Re: Darwin misquoted on Wikipedia Natural Selection

On Sep 13, 2:54 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 13, 8:55 am, Arkalen <skiz...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Newton didn't solve the three-body problem. I don't think anybody has
solved the three-body problem. Does that mean gravity is bunk ?
I mean, it's just three bloody stars of equal mass alone in space and
you just want to know their movements. How difficult can it be ?

So do you claim that the fact that nobody has a definitive answer to
that question is NOT a disproof of Newton's theory of gravity ? If so,
why ?

I am talking about Newtons formula that the pull between two objects
are proportional to their distances squared.
Actually *I* was talking about that, but do go on.

There is no confusion
about this.
You'd be surprised. Hey, pop quiz ! If I throw a ball straight up in
the air, at the millisecond it reaches the top of its trajectory
what's its acceleration ?

This is my pragmatics with the word "gravity" - simply
what Newton defined in a formula. Show us where in OriginSpecies did
Darwin write down the differential equations that needs to be solved
in real-time by our brain to keep us walking upright while at the same
time multitasking and thinking what it should write next.
How are equations of the nonexistence thereof relevant to what I
said ?

It took
Japanese engineers decades and hundreds of papers in control theory to
produce the first walking robot.
As opposed to billions of years and billions of organisms it took for
evolution to produce the first walking organism. Wow, those Japanese
are GOOD !

Evolutionists are claiming that
three phrases NS, AS and SoF explains everything.
SoF is "Survival of the Fittest" ? It's just another name for "Natural
Selection". What's AS ?
Anyway, nobody claims that Natural Selection and Random Mutation (I
think that's what you meant) explain *everything*. The reality is a
bit more complicated, there's genetic drift, the founder effect,
fixation, various physical and environmental constraints, the nitty-
gritty of how genes and developement work most of which we don't
understand well yet...
Evolution like all things in the real world (including gravity) is
complicated. But like Newton's equations, NS+RM work well in a first
approximation. And as you don't understand the first approximation yet
we'll concentrate on that ok ?

The control
algorithms that makes the robot walk is IIC - Irreducibly
Interdependently Complex. And by the same logic the control algorithms
that make the human gait possible are IIC.
The simple fact of being IIC does not mean it's unevolvable. See the
mousetrap analogy :
http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html
So we know an "IIC" system can theoretically evolve. The question then
becomes : how did the specific system backspace is trying to stump us
with evolve ?
Answer : what an insteresting question ! Maybe you should ask the
scientists that are involved in researching this. But how is this
relevant to the validity of the Theory of Evolution any more than the
three-body problem is relevant to the validity of Newton's gravity ?

Miller argues that the
flagellum is not IC, would he extend the same argument to the control
algorithms that allow every single creature to propel itself in a
direction? How did the control algorithms independently arose in each
species - did the nature selection force natural the algorithms into
existence? Miller says Natural Selection is blind, well maybe it is
stupid as well, would this "stupid" natural selection force be able to
invent the algorithms.
What's the trajectory of three stars of comparable mass in an
otherwise empty space ?
(by the way, I like how ironclad your argument is. "maybe natural
selection is stupid ?")

But until we know Millers intent with NS he is not even wrong. For
example his intent could be the Gaia pantheist selection force
naturaled the correct differential equations that model the human
gait. Who knows? What is scary is that a 6-year old atheist
evolutionist is so certain about his "solution" that everything got
"naturaled" but he can't even spell differential equation.
A 6-year old atheist evolutionist is as certain of things as a 6-year
old evangelical christian, or a 6-year old muslim or bouddhist or
wicca. The point is, 6-year olds believe in what they believe because
of what they have been told, they haven't had time to do their own
research to make up their own mind. So what a 6-year old thinks is not
relevant to the debate. (sorry 6-year olds. Good thing most of you
can't read this post anyway.)

One can't
disassociate Artificial selection AND SoF from Natural Selection as
the evolutionists seem to be doing. SoF is a hugely problematic phrase
for Evolutionists and they don't know how to "massage" it out of
Origin Species.
Oh, THAT's what AS was ! Well you'll be happy to know AS's influence
on evolution is negligible, it only applies to species that were
domesticated by humans. And not even always then. (if the human-made
selection is involuntary it should probably be called natural
selection. Otherwise any species that influences the reproduction of
another species can be said to do artifical selection)
Why couldn't we disassociate artifical selection from natural
selection ? You may have a weird definition of AS, mine is "humans
deliberately selecting and breeding living things for a desirable
trait". This is different from natural selection because of the
"humans deliberately". It can be considered a form of natural
selection I suppose, in the same way we consider humans animals. But
the distinction is still meaningful.

From Dembski's site: The latest post

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/mary-midgley-to-deb...
"..Some of the claims of the supporters of versions of natural
selection, she holds, might more properly belong in the Religious
Education curriculum alongside Creationism and Intelligent Design...."

What is her intent with Natural Selection and how Natural Selection
solves in real-time the differential equations that keeps a bat in the
air. If she is not thinking in terms the brain of a human and animal
effortlessly solving differential equations of a IIC system then she
is clueless and why should we bother with her pragmatics with NS
whatever it is supposed to be?
Her intent with natural selection is the same I've defined for you a
thousand times now. As for how she thinks it explains bat flight...
Have you solved the three-body problem yet ? If gravity is valid and
simply expressed in concise mathematical equations you should be able
to solve it in a few hours with a pen and paper. Go ahead, we'll wait.
You don't even need to use Einstein's version, Newton's will suffice.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Darwins morality
    ... > selection is genetically determinist and based on sacrificing one's self ... SOMETHING THAT NO OTHER SPECIES HAS EVER ASPIRED ... If natural selection followed the classical models ... to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Ray Martinez: evolution refuted.
    ... favor of evolution is false based on the fact that natural selection, ... want to know why "natural selection... ... *if* you had evidence that the mutations or selection were ... There is no evidence that natural selection is teleologic - I agree. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Seanpit, ID and complexity
    ... random mutation and I assume natural selection. ... I, in fact, did define evolution: ... Even Paley recognized variation within a species. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ray Martinez: evolution refuted.
    ... favor of evolution is false based on the fact that natural selection, ... Which assumption of the process of natural selection is wrong, ... That mutation is teleologically foretold? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Natural selection is a false term - says Darwin in Origin Species
    ... problems of implications and connotations of ordinary language. ... Are triangles, circles, natural and selection not ordinary words? ... Since when did selection and natural take on a technical meaning? ... The term natural selection has no meaning either in works of fiction, ...
    (talk.origins)