Re: Difference between randomness and automated selection

On Jun 24, 3:10 pm, backspace <stephan...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 24, 6:55 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Jun 24, 8:01 am, backspace <stephan...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 21, 10:05 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

but they had a slight different take on the CA idea. What Dembski did
was waste years of his life to finally prove that "...result of
accident..." won't lead to even an amino acid given eternity. He
seemingly missed the tautological core of Aristotle's narrative.
Darwin's entire book was taking the Aristotelian core rehashing the
same idea in hundreds of different ways, saying the same essential
thing over and over: ".... the dinosaurs died because they were less
improved...."
Where does you disingenuous and dishonest quote "...the dinosaurs died
because they were less improved...." come from?
Darwin's words were something to the effect that ancient animals,
who's bones we have, died because they were "less improved". The exact
passage I quoted somewhere. No, he didn't use the word "dinosaur" ,
"dinosaur" I believe is a more modern invention after Darwin referring
though to the same bones idea as Darwin.

In any case I am still intrigued by this whole "differential
reproductive success" business.
No. You keep trying to avoid the whole "differential reproductive
success" which, by the way, is a shortening of the more accurate
"differential reproductive success causally related to phenotype".

Which depends who says DRS.

Irrelevant. The idea behind the phrase is understood by the modern
community of scientists who understand population genetics and
evolution.

Like with my tornado example where I used
selection in both the pattern and design sense, the word *selection*
was the means of conveying the idea.

You distinguished between "design" and "pattern" by differentiating
(if you can understand that word) between the result of a selection by
a natural phenomenon (a tornado destroying houses on one side of a
street). You said that such a 'selection' by an insensate phenomenon
should be called 'pattern'. And contrasted it with (differentiated it
from) the result of a man-made phenomenon by a natural agent (a man
choosing to buy one house over another), which you called 'design'.

The problem is that with "design" you mean " ...design subset of
pattern ..." what that means I don't know.

*You* are the one who presented examples that showed that *you*
thought that design is a subset of pattern, namely patterns that are
made by or directed by an animate [intelligent] natural agent. I was
taking *you* seriously. Apparently somewhat more than *you* take
*yourself*. *You* are now effectively claiming ignorance about what
*your* examples mean.

Otherwise there can be no real distinction between
"design" and "pattern" because there is no way to distinguish between
a tornado acting under the 'will of God' and one that is acting as a
natural force.

Confusing the issues now, assumes we all know what "randomness" is ,
we don't we also don't know how God deals with free will. Nobody has
the answer to this because we are inside of Godel's incompleteness
theorem circle as discussed elsewhere.

The above is nonresponsive bull. We were talking about the distinction
*you* made between what *you* would call a "pattern" (namely one
produced by a tornado) and what *you* would call design (namely a
choice of house by a human). And I answered that making that
distinction is fine so long as you are dealing with natural agency.
The apparent "randomness" of a tornado's choice of targets (sparing
the whorehouse while preserving the church) has nothing to do with
it. I fail to see what Godel's incompleteness theorem has to do with
it. The fact remains that there is no way to distinguish between a
tornado acting under the 'will of God' and one that is acting as a
natural force. As long as that is true, then including such
supernatural agency makes the terms "design" and "pattern"
indistinguishable.

And no way to distinguish between a man acting under
the 'will of God' and one that is acting as an independent entity.

Only God knows, you must ask him.

How? I'll let you ask first. Then tell me how I can know you aren't
lying.

Likewise DRS like Newtons inverse
square law must be some formal law established by somebody for some
formal concept. In science every law is formally established: Who says
DRS ? What technical concept did it represent.
The last three words require, empirically, that there be a
statistically significant differential in the level of reproductive
success as well as a testable difference in phenotype (which can be
anything from coat color to a single nucleotide difference observed by
restriction enzyme analysis of DNA).

Who says so .... Thus says newton, kepler, einstein with their
theorems, but who says DRS?
Read a few biology texts. In fact, learn something about language.
Your ignorance of language is even worse than your ignorance of
biology. Words and phrases do not need to be traced back to
individuals.

Correct, only ideas need be traced back.

No. For words to have meaning, it is only necessary for the ideas
they represent to be agreed upon by the community using them. I have
given you the currently agreed upon meaning of NS. You have refused
to listen and keep insisting that somehow the meaning of NS must have
become fixed by Darwin or somebody and never changed in nuance since
then.

Words and their meanings belong to a community. Take
the word "bad". In some communities, the word can mean the exact
opposite of its meaning in other communities, even among English
speakers.

In other words bad has no meaning , only the idea in a context.

Yes. The word "bad" has no innate or inherent meaning aside from the
idea it conveys in context.

Words and phrases do, indeed, refer to ideas. I am
explaining the ideas. You are choosing to remain ignorant.

What ideas by whom, which author?

I have told you the ideas. And told you where to find them. That
doesn't mean that any one source will necessarily be completely
identical to another. But, after reading several, *if you are
competent and not an intentional idiot* (and that is not a forgone
conclusion), you will have a reasonable understanding of the meaning
of NS. *You* come back *after* reading about NS and tell me what
*you* think NS means, how you would define it, and some of the subtle
things it implies. If you are wrong, I will tell you. Not because I
claim to be an expert on all the details. But, unlike you who, I am
not blinded by my personal desire to remain ignorant.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The wikipedia selection article
    ... Pattern and design aren't defined as meaning anything because they as ... 'god' is a word. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Natural selection is a false term - says Darwin in Origin Species
    ... language had any meaning at all. ... Chomsky says that natural selection can't explain where ... Language came from God who have existed since ... evolution for example are used so inter-changeably that nobody even ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Justification
    ... was it Voltaire who said something like "If God did not ... existence, character and preferences for us to make an adequately ... I was saying I don't see how any reasonable person can claim God's ... meaning on it; but I would suggest that others should think carefully ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • The Reason Why LOGOS Went Away is Obvious: Here it is
    ... There are two distinct meanings of design at play. ... This meaning of design simply says ... Here I assume you are referring to fractals as creating a design ... Adam I and Adam II - representing ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Reason Why LOGOS Went Away is Obvious: Here it is
    ... The poster who originally wrote these words about Meaning 1 and ... Intelligent Design Should Be Simple to Produce". ... natural processes produce designs such as snowflakes or fractals. ... an intelligent designer for fractal patterns made by Jackson Pollack ...
    (talk.origins)