Re: Natural selection is a false term - says Darwin in Origin Species
- From: John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:31:03 GMT
backspace wrote:
Finally passages that come at least close to addressing the whole
intent issue. Darwin talks about the objections to his term NS such as
that it personifies nature.
No one objects to agriculturists speaking of the potent effects of man's
selection; and in this case the individual differences given by nature,
which man for some object selects, must of necessity first occur.
Of course we don't object because the intent with man selection is
conscious selection. In contrast nobody
knows what you were trying to say.
If you're addressing Darwin here, you should know that he has never
posted to talk.origins, and I doubt he's a lurker either. And you're
wrong; lots of people know what Darwin was trying to say. I know, for one.
Others have objected that the term selection implies conscious choice in the
animals which become modified; and it has even been urged that, as plants
have no volition, natural selection is not applicable to them!
In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection IS A FALSE TERM;
No kidding hey!
but who ever objected to chemists speaking of the elective
affinities of the various elements?--and yet an acid cannot
strictly be said to elect the base with which it in preference
combines.
Because the intent with the word "elect" is clear.
It is? Why? "Elect" has just as much a connotation of conscious choice
as "select" does. So why do you object to the second but not the first?
Oh, I know. It's because you don't have a desperate personal need to
think that chemistry is false.
It has been said that I speak of natural selection as an active
power or Deity; but who objects to an author speaking of the
attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of the planets? Every
one knows what is meant and is implied by such metaphorical
expressions.
Darwin, you see http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com , Gitt information
theory and Chomsky pragmatics came 150
years to late. Since nobody knew what your intent was, Hitler, Stalin
and Mussolini invented their own intent with natural selection.
Mussolini used you and Spencer's term "survival of the fittest" over
and over in his speeches as justification for war.
Do you really think that Mussolini had ever actually read Darwin? Or
that Hitler or Stalin had? I don't, and if they didn't, what would
Darwin's intent matter? Darwin is certainly not to blame for
misunderstandings by people who had never read anything he wrote. Nor is
any evolutionary biologist to blame for an dictator. Shame on you for
such a transparently false claim.
So again it is difficult to avoid personifying the word Nature...
No, it isn't because you are the one using this term so you tell us
your intent. If you had no idea what you were trying to say how am I
supposed to know?
If. Darwin knew perfectly well what he was trying to say. So do I. If
you don't, that's your problem, but don't blame Darwin.
but I mean by nature, only the product of many natural laws, and by laws the
sequence of events as ascertained by us.
If we don't ascertain the laws then who will? And what are these laws,
these natural laws. You really had
no idea what you were trying to say hey Darwin. You were just a feeble
minded mathematically illiterate fool angry with God for loosing your
child and in the process damned mankind - everybody from YEC to
atheists now thinks they got naturaled.
There's your fake verb again. If you had bothered to learn anything you
would know that your conjecture about motivations here is wrong. Darwin
came up with natural selection long before losing his child. And again,
everyone but you understands what he's saying here.
With a little familiarity such superficial objections will be forgotten.
Yes, Darwin they were forgotten for 150 years because nobody
understood that you didn't communicate any form of intent with this
piece of grammatical gargoyle - natural selection. This universal
mechanism of yours that explains everything.
No it doesn't. It explains quite a few things, though, in a clear and
obvious fashion. Note, by the way, that this passage you quote explains
quite clearly and precisely tha the misunderstanding of natural
selection that you most often mention -- an idea of conscious choice in
the process -- is wrong. So it seems that you have destroyed any claim
you had that Darwin's intent is not clear.
[snip repetition]
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Natural selection is a false term - says Darwin in Origin Species
- Next by Date: Re: Natural selection is a false term - says Darwin in Origin Species
- Previous by thread: Re: Natural selection is a false term - says Darwin in Origin Species
- Next by thread: Re: Natural selection is a false term - says Darwin in Origin Species
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
