Re: Peppered moth - pattern or design?

On Oct 25, 2:41 am, backspace <sawireless2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Steven J. wrote:
One of the recurrent complaints creationists have about evolutionary
theory is that it doesn't deal in "teleology," "destiny," or concepts
of "higher" life forms.

There is no theory of evolution: Go to Wikipedia and show me the
theory of evolution. Darwin had a conjecture not a theory, he called
his conjecture a theory but calling something a theory doesn't make it
a theory. He didn't know about a genes so how could he have had a
theory if he couldn't even specify the problem.

Nor does natural selection depend on any agent
actually choosing or selecting anything, as has been explained to you
over and over and over and over again.

This is begging the question: NS is the term under dispute.

Rather, the point is, that if, in the environment described above, birds detect and eat grey moths
often and black moths rarely, black moths will live to reproduce much
more often than grey moths, and the next generation will contain a
higher percentage of grey moths, and so on for succeeding generations
was long as the environment remains the same. The effect on the moth
population is exactly the same as if the birds had been consciously
and teleologically choosing to breed black moths, even though that is
not what they are doing at all. Note that one doesn't even need a
selection pressure as conscious as birds: antibiotic-resistant
bacteria flourish and replace less-resistant bacteria in an
environment rich in antibiotics, even though the antibiotics are
utterly mindless and intentionless, and the bacteria themselves are
scarcely smarter or more goal-oriented.

Some moths die, some live - this is a pattern, nobody did any
*selectings* and there is no such thing as a *selection pressure* in
nature. Nature has patterns not designs.

Again, "natural selection" is an effect, not an action.

Again, you are begging the question: NS is the term under dispute, you
have assumed there is such a thing as a NS and then stated that
therefore it is an effect not a cause. Chris Colby makes the same
mistake on talkorigins.org: If NS is an effect what then is the cause?
He never tells us and neither do you. Harshman says NS is "non-
random" or thus *directed* by the nature force and thus he is saying
that NS is a cause. This is the confusion you get when the rules of
Language are violated and concepts that don't exist are created out of
thin air by the arbitrary concatenation of two words by the authority
of the materialist priests. And the siege mentality materialists have,
it is seemingly impossible for evolutionists to calmly motivate NS.
And how could they since it is an axiomatic fact that there is no such
thing as a NS on linguistic grounds alone.I believe 1+1 = 2 ,
materialists believe that they can make 1 + 1 mean whatever they want
to make it mean by decreeing it so by their authority as the rulers or
our universities. Motivating for NS in the end boils down to argument
from authority - you either believe it or MIT kicks you out.

Lets paint a room black and release white and black moths and put a
bird inside. In the same way that I would have *detected* the white
marbles a bird would *detect* the white moths first. One can say the
bird *selected* for the white moths, but only if we understand that
the word *selection* is used to convey the intent in the detection,
pattern sense. Of course I as a free agent implemented my design to
have the white moths reduced by using a bird for the purpose in a
closed environment. But since nature has no designs nor consciousness
nature didn't *direct* the bird to reduce the white moth population.
Nature doesn't need to direct the bird.

Nobody said nature "needed" anything nor implied it - what are you
talking about?

The bird has an effect on the present and future frequency of various inheritable traits whether
"nature" or the bird has any intentions or goals at all.

Yes, this would be a pattern not a design.

For that matter, human designers can have "selective" effects that they did not
actually select:

As opposed to what now - "nature designers" such as the nature
selection force that naturled frogs?

Darwin tried to extrapolate the selection,design intent of domestic
breeding to nature, he confused the patterns in nature with designs.
A free roaming cow meeting another cow in a point of space and time
making baby cows is a pattern not a design - nobody willed for cows to
meet.
And, as noted, "will" is often unnecessary, and occasionally the
result of selective pressures is directly opposite the will of any
conscious agents involved.

There is no such thing as a "selective pressure" in nature, nobody did
any selectings, you are confusing a pattern with a design.

What has the bird *detecting* white moths inside the room got to do
with the word *natural*? What naturaled in this process of
*detection*. If this process of detecting a color contrast means
something got naturaled then every time my dog sees a white cat on the
lawn and goes ballistic he is also getting naturaled.
"Natural," the adjective, refers to things having a discoverable nature according to which they
normally act.

