Re: talk.origins faq Hitler claim part 3

Hershey wrote:
>Syamsu wrote:
>> So since you take account of beneficial being destroyed *within*
>> natural selection, then I can say that natural selection results in
>> individual beneficial variants being destroyed,
>
>No.

Why don't you go read that paper, gee. You are doing everything Ariew
and Matthen say is a no-no in talking about probabilities, using many
of the exactsame way of saying things which they point out as false.

Aside from that, I prefer to make this issue simple. Since you say that
beneficial destroyed is not part of natural selection at all, it
therefore follows that chance of reproduction is no part of natural
selection at all, for a chance of reproduction would have beneficial
both reproducing and not reproducing, as the case may be.

Therefore statistics really have nothing whatsoever to do with your
conception of natural selection, you just use statistics do calculate
the environmental randomness, chance acting alone and whatnot, which
you substract to arrive at pure natural selection which is a force that
preserves beneficial and destroys injurous.

So everytime the bee goes to the hallowed flower it is force, a cause
acting, and everytime it goes to an injurous preserving it, it is
chance acting not a cause.

HAHAHAHA

you understand nothing

HAHAHAHAHA

>Natural selection does
>not and cannot prevent chance loss (meaning unrelated to the traits
>being examined) from happening. It only means that one trait is
>*favored* and has a greater *probability* of reproductive success than
>the other.

Sure your conception of natural selection is in terms of probability,
it is two sides of two probabilities, the side of the beneficial
variant being preserved, and the side of the injurous variant being
eliminated. The other sides to these probabilities fall under the
theory of reading dyslexia for basic statistics.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Felsenstein v. Dembski
    ... The EF sets criteria to test for things that came about by chance and ... order to always conclude for design? ... Based on Felsenstein, who quoted Dembski advocating ... natural selection in the context of antibiotic resistance, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Harshman is happy with Theistic Evolution; Behe-Dembski are making Theistic Evolutionism unt
    ... chance, and intelligent design. ... Is your tapeworm now a philosopher of science? ... decay), he would classify natural selection as "chance," but this is ... fluffy philosophical notion that has no meaning or use in science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Dawkins gives incorrect answer
    ... that are effectively beyond the scope of prediction by individual agents - ... Substantial elements of morphology are effectively down to chance. ... their sons to have any kids in the face of female choice. ... If natural selection ruled, we would most likely have our retinas ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Felsenstein v. Dembski
    ... The EF sets criteria to test for things that came about by chance and ... order to always conclude for design? ... Based on Felsenstein, who quoted Dembski advocating ... natural selection in the context of antibiotic resistance, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Felsenstein v. Dembski
    ... If this is true it's rigged also, if there are processes that combine chance and necessity. ... The EF will interpret natural selection as ID, because it's not chance, and it's not law. ... undefined natural law; the concept of design and the concept of chance ... design is corruption. ...
    (talk.origins)