Re: Solution to Creation vs Evolution

On Mar 12, 6:06 pm, "rmj" <gle...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
"backspace" <sawireless2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1173692290.453552.201940@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



On Mar 11, 6:55 am, Shane <remar...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10 Mar 2007 16:12:31 -0800, backspace wrote:


Perhaps the proponents of evolution don't want to face the truth. Today
there definition of evolution is, artificially, rock solid because they have
defined it that way. The current scientific definition of differences in
allele frequency is such that it is proved over and over whenever an
individual is born or dies. Once, not so long ago, evolution had a different
scientific definition; perhaps it included abiogenesis.

Excellent post. Its like defining a see wave in terms of a see wave.
Or stating there is a wave because there is a wave. What is needed is
to derive from first principles the reason for a wave crashing on the
shore. The orbital period of the moon and gravitational pull needs to
be included and what will happen if the parameters are changed. What
are the boundary conditions for example?

Ofcourse the allele frequencies must change, if they did'nt change the
organism would'nt exist now would it?

Its like saying a see wave defined by the change in in see water. Well
obviously the water will "change" in shape and form. But this explains
nothing. Furthermore the conceptual framework is all wrong in
discussing life. Language must be our conceptual framework so that
concepts such as Kolmogrov Complexity can be used as a tool to
formulate the question. I say the question because we need to
formulate the correct questions. A human language is low in KC. But
genes are high in KC such as the palindromic sequences in genes prove.
Change just one letter and you don't have a palindrome anymore. So the
question is: If the creature "evolved" did its KC increase or decrease
during this "evolutionary" period? What were the boundary conditions?
In what way did the KC change as the allele frequencies changed during
its evolution? Using the defention: "Evolution is the change in the
heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as
determined by the shifting allele frequencies of genes" from
http://www.wikireason.net/wiki/Talk:Evolution

By defenition there would'nt be a population if their traits were'nt
heritable and it is superflous to state this. Lets reformulate the
defenition:
"Evolution is the change in the traits of decendents which is
determined by the shifting allele frequencies of genes"

And lets reduce this further:
"If kids differ from their parents, they evolved. If not then they
did'nt evolve."

There is no need to include "shifting allele frequencies". They have
to shift or the human would be dead. If for example there were no
shift in allele frequencies but something entirely different keeping
the human alive then it would still have "Evolved".

For something to have "Evovlved" there must be a way of showing how it
would not have "Evolved". But in every single instance for say human
"evolution" there is always, always a difference in appearance in the
kids from the parents and thus by using this defenition the theory of
Evolution is guarenteed to 100% correct in every and all instances:
Nothing can falsify it. It can meet any contingency with unflaging
success. But lets reduce the defenition even further by replacing the
word "Evolve" with what we are really trying to say: "Change"
"If kids differ from their parents, then change have taken place. If
there is no difference then change did'nt take place and this change
is determined by the shifting allele frequencies of genes. But since
there is always a change or difference between parents and kids there
will always be a shift in allele frequencies of genes." But the very
defenition of biological life means that there must be change in
allele frequencies or you would be dead. We must explain or derive the
REASON for these changes in allele frequencies and we do this by using
language as our conceptual framework. By stating that these "changes"
or "evolution" were determined by shifting allele frequencies the
fallacy of Retrospective Specification is commited. Evolution did'nt
predict that there would be changes in allele frequencies, it was only
discovered on the realisation of the actual phenomena or event. It
took Darwin a few hundred pages to essentially state: What changes ,
changes, therefore there is change. All Darwin really achieved was to
introduce a new word into the English language a synonim for
"Change" : "Evolve". From now on just replace the word "Evolve" with
"Change" in any discussion on Evolution. Evolutionists becomes
"Changelists" or people who believe in change. How could anybody argue
about the fact that there will be change? But why was the word
"Evolution" ad-hoc and arbitrarily formulated 150 years ago to mean
that Evolution is "changes"? Or was this the meaning of the word
before Darwin's time? I need to find out what Evolved meant in 1650
for example, but can't seem to get this information.

What Darwin added was to drag in consciousness by inserting the word
"selection" over 300 times in Origin of Species. All these changes got
"selected" by the selection force. Which is why I don't understand
what Ken Ham is so excited about. Both he and Dawkins believes in
Natural Selection. Well then what on earth is there then further to
discuss? If you believe in the existance of a selection force that
naturaled stuff from a micro to macro state then further can be said?
How I am supposed to disprove the existance of this selection force?
What falsification test is given. Some have told me "nobody did the
selecting and it is not a force". Who established this, published
where? And if nobody did the selecting then why are you evolutionists
clouding the issues, destroying the very meaning of language itself by
making the word "selection" undefined? Because pre 1856 selection for
thousands of years had nothing to do with fondling boobs and breeding
babies. Now suddenly something got "selected" yet nobody did the
selecting? Who's language is confused now?

