Re: talk.origins faq Hitler claim part 3


<nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1125853715.439661.132130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> hersheyh@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > > Such explanations for traits become all the more ridiculous when the
> > > variant compared to is actually extinct already.
> >
> > Natural selection does not *create* variants. It chooses among
> > *existing* variants. And since natural selection is *always*
> > comparative, it is the height of fantasy to talk about natural
> > selection against non-existant variants.
>
> Yeah, choosing just happens to be central to creation, as in if we look
> at Michaelangelo's painting as a creation, for his creativity we would
> focus on the decisions he made. There is no choosing in natural
> selection.

You're right: there's no choosing in natural selection. No will,
no consciousness. Thus nothing in natural selection can be value-laden,
since that requires the recognition of good and bad and the ability to
make a choice. Do you get it yet?

> I must object to your use of "metaphore", which is quite
> deceptive. Nature is not comparitive, there is no comparitive force or
> proccess of natural selection in nature, Darwinists are comparitive,
> for reasons best known to themselves.

Is this all you're complaining about? Evolution is a description, a
scientific model, that uses mathematics to explain what we see.
That's where the comparison is done. No one thinks that there's
a cognitive "force" out there that's doing comparisons the way we
shop for bargains.

>You go from metaphore, to metaphore, to nonsense.

If you don't understand what's literal and what's metaphoric in the
language, *you* are the one who's confused.

>
> The point is that the preservation of form of an organism is not
> explained at all, by another form going extinct, the explanation is
> that black wingcolor contributes to reproduction.

And who says this about extinction?

>
>
> > > See this black
> > > wingcolor, oh how superior it is to invisible pink, orange, and white
> > > ones, which might have existed, but would theoretically have
reproduced
> > > much less. The blackwingcolor facillitated reproduction, the form is
> > > preserved through reproduction over certain death, that is the
> > > explanation for blackwingcolor of moths.
> >
> > And its relatively (and significantly) greater reproductive success
> > compared to white wings in a particular local environment is the
> > explanation for why black wings are *more* successful than white.
>
> Circular: Greater reproductive success..... is the explanation for
> why...are more succesfull than.
>
> RUBBISH, DARWINISM IS UTTER RUBBISH

I think the point here is that "more successful" merely means a greater
number surviving to reproduce.

>
>
> > > Such is required because we all
> > > know that the basic operation of an organism is to make other
organisms
> > > go extinct by reproducing more then the other, so says natural
> > > selection. Or was the basic operation simple reproduction?
> >
> > Neither. The basic operation of an organism is to optimize the
> > reproduction of its genes into *the next* generation.
>
> Optimize? Organisms do not optimize, that is just more metaphorical
> wordslop that has no relevance to observing organisms.

*You're* the one confused by the metaphor. The language does not
suggest that organisms consider something and then do it with some
idea of optimization in mind. No one thinks that (except maybe you).
"Organisms optimize" merely means that when you measure the
populations, you see certain distributions.

> It is quite
> clear that your conception of natural selection is valueladen and
> goalbased.

You have had explanation afer explanation that nobody considers
the metaphoric language to convey any judgment about moral
values. At this point, I'll have to conclude that the misunderstanding
is of your own making.

> That it isn't an absolute goal is besides the point.

If it isn't an "absolute" goal, then it isn't a specific goal. There's
no teleology.

>
> > That doing so
> > *sometimes* leads to extinction of other variants over longer
> > time-frames is irrelevant to this short-term goal.
>
> The only reason the variant to compare to is in the formulation of
> natural selection at all, is as cannonfodder, to have it go extinct in
> Malthusian deathstruggle with the fittest.

You're the only one who somehow takes this meaning.

> That some may be preserved
> is due to other things as natural selection, by natural selection the
> injurous variants are destroyed. Survival of the fittest means that the
> less fit do not survive,

in as great a numbers.

> as a matter of natural selection. It is not
> survival of the fittest, and also of all less fit, it is struggle and
> then one or the other get's it, goes extinct, except if saved by some
> other theory such as stabilizing selection or whatnot.

You're the only one who somehow takes this meaning.

>
> > And, need I add, the
> > organism only has this short-term goal;
>
> The organisms do not have this goal at all. You would do well to
> realize that you're talking in terms of goals, and see if you can't
> actually avoid it, and not take the word of a dead racist scientists
> that such is ok.

