Re: talk.origins faq Hitler claim part 3

hersheyh@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

> > 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. I must object to your use of "metaphore", which is quite
> > deceptive.
>
> Object all you want. The fact remains that environments blindly,
> dumbly, without purpose or intention *differentially* determine the
> stochastic fate of the variants of organisms (wrt the metric of
> reproductive success) that inhabit these environments. The background
> coloration of desert soils is about as dumb, blind, and incapable of
> intention a factor as you can get. Yet this environmental factor
> blindly, dumbly, without purpose or intention *differentially*
> determines (in a stochastic fashion) the relative fates (in terms of
> average reproductive success) of mice that are melanic and those that
> are agouti. *That*, of course, is what I am using the short-cut word
> "choice" to mean. You, of course, are too ignorant to understand this.
>
> It also remains a fact of nature that the environment does not
> *intentionally* create variants; certainly it cannot create the
> variants it "needs" or "wants". In fact, the mechanisms of
> reproduction tries to prevent the creation of variants (but only to the
> extent that doing so makes 'economic' sense). Variants (all of them)
> are all ultimately due to accidents or unrepaired damage; what we in
> the biology biz call mutations. There are no intelligently created
> variants that have ever been observed (except by modern scientists).
> There have been many more mutationally created variants that have been
> observed and exploited by humans. And even more that have a
> differential effect on reproductive success in non-human environments.

First you make up this faulty metaphore of "choosing", and consequently
you make up a series of metaphores, un-intentional, un-purposeful,
dumb, to deny the normal meaning of "choosing". Why don't you discard
the metaphore of choosing in the first place, in stead of making up
even more to correct misunderstanding of your initial metaphore?

It's quite clear from the historical context of the theory, of it being
conceived in opposition to creation by God, that this is just atheism,
monism, materialism. History shows that it leads people to believe
"ought" is natural, and mechanical, such as that Jews are inherently
hateful people by their nature, Aryans are inherently loving people by
their nature. Your kind of use of the metaphore has been shown to
violate rules of objectivity, by many mainstream Darwinist scientists.

Scientists do not have a purpose or intention-meter except for their
own conscience. Your assertions of lack of intention and purpose in
nature is merely atheism, which cojoins with racist conceptions of
blood as a godhead.

> > 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. You go from metaphore, to
> > metaphore, to nonsense.
>
> Nature (aka the environment) blindly, dumbly, and without intention or
> purpose can (but need not) *differentially* affect, in a stochastic
> fashion, the average fate (in terms of reproductive success) of variant
> organisms that inhabit that environment. That is hardly nonsense. It
> is observable fact. If being able to *differentially* distinguish and
> discriminate (but not intelligently or intentionally) between variants
> is comparative, it is absolutely the case that nature (the local
> environment) comparatively evaluates variants for their fitness to
> local conditions. Anyone who is unable to recognize this *fact of
> nature* is so ignorant that I am amazed that they can even talk much
> less make ignorant arguments on the web denying that fact of nature.

Why don't you follow the actual chain of cause and effect for a science
theory? The variation of hallowed flower contributes to reproduction in
relation to bees -> the hallowed flower decreases the chance of
reproduction of the non-hallowed. It is the environmental factor of
hallowed flowers which "selects" against the non-hallowed, not the
bees.

Now you metaphorically talk of nature "comparitively evaluating", which
people should not misunderstand to mean evaluating. But really there is
no end to the metaphore, because in the end there is the mistake that
Ariew and Matthen found one time, of the theory being being goalbased
and valueladen. So interpretation of your theory as moral is
reasonable.

> > Circular: Greater reproductive success..... is the explanation for
> > why...are more succesfull than.
>
> Greater reproductive success is indeed what *defines* "success" in
> organismal terms. Are you claiming that poor reproduction is what you
> would call "success". All definitions are, to some extent, circular.
> So how else are you going to objectively measure "success" in organisms
> other than by the metric of *relatively* greater reproduction? Curious
> minds want to know.

