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

On Oct 8, 6:01 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/cc73770...
"...Neither term is wholly satisfactory, but not because there is a
problem with natural selection, but with ordinary *language*. This is
why NS is now a mathematical equation, which doesn't have those
problems of implications and connotations of ordinary language.
Reality is about facts not language....."

Wilkins's point was about "ordinary language," that is, casual,
colloquial language. It is not a claim that "language" as such is
incapable of describing reality.

Are triangles, circles, natural and selection not ordinary words?
Since when did selection and natural take on a technical meaning? A
triangle has a specific meaning and a circle has a specific meaning
and no man can redefine what it means. Natural has a meaning dependent
on the intent of the author as he uses in in various sentences.
Selection has only one meaning a conscious choice. Biology is supposed
to be a scientific discipline with exact defined terms. Poetic license
is acceptable for the word selection in works of fiction - not works
of science.

The term natural selection has no meaning either in works of fiction,
ordinary conversation or in science and no amount naturaling is going
to change this simple fact about language itself. There can't exist
such a thing as triangular circles - not even in works of fiction.


"...Reality is about facts not language...." But Dr.Wilkins facts are
communicated by your language.
And your sentence is supposed to be a factual reality right? But the
sentence was made by your language which is not a reality to you and
therefore it can't be a fact!

In this case, the problem is that words may have associations or connotations that are confusing.

Is there anything confusing about the word "triangle"? Is there any
confusion about the term "triangular circles".
There was no confusion about the words selection and natural before
1859.

One can, of course, learn not to be confused by them, unless (as you seem to) one
desperately wishes to remain confused.

I motivate why "selection" can only always mean consciousness because
that was its meaning before 1859.

I read somewhere that a mountain wouldn't even exist if somebody
wasn't conscious about it. Your position is one of fundamentalist
faith. And my position is one of fundamentalist faith. The question
which position of faith is more reasonable?

If a mountain doesn't exist if no one is conscious of it, then how do
we explain, for example, the discovery of fossils?

The only reason atoms, electrons and every particle in the universe
exists is because God is conscious about every single one. His
language holds matter together. All matter and energy are subject unto
his language.

"Natural selection" is certain inheritable traits becoming more common
in populations over time, because they help the organisms that have
them survive and reproduce in that environment.

Rephrase:
Ninja Turtles is certain traits that became more common in populations
because it enabled the organisms to survive.
And this is a tautological statement that has got nothing to do with
anything getting naturaled , selected, ninjad or tutled - ask Prof.
Skell. natural selection is entirely superfluous to the observation
that a population of organism came to dominate an ecological niche. An
observation is not an explanation - you need to tell me how the
organism got its traits to begin with and not rationalize after the
event. And don't tell me they out competed their competitors since you
would tell me the same story for every organism and thus it is
unfalsifiable. It also betrays the ignorance of evolutionists
concerning control theory. As explained both the weak and strong
gazelle had complex control algorithms that operated with the muscles
in an interdependent manner. Telling me that the weak gazelle got
munched doesn't explain where it got its control algorithms from.

Natural selection can
be described in ordinary language. It can be better and more
concisely described in equations, even if Darwin could only do the
first and not the latter.

You are begging the question - NS is the term under dispute. Can one
describe such a thing as triangular circles? No, because it can't
possibly exist and this is a point of logic. There can't be such a
thing as natural selection and thus nobody can describe such a thing.
Your logic is flawed and thus all your conclusions and everything you
say will also be flawed. And you haven't answered the question: What
was the meaning of the word "selection" or whatever word was a synonym
for choice in 1200AD. Because selection is a synonym for choice,
decision and preference right?

It is, of course, false that evolutionists
are unanimous in the opinion that no God exists, but then, it is false
that there is no general understanding of what natural selection is.

AAAS says evolution is by chance, Harshman says no. Some say random
natural selection, others non-random natural selection - or in other
words 'directed' natural selection. And when I asked Harshman who did
the directing the selection force perhaps, he said no, nobody did any
directing. In other words he has no intent, motive or will with non-
random, because a synonym for non-random is "directed". That is what
non-random means. But the materialist priesthood dominating the
council of Europe, public schools and universities makes language to
mean whatever they want it to mean.

.

Relevant Pages