Organisms seek to survive. Don't call it a goal if it makes you
uncomfortable. No one thinks that all organisms consciously
strive for survival. And "dead racist scientists" is just a non sequitur.

>
> > it has no teleologic or
> > long-term goals. So the organism certainly does not have extinction of
> > other variants of the same species in mind. Nor does it have the
> > extinction of other organisms in mind either. Even humans, the
> > organism with the greatest penchant for causing the extinction of other
> > species has only done so *intentionally* once (smallpox) and hopefully
> > a second time (polio) in the near future.
> >
>
>
> > > Let's see what this
> > > theory says: the variation contributed to it's reproduction in the
> > > environment. The fact that there are millions upon millions of species
> > > seems to imply that simple reproduction determines the shape of
> > > organisms, and not reproducing more then another driving another
> > > variant to extinction.
> >
> > You are battling a strawman if you think that natural selection is the
> > only mechanism of speciation. But, merely having an organism that is
> > successful because it has acquired a new or variant property useful in
> > exploiting a new niche involves natural selection (differential
> > reproductive success of variants) *in that new environmental niche*.
> > Selection, to repeat, is very much a feature of local conditions.
>
> Whatever, you're explaining black wingcolor again, by it not being
> white. The other variant had zero reproductive success in the niche,
> you may not divide by zero.

The other variant need not have no reproductive success. Where do
you get this?

>
> > > Or let's have some species-level natural selection.
> >
> > It is not natural selection beyond the species level.
>
> Many Darwinist scientists would disagree. The logic is the same, except
> it shows more clearly the absurdity in comparison, when you're
> comparing crocodiles and zebra's competing for the water resource.

Prey and predator often evolve in tandem.

>
>
> > > when you don't
> > > want to have injurous variants being preserved as part of natural
> > > selection. You should just differentiate the number of beneficial
> > > variants that reproduced, with the number of less fit that didn't
> > > reproduce.
> >
> > That makes no sense. What I "want" is irrelevant. Nature does not
> > often produce absolutes like no 'deleterious variants being preserved'
> > (exceptions in the case of bacteria and antibiotic resistance) in a
> > particular environment. In the case I described (which you again
> > neither commented on, by pointing out where I was wrong, nor included
> > so that others can verify your inability to make intelligent comments),
> > the comparison you would suggest would have me saying that 500
> > individuals with the recessive phenotype reproduced compared to 99,750
> > (or so) individuals with the dominant phenotype that did not. That
> > would tell me exactly nothing about the relative reproductive success
> > of the two types of individuals. It would be worthless knowledge.
>
> You can't have it both ways. You want to include beneficial being
> destroyed into natural selection? ok, then some beneficial get
> destroyed as a result of natural selection. But you don't want natural
> selection resulting in any beneficial being destroyed, so you attribute
> that to chance, or neutral drift. But yet beneficial being destroyed is
> still included in differential reproductive success, which is your
> definition of natural selection.

It's a matter of statistics. Have you studied any yet? Only you think
"beneficial" being destroyed is important somehow to the definition of
natural selection.

>
> So beneficial being destroyed both is, and is not a part of natural
> selection.
>
> IT'S RUBBISH, UTTER RUBBISH

You can yell all you want, but until you understand some mathematics
you will be unable to understand.

Deadrat

>
> regards,
> Mohammad Nor Syamsu
>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: talk.origins faq Hitler claim part 3
    ... > reproductive success) that inhabit these environments. ... > reproduction tries to prevent the creation of variants (but only to the ... >> proccess of natural selection in nature, Darwinists are comparitive, ... > organisms that inhabit that environment. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: talk.origins faq Hitler claim part 3
    ... > reproduction is not preserved. ... No. Natural selection in Paley's description is exactly the same as ... without there being more than one variant. ... > While Paley's formulation recognizes that preservation is consequent on ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Nando Explains Natural Selection to You!
    ... >> are based on the logic that all organisms die, through reproduction the ... But it is *differential reproduction of variant phenotypes* ... > Not if there is no *selection* between variants. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant Facts was: Re: The Reasonable
    ... success for an organism by acting on phenotype. ... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are ... of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable ... and reproduction between different genotypes, or even different genes, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant Facts was: Re: The Reasonable
    ... success for an organism by acting on phenotype. ... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that are ... of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable ... and reproduction between different genotypes, or even different genes, ...
    (talk.origins)