Irrelevant! (And here you are using Cal's "ignorant retard" and "do research" excuses for arguments)

Irrelevant! (And here you are using Cal's "ignorant retard" and "do research" excuses for arguments again!)

This fart contributes nothing to the discussion, which is about the applicability of the WORDS "natural" and "selection", both of which I have already shown to be inappropriate and false (see above!) (that's right, the argument above, which you totally ignore, as you place your post which spouts drivel at me!)

Yes! There is a CONCEPT which is vital - and hence the need to get rid of a wanky idiotic TERM like "natural selection" to label it !
I have already explained in detail to you exactly why this label is wanky and idiotic - and instead of appreciating my explanation, and thanking me, you totally ignore it, and simply spout silly irrelevance!

I just did! In the previous post!
Here Brainspace, you put "authority" above logic!
Wow! Way to go Ten!
Are you just being really stupid today, or is this how you are all the time? :D

Is that what passes for a free-thinkers argument around here?!!
This is the 2 million people can't be wrong "argument"! :D

If you, Brainspace, are at the cutting-edge of "freethought" in the USA, it is no wonder your country is in the mess it is in!

It seems that is a waste of time to direct intelligent and helpful posts at you!
I place this post in the hope that another reader appreciates it! :thumbsup:

It is shocking to see the witlessness displayed by Tenspace above.

The reckless misuse of language by evolutionary scientists is a critical part of the reason why they are failing to suceed in teaching the "how" of biological evolution to the people of the USA!

And it is shocking that "authority" and "follow-my-leader" is preferred by professed atheists such as Tenspace, over freethought.
That is a calamity!

Pan,

You still have not explained why we should stop using the term natural selection. Calling it wanky and idiotic is one thing but you have to explain fully why. If your ideas are valid perhaps you should send a manuscript to Nature. The reason everybody uses the term is because it makes perfect sense.

But I HAVE : in this post! (Which has been ignored twice already!)

Selection is a conscious action that humans and animals do!
And it is extremely misleading to use it as a label for a concept which includes the "blind forces" which partake in the differential salvation and destruction of different genes! It needs to be retained only in terms like "mate selection" and "prey selection", in which it is used correctly!
And, as I have already indicated, there is much more to differential survival and reproduction than selection. We are talking about a concept which includes "blind forces", and it is incompatible with true communication and clear-thinking, to use "selection" as its name!

And Nature now effectively means "Everything"!
And therefore Natural is not a useful qualifier!
(it had best be restricted in future to its original use of pertaining to birth, or simply abandoned.)

Actually it is you and Ten who have not even attempted to rationally address the explanation that I have already given!
(Or perhaps you don't know what it means to select something) :lol:

Natural Selection : can it survive ? :D

What a scary sentiment!
It makes total anti-sense! :D

Writing to Nature is a good idea - thanks! :D
And sorry that this thread has been waylaid - but it happens around here ! :D
And it is all for the greater good! :thumbsup:

Do you honestly expect all biologists to adopt new terminology based on that "explanation" ? Tenspace addressed it already , the environment and genetic variation set up differential survival. Nobody has EVER suggested that this selection is conscious or just because when a human selects that that is how natural selection works.

Yes I expect they will!
Freethinking Scientists will get ever-more dynamically and sanely radical as The Enlightenment accelerates! :D

And as I have been taught biology at degree-level I am fully aware of the great extent to which poor terminology has tremendously held up the advancement of scientific ideas and teaching.
And I am aware that the arrival of new and better terms accelerates the advancement of scientific ideas and teaching.
And so are the vast majority of biologists!

That's a lie!
It was me that introduced the phrase differential survival in this thread!
And Brainspace hasn't rationally addressed anything that I have brought up here!
Yet I am glad you are picking up on that term!

The very word suggests it, which is why it is a very poor choice of a word.
Hello?! :lol:
We also need to keep this word "clean" for clear and honest use in the terms "mate selection" and "prey selection".

Indeed. And it is also weird to see how creationists/ID proponents use Google and Wikipedia as sources (expensive ones at that, whew $450!) while the real scientists use www.pubmed.com for peer-reviewed scientific publications.

Pan, I am not ignoring your posts. I want to address them in detail, but I don't have alot of time right now.

I will say that your condescending tone isn't appropriate for a real discussion. You know I don't denigrate people, and I ask that you stop it until I've had a serious chance to respond.

And respond I will.

Thank you for your interest.
I think my stance on this issue is a vital one!

Biology *has* really struggled with ideas and terms in the course of the history of evolutionary theory.
We both know this I think!

We now urgently need terms that help pedagoguery, not ones that hinder it!

We must aid the formation of realisations in people's minds.
"Natural selection" was a very useful ANALOGY for Darwin.
But like all analogies, it is easily taken too far, and this one has outlived its helpfulness.
(Except for use as a temporary analogy in the process of teaching "evolution")

Today, with our knowledge of DNA and all that (which Darwin didn't have) we can come up with better terms I think, with a wider scope. At the very least it will be heuristic to try! :D

Perhaps you are planning to defend biologists use of the term "Natural Selection" when you reply.
Here is an alternative challenge to you!
How about seeing if you can come up with a whole range of better terms which better describe the events of evolution?

I haven't read Dawkins or Gould or Mayr for a very long time!

Evolutionary scientists seem to talk about the processes of "natural selection" all the time!
I'm like, yeh, "natural selection! What a stupid term! But I get it! Now move on already!" :D

It is the generation of aliveness and novelty which excites me, and this is why I turned to the study of biochemistry. That way excitement lies!

And Ten, with you being a moderator, why don't you lift this whole discussion to another thread, and salvage your 100 refutations from the wreckage?

Well, seeing as you drove this thread right off the side of the cliff, I agree.

Okay, everyone, back to the refutations!

14.) That it is a 'Random' process.
It is a nonrandom process involving random and nonrandom input.

15.) That there are no transition fossils
All fossils, all lifeforms are transitionary because there is no goal to evolution.

16.) That humans evolved from the Apes that are around today.
Humans and apes share a common ancestor, and neither is directly descended from either.

Objecting to Origin was not off topic - it was a common misconception as mentioned above.

Evolution is a nonrandom process.

There is a goal to evolution - survival if you accept Darwin from Malthus. The problem is the goal cannot be mere survival because the evidence of 3.5 billion years of processing the atmosphere argues strongly against it.

And one should add - Evolution is meaningless with regard to religion so long as it does not arrogate itself to be a theory on the Origin (first cause) of Life (#4 above I believe).

andy holland
sinner

What are you babbling about. Take all you evo questions to the Understanding Evolution is Hard? thread.

Darwin addressed this kind of objection himself, almost 150 years ago.

You brought it up. No one here believes evolutionary theory encompasses origins of life - origins of Man, yes, but not the starting point of life. Yes, there are scientists and others who don't make this clear; we were even discussing this in another thread recently. But their opinions would be critically examined if posted here, I'm sure.

If survival is the goal, then why is death so important in evolution? Survival is a byproduct of emergent self-replication.

Is there a biological Theory Of Everything? Could new discoveries mesh evolutionary theory with abiogenesis to give us a complete picture of life, from creation through diversity? Maybe we're both wrong, and evolution will one incorporate "aliveness" (props to Pan), just as we might one day see the incorporation of gravity and quantum physics.