYSICS
> what a FUCKING IDIOT
> you can't even understand this basic sentence:
> THERE EXISTS VARIATIONS IN POPULATIONS
> that single sentence is beyond his mental capacity.
> jesus god, there's no hope for creationists at alln
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 05:10:49 -0800 (PST), backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 5, 2:45 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote: >> > What then is the theory? >> 1. there exists variations in populations >Who says so, Theories are always formally defined by somebody.
>> 2. some of these variations confer a reproductive advantage
>> 3. these reproductive advantages will spread through a population with >> time, changing the population from the parent population
>=== rephrase === >"...Those that confer an advantage will spread ..." >"advantage" and "spread" alludes to the same fact
I really think you should check a dictionary on that.
>, it says the same >thing twice making your argument water tight, irrefutable, >unfalsifiable.
>> > No, i want to know what theory did he formulate to explain life, if we >> > today still don't know what it is.
>> the question of 'what is life' is meaningless.
>But you are alive and thus to you, your existence is meaningless, >should we therefore interpret everything you say as meaningless?
I really think you need to learn to read.
-- Bob.
Theists think all gods but theirs are false. Atheists simply don't make an exception for the last one.
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 05:24:23 -0800 (PST), wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 5, 8:10 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 5, 2:45 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:> > What then is the theory? >> > 1. there exists variations in populations
>> Who says so, Theories are always formally defined by somebody.
>honest to christ...this response floors me.
Pick yourself up man, you should have been expecting it.
>hey you IDIOT language freak...this is not a 'theory'...it's an >OBSERVATION. that's why i asked you a basic question:
>are you the same as your parents?
>you can't even address a simple question, can you? you tie yourself in >knots, thinking yourself wise, when in reality YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!
>> > 2. some of these variations confer a reproductive advantage >> > 3. these reproductive advantages will spread through a population with >> > time, changing the population from the parent population
>> === rephrase === >> "...Those that confer an advantage will spread ..." >> "advantage" and "spread" alludes to the same fact , it says the same >> thing twice making your argument water tight, irrefutable, >> unfalsifiable.
>rephrase:
>-i'm the same as my parents. i'm male and female. i have blonde hair >and brown hair. blue eyes and brown eyes.
>he can't even address the fact that not all organisms in a population >are DIFFERENT.
>> > > No, i want to know what theory did he formulate to explain life, if we >> > > today still don't know what it is. >> > the question of 'what is life' is meaningless.
>> But you are alive and thus to you, your existence is meaningless, >> should we therefore interpret everything you say as meaningless?
>ROFLMAO!!
>ANOTHER dodge!! fucking christ what an idiot.
>we're talking BIOLOGY, not METAPHYSICS
>what a FUCKING IDIOT
Excess words, just call him a creationist - it means the same thing.
>you can't even understand this basic sentence:
>THERE EXISTS VARIATIONS IN POPULATIONS
>that single sentence is beyond his mental capacity.
On Nov 4, 10:42 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 11:37 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Download Oos from Gutenberg press.com and indicate where darwin said > > > 'differential reproduction', my copy gives "not found" in notepad. > > Why would he have to? He described it; now we prefer a simpler and
> What did he describe?
He described how natural selection worked. When conditions favor certain traits, those organisms are more likely to reproduce. To the degree that those traits are inherited, they spread rapidly through the gene pool.
> Spell it out, he described the titmouse(paribas > major) saying how the feet size indicates that if God had made, he > didn't know what he was doing. > But the feet size is optimized for both > flight and branch grasping, to large and you have wind drag, to small > and it can't hold on to twigs. Do a search on titmouse in OoS and read > what Darwin wrote, his inability to understand optimized design.
Actually, he was explaining why ceratin incorrect thinking (Creationist) believes that his theory causes problems. In the third edition, pages 256-157, he says: "It has been objected to the foregoing view on the origin of instinct that "the variations of structure and of instinct must have been simultaneous and accurately adjusted to each other, as a modification in the one without an immediate corresponding change in the other would have been fatal." The force of this objection seems entirely to rest on the assumption that the changes in both instinct and structure are abrupt. To take as an illustration the case of the larger titmouse (Parus major) alluded to in the last chapter: this bird often holds the seeds of the yew between its feet on a branch, and hammers away till it gets into the kernel. Now what special difficulty would there be in natural selection preserving each slight variation of beak, better and better adapted to break open seeds, until a beak was formed, as well constructed for this purpose as that of the nuthatch, at the same time that hereditary habit, or compulsion from the want of other food, or the preservation of chance variations of taste, made the bird more and more of a seed-eater? In this case the beak is supposed to be slowly modified by natural selection, subsequently to, but in accordance with, slowly changing habit; but let the feet of the titmouse vary and grow larger from correlation with the beak, or from any other unknown cause, and is it very improbable that such larger feet might lead the bird to climb more and more until it acquired even the remarkable climbing instinct and capacity of the nuthatch? In this case a gradual change of structure is supposed to lead to changed instinctive habits of life. To take one more case: few instincts are more remarkable than that which leads the swift of the Eastern Islands to make its nest wholly of inspissated saliva. Some birds build their nests of mud, believed to be moistened with saliva; and one of the swifts of North America makes its nest (as I have seen) of sticks agglutinated with saliva, and even with flakes of this substance. Is it then very improbable that the natural selection of individual swifts, which secreted more and more saliva, should at last produce a species with instincts leading it to neglect other materials, and to make its nest exclusively of inspissated saliva? And so in other cases. It must be admitted that in many instances we cannot conjecture whether instinct or structure has first slightly changed; nor can we conjecture by what gradations many instincts have been developed when they relate to organs (such as the mammary glands) on the first origin of which we know nothing."