When you use the word success to explain success, then it is reasonable
to explain one of the uses of the word as moral.

For example:

The reason for the organism's goodness, is it's goodness.

Reproductive success is sometimes referred to as goodness in Darwinist
discourse. Since reasonable human understanding seeks to avoid
circularity, the second goodness is reasonably explained as moral. This
interpretation would in all usual cases be more correct than
circularity.

I think you are just looking for the word populationshare. Greater
reproductive success, results in a greater share of the population, in
the comparitive view of natural selection.

> > Optimize? Organisms do not optimize, that is just more metaphorical
> > wordslop that has no relevance to observing organisms. It is quite
> > clear that your conception of natural selection is valueladen and
> > goalbased. That it isn't an absolute goal is besides the point.
>
> The only "value" or "goal" that *all* life (from the lowest virus to
> humans) has is the perpetuation of their genes into the next
> generation.

That is simple reproduction. But you said, words to the effect of, -to
reproduce as much as possible-, and such formulation is goalbased.
Rocks roll down the hill, they don't try to roll down as far as
possible. Oh they blindly, unintentionally, and dumbly "try" to. Please
don't misunderstand my use of "metaphore".

If only creationists would say their reference to God is metaphorical,
it would be absolutely scientific by equal standards.

> Perhaps you are going to suggest some other universal goal
> of *all* life than the successful maximization of the transmission of
> their genes to the next generation. That is optimization of their
> reproductive success. Note that this process *can* have some odd
> consequences, such as sterility of worker ants and bees. These are the
> exceptions that probe or test the rule.

Ah, "succesful maximization", it's as clear as day. You have
deemphasized reproduction, and you emphasize being better than another
as what organisms do. You are slipping towards intepreting struggle
being the "force" in selection, while it is just only reproduction.

I see this tree outside now, can I reasonable say it is trying to
successfully maximize it's transmission of genes to the next
generation? I see no such thing.

The struggle makes it so that organisms that by reasonable prediction
would have gone extinct do actually survive and procreate. The
explanation for it, is that they apparently value life. Whatever other
explanation is there when they are unlikely to survive but actually do
so? Again you are arrogantly putting down your wide ass to sit on
creationism, by your liberal metaphorical use of words that are
non-metaphorically useful in creationism.

> You seem to have this strawman idea of there being an absolute
> "fittest".

It is you who seem to have this idea, by the metaphore's you use.

> How often do I have to say that there is only a local
> "fitter".

You have to say it as much as you have to deny the normal meaning of
your metaphore's apparently.

> It is local because it is conditional upon the environment
> which can change without regard to its effect on the organism. The
> current organism is only "fitter" because we have no way of knowing if
> some other, as yet unproduced, variant might or might not be "fitter".
> That is, the current Lexus is probably not the absolute "best" car that
> will ever exist. The environment may change such that its current
> gasoline-powered engine may no longer be 'best'. Or there may be some
> modification that both improves the driving experience and is
> commercially viable that gets added on.

But so do most evolutionists i talked to believe that moral goodness is
a relative proposition.

> > 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.
>
> Stabilizing *selection* is not selection but something different from
> selection? That is news to me. I wonder why they have that term
> "selection" in there? I said that selection for one trait

Gee and just before you complained of the word neutral selection. Okay
so then stabilizing selection is a form of natural selection.

> > 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.
>
> So now you are reduced to claiming that I am a racist and agree with
> racists? How do you define "life"? If you notice most of the
> definitions of life that try to distinguish life from non-life, they
> include, basically, that life reproduces itself (imperfectly) and has
> the capacity to extract energy from its environment in order to
> reproduce itself. So saying that reproduction is the only detectable
> goal that all life, all organisms, has is hardly a stretch. It is what
> distinguishes life from non-life. It is a "goal" that comes directly
> out of the very definition of what it means to be alive. To claim that
> this observation of reality makes one a racist is what the term ad
> hominem is all about.

That is simple reproduction, somewhat different than what you
previously spoke of. And you shouldn't look towards organisms in
regards of the goal of reproduction, but in regards to the
determination on the chance of reproduction, the event of reproduction.