"Natural" has only a meaning as conveyed by the speaker as he
communicates his intent. "Natural" as a word on its own means nothing
without intent. "Natural Selection" as a term is a semantic
impossibility on linguistic grounds alone. You can't as a materialist
priest make language itself undefined by creating impossible terms
such as "triangular circles" or "natural selection". And notice what
we are talking about: birds, bacteria and moths - what has this got
to do in and of itself with anything getting naturaled?

It is natural for some birds to eat moths, and it is
natural for them to prey most readily on the moths they can most
easily detect. I doubt you dog has a sufficient effect on the
breeding opportunities of cats to have an effect on cat colors in your
neighborhood, but I could be wrong about that.

You see what I mean with intent: It is natural for birds to eat moths
and not for humans to eat them. Now "natural" is used to convey
meaningful intent. But just the term "natural selection" on its own
conveys no intent and it can't because it is a semantic impossibility
- there is no such thing. A selection is a decision and decisions are
never "natural",they might be hasty, thoughtful, sudden or
contemplated but they are never "natural".
A person telling me he implemented a "natural selection" by picking up
a stone is not communicating his intent. If he had told me that he
"quickly" or "carefully" selected for the stone then we understand his
intent. But natural ? What would be a natural selection. How would
one "naturally" select for stones.

Lets presume soot was white and thus all the black moths would have
been eaten leaving behind the white ones. We would be told that this
is also
natural selection making the whole story unfalsifiable because no
matter what happens it would always be the same universal mechanism
that explains everything - natural selection.
So it falsifies natural selection to suppose that different
environments can favor different adaptions?

This is begging the question again - the third time now. Who did the
"favoring"? All we observe is the pattern of animals in the
environment. This has got nothing to do with anything getting
naturaled or *selected*.

What, then, could count as confirmation of natural selection: if the only life forms on Earth,
now or ever, were _carbonaria_ morph peppered moths?

Begging the question for the forth time now. What has a fruitcake and
moon dust got to do with one another? What has *selections* got to do
with moths. Who did the selecting - the nature selection force? A
salamander going of existence is an event not a *selection*.

There are outcomes that could falsify natural selection: if there were no traits
at all that made survival in any given environment more likely than
other traits, for example. Of course, there might be, as noted below,
traits that affected survival that you just weren't noticing ....

Begging the question now for the fith time. You can't falsify a
linguistic impossibility such as triangular circles or natural
selection. Something which can't exist on language grounds alone can't
be falsified.

"Natural selection" is a metaphor of sorts; it is the use of an established word to describe a somewhat similar or analogous
phenomenon.

And this is the problem: Natural Selection is the only term used in
science that is a "metaphor" - metaphor for what?

Actually, metaphors are used all over the place, including all over
scince. They are one of the most common forms of communication we
have!

Try reading this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor

Make sure you read about Dead metaphors especially!

I know, these things pretty much make your argument moot so you will
ignore them! You do realize that this is dishonest don't you? How does
Jesus feel about you being so dishonest?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Peppered moth - pattern or design?
    ... often and black moths rarely, black moths will live to reproduce much ... Nature has patterns not designs. ... the word *selection* is used to convey the intent in the detection, ... communicates his intent. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: lacks logic
    ... nothing to do with 'natural' selection caused by nature. ... is provided by the birds, who select the now more visible moths ... over the mutant moths that are better camoflauged. ... The evironment change is not natural, the selection is. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Singing as prerequisite (or aid) to language.
    ... >> like it for selection to work on? ... a predisposition to sing, ... > accurately imitate bird sounds or create new bird-like sounds. ... > sounds of nature such as bird calls, ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Peppered moth - pattern or design?
    ... destiny the correct term to use for the the black moths being eaten is ... in the not (selection, design) sense. ... marbles a bird would *detect* the white moths first. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Peppered moth - pattern or design?
    ... A bird goes out looking for moths to eat. ... in the not (selection, design) sense. ... marbles a bird would *detect* the white moths first. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading