Re: what is required for evolution to occur


"Timberwoof" <timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:timberwoof.spam-EB271C.13514227072007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <oLrqi.11372$rR.9736@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"rmj" <glenna@xxxxxxx> wrote:

"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6o-dnUcveJJ9lTfbnZ2dnUVZ_vihnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"rmj" <glenna@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1gfqi.12448$zA4.11496@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
snip

The use of "choose" is suggesting something more for natural
selection, something akin to thinking, despite the fact that
natural
selection is no more intelligent than a sieve.

Ok, I've read the sentence again. Why can't I say that a sieve
chooses?

You can if you wish. I was referring to the man on the street who
would
seldom if ever say that.

So, if I can find a "man on the street" who would say that, it becomes
OK?
The fact remains that a sieve does "choose", in a metaphorical sense.

snip

And I would say that some are mislead by the use of "choose" for natural
selection. The are "empowering" natural selection to make it seem more
likely that it can accomplish nearly anything. "Choose", metaphor or not,
suggests taking an active role. Still, at times it is a simple way to
express an idea.

If people *want* to misunderstand evolution, then no amount of clever
wordplay will prevent them. If people want to understand it, then they
can ask for clarification of terms used and not insist without good
cause that the words used cannot possibly mean what the speaker
intended.

And what I mean by that is that you should be less pedantic about the
meanings of words. Accept that scientists use words in ways that fit
what they are talking about, they they have constructed self-consistent
semantic contexts in which to describe self-consistent theories, and
they have therefore perhaps adapted a more specialized vocabulary (or
even jargon) to express thoughts in those contexts.

"Choose" is not a scientific term.


In other words, get over it.

I was over it before I started on it. If one wants to use "choose" that is
okay. Science is not precise.


Within the context of evolution of species, the expression, "The
environment chooses which members of a species get to survive to create
offspring," is perfectly acceptable, meaningful, and without
contradictory or ambiguous references.

Yes it is clear to me. However, for someone unknowledgeable in evolutionary
lingo it could be misleading for the reasons I gave.

<snip argument about genetic origin of behavior>

Please see my other post today.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ?Chris L.
an important web site: http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: what is required for evolution to occur
    ... selection is no more intelligent than a sieve. ... Why can't I say that a sieve chooses? ... even jargon) to express thoughts in those contexts. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The uncorrected simplifications/oversimplifications of
    ... > The fig wasps might be doing something different from the prediciton. ... > selection will favour them to obey the prediction. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Maybe Safari 4 actually is for Windows
    ... Back in The Good Old Days, classic Mac OS had the close box on the left, and the other stuff on the right- well separated. ... That appears right next to the selection, ... for Google search results pages is just that there just isn't anything ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: "Random evolution"
    ... One of them has two horns and the other has only ... all obvious that you can attirbute it to selection. ... baldness is a spandrel. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Apparently random....
    ... You're back into a corner - you are claiming that mindless material ... the sieve is directly comparable to every ... This is not selection. ... that separates grains into a nicely sorted set of ...
    (talk.origins)