Re: Natural selection is a false term - says Darwin in Origin Species

On Oct 5, 12:43 am, Iain <iain_inks...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Has this cleared your addledness?
No, because why did he then use the word "selection" for which the
synonym is "choice"?

Because they are not perfect synonyms.

Choice is always conscious.
Selection is not always conscious.

Your *semantics* or meaning (note meaning not intent) or definition of
the word *selection* differs from mine, this is where the confusion
is. According to http://www.dictionary.com *selection* and *choice*
are synonyms. But something is a synonym if it implies the same thing.
Would you care to motivate why you differ from dictionary.com? Saying
that *selection* or *choice* always implies consciousness is an
axiomatic statement. I can't prove that 1+1=2 I simply believe it.
What I can't understand is why do the materialists insist on using a
word such as *choice* or *selection* if it simply is not available to
them.

A sieve, for example, selects, but does not choose.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com explained that the roots of a river
"sieving" the cayakers or the waves *sorting* the sand didn't have any
intent - there is no encoding and decoding mechanism. There is no
motive or will from the waves to sort the sand. Sorting of the sand is
a pattern not a design. The meaning of the word "sieve" is dependent
on the intent of signal sender communicating his motive, will or
intent to signal receiver or the decoding mechanism. We for example
are not using the same protocol in communicating our intent with the
word *selection*, *preservation*, *sorting* and *sieve*.
If signal receiver and signal sender don't agree on the meaning of the
word selection then decoding the will of the sender isn't possible.
Darwin didn't define what he meant(semantics) with the word
*selection*. If *selection* can both imply consciousness and
unconsciousness then we need to rectify this ambiguity by defining
exactly what we mean(semantics) with selection or we need to invent a
new word. Prof. Herrmann invented "mindom* instead of *random* since
*random* implies purposelessness and there 'purposeless' about the
complex behavior of a gas.

Harshman said Darwin used *selection* as a metaphor - metaphor for
what? Newton didn't have to use metaphors he gave as an equation. The
evolutionists are interpreting what Darwin wrote according to their
own metaphysical world view, such as with "Survival of the Fittest".
We have endless discussions about what does SoF really mean. And it
means nothing without knowing what was Spencer's intent with it -
until we know his intent he wasn't even wrong. Darwin said that SoF is
a "better expression" then natural selection. What casual link was
there between the word "survival" and the word "selection" before
1859? Why was there suddenly in 1859 be some sort of relation.



.

Relevant Pages