> > 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.
>
> Again, you seem to have a really stupid conception of probability.
> Rather absurdly so, for someone who claims to have actually read the
> Ariew and Matthen paper, since pointing out the stochastic nature of
> selection was the main point of the paper.

Gee, I would consider a finding of something "entirely inappropiate" to
be more important, than any alternatives they offer.

> > 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.
>
> Which Darwinist scientists? Where (aside from your fevered
> imagination)?

Species-level natural selection.

> > 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.
>
> Apparently you have not read (or didn't understand) that paper you
> pointed me to. Organisms failing to have reproductive success is not
> natural selection *unless* there is a detectable *differential* effect
> favoring one or another variant. Without a significant *differential*
> effect, there is no natural selection.

Whatever, the authors explictly include a beneficial variant being
destroyed into natural selection. That they only include it in the
context of differential reproductive success is besides the point.
Natural selection may result in some beneficial variants being
destroyed in the author's conception of it, whatever else it results in
is not at issue here.

> > But you don't want natural
> > selection resulting in any beneficial being destroyed, so you attribute
> > that to chance, or neutral drift.
>
> Again, there is no natural selection *unless* there is significant
> *differential* reproductive success of one variant. If there is no
> differential effect, the result is indistinguishable from chance alone.
> There is no environmental factor that *selectively* discriminates
> between variants.

Evasion. You now won't say anymore if natural selection results in some
beneficial variants being destroyed. There may be beneficial variants
destroyed in differential reproductive success, so you are saying
absolutely nothing on the issue by pointing that out.

> > But yet beneficial being destroyed is
> > still included in differential reproductive success, which is your
> > definition of natural selection.
> >
> > So beneficial being destroyed both is, and is not a part of natural
> > selection.
>
> The important defining feature of natural selection is that one trait
> (the one we then call the beneficial one) have a significantly greater
> *probability* of reproductive success than the other *in the specified
> environment*. In the absence of that feature, there is no natural
> selection. There is a difference between having a *probability* of
> success and having a *certainty* of success that is somehow eluding the
> mush you call your brains.

Ah no, it is when you explicitly denied that any beneficial variant
being destroyed falls within natural selection, and now fudging the
issue, which is causing the mush.

> > IT'S RUBBISH, UTTER RUBBISH
>
> *If* so, then it is rubbish that has been exceedingly useful when it
> comes to understanding how the biological world works. Unlike your
> ideas which have been so utterly worthless that even the dung beetles
> pass it by.

Apart from social darwinism, the main use of natural selection is just
to assume that this is the way that organisms evolved mainly, in ways
they can't reconstruct, nor have mu. In enviromental biology, which
consists of describing all organisms and their relationships to the
environment presently, natural selection generally does not apply, for
it generally takes too long a time for it to work. So it is just
rubbish to say that natural selection is how the biological world
works, because it doesn't meaningfully apply to most all of the
biological world in existence, according to the scientists themselves.

Environmental biologists do use ideas similar to mine, they talk about
changes in fitness (in real not relative terms) and adaptation, such is
not avoidable, they just don't use an umbrella theory to cover all
these observations which describe organisms in view of the event of
their reproduction, or shaping of the population by the event of
reproduction of organisms.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: talk.origins faq Hitler claim part 3
    ... >> And the value that organisms place on reproductive success ... >> thing that all organisms strive to do. ... I am interested in biological reality in the biological world, ... they had the chance) when I discuss natural selection. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: talk.origins faq Hitler claim part 3
    ... >>> variant compared to is actually extinct already. ... there's no choosing in natural selection. ... The blackwingcolor facillitated reproduction, the form is ... Organisms do not optimize, ...
    (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)
  • Re: Cure for Alzheimer and autism by creationist technology
    ... I'm sorry to say, Darwinists are ... exterminating the Jews in terms of natural selection. ... is more succefull at reproduction then type B, ... formulation reproduction was actually assumed as a goal of organisms. ...
    (talk.origins)