Re: Survival of the Fittest: What was Darwin's pragmatics?

On 22 Juni, 23:05, backspace <sawireless2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 22, 7:04 pm, swedish.wann...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

No, because until they tell me their intent or pragmatics with Natural
Selection they are in the words of Wolfgang Pauli not even wrong.
Please explain what you mean by saying that they are not even wrong.
Are you or are you not saying that scientists today are discussing a
topic about which they have no idea as to the meaning of the terms it
uses.

Yes

If the answer is yes, then why has no one else except you brought this
to their attention.

It has been repeatedly brought to their and Dembski and Ken Hams
attention. But this whole thing has now become some sort of cottage
industry where neither creationists, IDsts and evolutionists are
interested in defining their terms because once they do there will be
nothing further to discuss. These endless debates using non-defined
terms is creating employment for a lot of people with each side
thinking the other is "wrong". It is one of the biggest deceptions in
the history of mankind and a very cruel way of inflicting mental harm
on Creationists, Idsts and evolutionists.

I can't repeat everything I have posted see this thread for further
clarity.http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/38df9a9...
"We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but
we
are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told,
often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that
indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well
as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;' but
we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein,
precisely, this evidence consists." Smith, Wolfgang (1988) Teilhardism
and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin, Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books & Publishers Inc.,
p.2

If you pick up a blank piece of paper with only two words "Natural
Selection" what could you deduce from it?
Absolutely nothing because you wouldn't know the authors intent.
Modern Evolutionists use the prase RM+NS
Random mutation plus Natural Selection. They have some sort of inten
with the word "random" but whatever this intent might be it can't be
the same as Darwin's intent with Natural Selection since he never said
anything was random and he clarified his intent or pragmatics with his
usage of "chance" by stating that it is an "... incorrect expression."

By reading OrigSpecies we therefore attempt to get Darwin's pragmatics
with "Natural Selection". Now the dishonesty and deceit comes in with
present Evolutionists using the word "random" and "natural selection"
in the same essay or paper like Harvard Universityhttp://www.uoregon.edu/~wholmes/Shtulman_EvolTheory.pdf:"....Darwin
explained adaptation as the selective propagation of randomly
occurring mutations within a population...."
Shtulman's intent with "mutations" is genetic mutations which is not
what Darwin meant since he knew not of genes and Darwin never used the
word "random" and his pragmatics with "chance" didn't imply anything
"random".

What we are dealing with here is the Shtulman Theory of Evolution not
the Darwin Theory of Evolution because Shtulman has different intent
with the phrases he hijacked from Darwin. It is simply unbelievable
that he and every single evolutionists are activly implying that their
particular intent with "Natural Selection" was Darwin's intent.
"Natural Selection" is just two words strung together, the phrase
means nothing without intent. And I just don't seem to get the point
accross that the Evolutionists like Coyne, Dawkins must stop stating
that their pragmatics was Darwin's pragmatics - it wasn't as is clear
if one actually reads OriginSpecies.

When the penny finally drops that we are dealing with thousands of
Theories of Evolution with each person's particular intent with the
phrase a lot of people will have to go for trauma counceling as they
realise that all these years they have been believing in the Coyne
Theory of Evolution and not the Darwin Theory of Evolution nomatter
how much Coyne mixed in the words "Darwin" , "Natural Selection" and
"random".

The word "Darwin" is just tossed in as an afterthought to give the
illusion that everybody is talking about Darwin's Theory of Evolution
and Darwin never even gave a Theory of Evolution.
He used Theory of gradual Evolution once and Theory of Evolution once
and then basically left it to your imagination to deduce that what he
meant by this was the gradual transformation of on species into
another. This ofcourse is not a theory but a conjecture. Your theory
is supposed to explain how this happened, something Darwin couldn't
even begin to attempt since he knew not of genes.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that words require canonical
definitions to be mutually understood. This is of course nonsense as
there are a vast array of terms that have no such definition and even
those that do can quite legitimately have their meanings refined as
new information regarding them is discovered..

It is perfectly clear what Darwin meant by natural selection, but one
has to read the book in its entirety. No one else seems to have a
problem with this.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why Ray Martinez Should Accept MicroEvolution
    ...  All of his descendants had bent little fingers (he had five ... Selection acts to better ... Because Darwin said that NS acts favorably, or for the good, or to ... only force that drives evolution, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Wonders of Evolution
    ... The intent is a label that we apply to what is a truly blind process ... evolution of ants and aphids. ... Note also that there is no attempt to exclude arteficial selection ... artificial and natural selection, ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Adolph Hitler-Nazis were staunch Darwinists: the evidence.
    ... Darwin said natural selection was the main but not the exclusive means ... racist ramblings of Hitler one finds him talking about the *evolution* ... of humans by the process of *natural* selection. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution confuses an observation with a theory
    ... Darwin did'nt use the phrase "Random Mutations" or random anything ... Do you think that evolutionary science *stopped* when Darwin ... The basic ideas of "neutral evolution" were most fully initiated by ... In the presence of selection one will either get ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolutionary Concepts: Natural Selection and Patrick Matthew
    ... synonymous with Evolution itself. ... Darwin, a Scottish gentleman farmer and fruit-grower, Patrick Matthew, ... origin of the principle of natural selection lies with Matthew. ...
    (talk.origins)