He is explaining that those who think evolution requires major changes all at once (this is very uncommon, in any beneficial way) see problems that common descent via modification by natural selection does not actually imply. He was talking about the alleged mismatch between structure and instinct. As usual, you misread and misrepresented somebody's words. Perhaps you were thinking of another book?
> > more precise term. In any event, evolutionary science has had millions > > of researchers and technicians contribute to it, from all countries, > > for 150 years.
> And how did they explain life if they can't define it? They keep on > using the word life(biology) but don't what it is, it indicates a form > of madness really.
Sure, we know what life is. Don't you? That's sad.
Reality, unlike Creationist imagination, often has fuzzy boundaries. Depending on how you *define life, it may or may not include, say, prions. That doesn't mean that we don't see the interesting difference between living oak trees and crystals.
Look, take 100 adult men and line them up by size. As you walk down the line, at what precise point do they stop being short and become tall? We can argue about that, but that doesn't mean that anyone except you would be confused about the concepts of "short" or "tall". It simply means that many categories have fuzzy boundaries, and to the degree that we define them precisely, to that degree the definition becomes arbitrary and meaningless. Deciding that Pluto is no longer a planet did not change, nor does anybody think it changed, any of the characteristics that we know about it. Not one. No word magic, no scientific paradigm shifts. We just changed our official definition so that the categories of things around us were easier to talk about.
> > So far, your criticisms of evolutionary science has consisted of > > dramatic and extravagant displays of your inability to read.
> No, i have asked you to define what precisely is evolutionary science
What precisely is "tall"?
Evolutionary science is the collection of scientific activities centered on the process of the evolution of life on Earth. Duh. I will not take grammatical instruction from someone who cannot use a dictionary.
> and how the word "natural" helps us in understanding how the inverted > pendulum control algorithm is transmitted from chicken to chicken, > human to human.
Why should it?
Engineering would help us understand that, if your sentence even means anything. Genetics would also. Why would the word "nature", or its definition, help us in understanding how the structure of animals is inherited? The field you want is evo-devo, a subset of evolutionary science.
Not linguistics. Linguistics *has a role in evolutionary science, but it's not expressed by explaining simple words to people who can't use dictionaries.
> > You have > > not addressed the evidence, nor offered any alternative, testable > > theories to explain the data.
> You mean how a palindromic sequence arose in the genome without it > being in somebodies mind first?
On Nov 5, 6:51 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > What did he describe? > He described how natural selection worked. When conditions favor > certain traits, those organisms are more likely to reproduce. To the > degree that those traits are inherited, they spread rapidly through > the gene pool.
"favor"and "more likely" says the same thing twice, they allude to the same fact.
> till it gets into the kernel. Now what special difficulty would there > be in natural selection preserving each slight variation of beak, > better and better adapted to break open seeds,
=== rephrase === Now what special difficulty would there be in Ninja Turtles preserving each slight variation of beak, better and better adapted.
=== rephrase === Ninja Turtles preserves the better adapted variations of beak.
=== finally strip out getting ninja'd === The better adapted variations are preserved.
"better adapted" and "preserved" says the same thing twice, it is a tautology, making Darwin a genius, irrefutable, indisputable.
> > You mean how a palindromic sequence arose in the genome without it > > being in somebodies mind first?
> What *are you talking about?
berlinski black mischief, Creating a large Palindrome is never by chance, it was made by an algorithm or mind.
On Nov 6, 12:27 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 6:51 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > What did he describe? > > He described how natural selection worked. When conditions favor > > certain traits, those organisms are more likely to reproduce. To the > > degree that those traits are inherited, they spread rapidly through > > the gene pool.
> "favor"and "more likely" says the same thing twice, they allude to the > same fact.
backspace is SO hopelessly illiterate that, when i pointed out to him that he was not the same as his parents, he screamed that this was JUST A THEORY and wanted to know who was the first person to develop the theory
such are his language skills
it's like watching a jon boat in a fight with a battleship
|