This is a terrible thing http://www.icr.org, http://www.answersingenesis.org,
http://www.uncommondescent.com and http://www.pandasthumb.org have
done. This language confusion over such a simple word "selection" has
led to a sort of collective global mental illness vividly demonstrated
by Ken Ham(http://www.answersingenesis.org) and Dawkins dramatically
declaring: We believe in Natural Selection! Two world wars, a pagan
Europe, depression and mental illness are the direct result of
language confusion.

Dawkins thinks that Natural Selection what he refered to elsewhere as
"The Principle of Selection" is justification for Atheism.
Just ask yourself:
What would be the consequence for world mental health if 99% of the
world population used phrases everyday that they think has meaning but
is in reality undefined?
What would be the mental health effect on Creationists, Evolutionists
and ID'sts and pagans or 99% of the world population ? Because
virtually every single one of them belief system is influenced on the
assumption that Evolution is actually formally defined. Atheists for
example would be horrified to find out that they are'nt really
Atheists but together with Ken Ham actually "selection force"
adherents in addition to their other beliefs. The "selection force" is
now the most widely worshiped God on earth. Held in superstitious awh
by Creationists, Atheists and ID'sts.

* And many Christians on the day of judgement like Ken Ham would
find out first hand from the Lord Jesus himself that you can't
"believe" in two Gods at the same time. And no amount of "naturaling"
the "selection force" is going to make this fact go away. No matter
how confused Ken Ham might be, he will be judged as if he knew that he
actually stated: "We believe in the Selection FORCE."

Even Dr. Wilkins asked me a rhetorical question: "What do you
mean Evolution is not defined?" Well I mean Dr. Wilkins that you must
tell me who defined or established it, something not a single
Evolutionists has even attempted to do on this forum. The mental
health effect of everybody believing that something got "selected" was
demonstrated by two world wars and Stalinist Russia and influences the
present political dynamics in America which has a direct impact on the
rest of the world. Evolutionists tend to vote Democrat and
Creationists Republican. Ken Ham is making money out of the Evo/
Creation debate. As the Bible says the love of money is the root of
all evil. If he were to ever admit: What naturaled and who did the
selecting? then there would be absolutely nothing to talk about
further and the Christians can stop wasting their time discussing
'selection forces'.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v6/i4/naturalselection.asp is
Ken Ham's attempt at defining Evolution and the "selection force". AiG
defention of Evolution: "Evolution is the proposed process by which
living things gain entirely new characteristics that were never before
present in their genetic make-up, not even in a latent or 'hidden'
form."

And who did this proposing? Who is this individual.? It is remarkable
how this defention differs from the http://www.wikireason.net/wiki/Talk:Evolution
quote. And neither sites tell us who established their defenitions.

Genes are merely an expression of a language. And all languages can be
evaluated in terms of KC, semantics, grammar and palindromes. These
are concepts independant of the material matter that expresses it.

Lets reformulate and clarify my question in terms of Evolution:

Did the KC of the genes increase or decrease as the allele frequencies
of genes changed? This is the question Ken Ham and the Atheists must
be asking themselves. Not wether it "Changed" or "Evolved". If by
"Evolve" we mean "change" then ofcourse it changed. And all issues in
life must be evaluated from the conceptual framework of language.
Jesus Christ for example gave a language like falsification test for
his claims of being God. I wrote more about this under
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TongueSpeaker

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Both SAT and AAT have failed
    ... water was involved with the selection of language. ... voluntary breathing, ... Biological evolution is based on evolutionary theory the central ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Darwins Dangerous Idea
    ... For a flat fish, having no way of keeping an eye on what's below - in order ... Chomsky, he claims, says that language cannot be ... advantageous feature which could be a product of selection, ... of "Twin Earth" and the evolution of meaning, ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Seanpit, ID and complexity
    ... random mutation and I assume natural selection. ... think (using empirical evidence to support your position) each of them ... I, in fact, did define evolution: ... Even Paley recognized variation within a species. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Evolutionary Theory
    ... controlled random mutations and contingent selection ... Evolution and Natural Selection. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com Perry Marshall DNA is language argument
    ... "....The element that is common to both watches and life is language, ... what language does my watch speak? ... No. Evolution is not random. ... The word "selection" in natural selection ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading