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

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 04:03:01 -0700, backspace
<sawireless2000@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Greg Guarino wrote:
Dumb, blind, drunk or stupid environment. What is your intent with
these words? You tell me.

It shows just how desperately silly your position has become, doesn't
it? He mentions a sieve, a kitchen implement made of metal or plastic,
and even goes to the trouble of further specifying that it is "a dumb,
unintelligent environment", as if that was necessary. Yet you claim he
may have meant that the sieve had a mind of its own.

But nobody in normal conversation refers to a sieve as being
"unintelligent"

One must tailor one's language to the audience. You have made it
necessary to include that sort of kindergarten-level qualifier in this
discussion. Congratulations.

only the messed up language world of evolutionists.

Even the most elegant language cannot overcome ignorance and willful
blindness.

You so desperately want to anthromorophosize nature why don't you just
come out of the closet and state cleary that your are a pantheist.

Because I don't, and I'm not.

And
if not why are you using language like "selection" that Pantheists
interpret as the Nature Selection Force?

I don't know if I've ever met a pantheist. If I have the topic didn't
come up. Evolution does not posit a "mind" or a "force" that controls
or directs the process. Many "mindless" processes have selective
effects. In any case, arguing over the word "Selection" is pointless.
Choose another word if you like.

But I think I understand why Darwin used that word. He noted that
human beings had been able to breed animals to increase their useful
traits; useful to us, that is. Cattle that give more milk, dogs
(originally wolves) that could chase vermin down a hole, or herd
sheep, or aid in hunting, to give just a couple of examples.

But did those human beings know how to design a good herding dog? They
didn't. The only control they had over the traits their dogs would
have came through choosing which ones would breed. They did this
selectively, of course, choosing the best herding dogs to breed with
each other. Over generations, those traits that made the best herding
dogs became more prevalent in the "breed".

Darwin's realized that since our ONLY control of the process was
selecting which animals would breed, ANYTHING that had the same
effect would be able to produce similar results. Why are gazelles so
fast? Because their slower ancestors were more vulnerable to predators
and thus less likely to breed. Why are cheetahs so fast? Because their
slower ancestors were more likely to starve (and not breed), having
failed to catch the speedy gazelles.

It is exactly the same process by which racehorses became so fast,
except for the SOURCE of the selective effect. Whether humans choose
which animals (or crops) breed the most or the conditions of nature
provide the selective effect, the results are the same. Except, as
Darwin noted, unlike man's efforts, the selective effect of natural
processes goes on every day, everywhere. By comparison, man's efforts
are feeble.

Darwin used the word "selection", not because he thought a mind, or a
force was making choices, but because the conditions of nature could
have the same effect as the choices made by a human breeder. Nature
was producing a selective effect, without nature being personified.

Greg Guarino

.

Quantcast