100 Refutations To Misconceptions About Evolution - Page 5

Tenspace · 08-26-2006, 07:13 AM

Quote:

PanAtheist wrote

Quote:

Down21 wrote

Please address what I said about the pointlessness of adopting your terminology since nobody in the scientific community will no what Im talking about. Basically stop laughing at people for not adopting unpublished opinion in place of logical scientific discussion. When I see your paper published in a reputable journal Ill get back to you......not holding my breath.

This is a forum!
It is the RAVING atheist forum!
It is not a scientific community!
We discuss!
We don't need to submit papers!
It is a DISCUSSION FORUM!

I haven't introduced any new terminology of my own into this discussion thread.
All I have done is point out that the severe failings of the term "natural selection".
I did this in response to sensitivities over the use of the word "creation", pointing out that this sensitivity was a double standard, as folks use "selection" without a care.

It was a fair comment, but Ten's out-of-hand "rebuff" of it led to the inflamation of this thread.
I will defend myself!

My out-of-hand rebuff? Pan, here is what I "rebuffed":

===========
Tenspace wrote:
Evolution is not about creation, unless you call speciation creation.

As if speciation is the only creative event in evolution!

And why so sensitive about the "creation" word!
Does not life create life!

Oh Ten!
You're touchy about "creation" !!
But doubtless you're happy to use an idiotic wanky term like "natural selection" !!!

Priceless! Absolutely priceless!

You might as well bare your neck to "creationists", and say "slit my throat, and take me whole!"
===============

My Reply:

=======
Pan, do you even study modern evolutionary theory? Do you read Dawkins, Mayr, Gould? Artificial selection implies essentially what creationism does - an external force modifying selection away from natural cause.

Natural Selection is one of the five cornerstones of evolution. Care to explain why Dawkins, Mayr, Gould, Pinker, Ornstein, Ridley, Myers, et al are wrong to use the term?

Is it that everyone involved in evolution is wrong, or just you?
========

I was out-of-hand? :rolleyes:

Tenspace · 08-26-2006, 07:14 AM

This thread is officially a train wreck. So much for refuting the misconceptions of evolution. I thought it was a cool idea, but didn't expect so much off-hand discussion unrelated to refuting the creationist's claims.

PanAtheist · 08-26-2006, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Tenspace wrote

Geez, Pan, it's Probability Theory 101!

Definition of Random Process: A Random Process is the mapping from sample space into time functions, which can further be broken into Continuous Random Processes and Discrete Random Processes. They are called Stochastic Processes. - Reference: Any Entry-Level Probability Course.

:rolleyes:

If you want to talk in Klingon, feel free!
And feel free to dream that it is helpful! :D

Tenspace · 08-26-2006, 07:16 AM

Quote:

PanAtheist wrote

Quote:

Tenspace wrote

Geez, Pan, it's Probability Theory 101!

Definition of Random Process: A Random Process is the mapping from sample space into time functions, which can further be broken into Continuous Random Processes and Discrete Random Processes. They are called Stochastic Processes. - Reference: Any Entry-Level Probability Course.

:rolleyes:

If you want to talk in Klingon, feel free!
And feel free to dream that it is helpful! :D

Klingon? Klingons invented Probability Theory? WTF are you smoking, dude? Sounds like you want that pooprince title.

PanAtheist · 08-26-2006, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Tenspace wrote

Quote:

PanAtheist wrote

Quote:

Down21 wrote

Please address what I said about the pointlessness of adopting your terminology since nobody in the scientific community will no what Im talking about. Basically stop laughing at people for not adopting unpublished opinion in place of logical scientific discussion. When I see your paper published in a reputable journal Ill get back to you......not holding my breath.

This is a forum!
It is the RAVING atheist forum!
It is not a scientific community!
We discuss!
We don't need to submit papers!
It is a DISCUSSION FORUM!

I haven't introduced any new terminology of my own into this discussion thread.
All I have done is point out that the severe failings of the term "natural selection".
I did this in response to sensitivities over the use of the word "creation", pointing out that this sensitivity was a double standard, as folks use "selection" without a care.

It was a fair comment, but Ten's out-of-hand "rebuff" of it led to the inflamation of this thread.
I will defend myself!

My out-of-hand rebuff? Pan, here is what I "rebuffed":

===========
Tenspace wrote:
Evolution is not about creation, unless you call speciation creation.

As if speciation is the only creative event in evolution!

And why so sensitive about the "creation" word!
Does not life create life!

Oh Ten!
You're touchy about "creation" !!
But doubtless you're happy to use an idiotic wanky term like "natural selection" !!!

Priceless! Absolutely priceless!

You might as well bare your neck to "creationists", and say "slit my throat, and take me whole!"
===============

My Reply:

=======
Pan, do you even study modern evolutionary theory? Do you read Dawkins, Mayr, Gould? Artificial selection implies essentially what creationism does - an external force modifying selection away from natural cause.

Natural Selection is one of the five cornerstones of evolution. Care to explain why Dawkins, Mayr, Gould, Pinker, Ornstein, Ridley, Myers, et al are wrong to use the term?

Is it that everyone involved in evolution is wrong, or just you?
========

I was out-of-hand? :rolleyes:

But your "rebuff" says nothing about the words of the term!

This is what I see :
"Selection" - GOOD
"Creation" - BAD

Double standards!

It is no wonder theidiots call evolution a religion!

The phrase "Natural Selection" is as non-sensical (and as embarassing as) "God".

Tenspace · 08-26-2006, 07:41 AM

Quote:

PanAtheist wrote

The phrase "Natural Selection" is as non-sensical (and as embarassing as) "God".

:wall:

The Five Cornerstones of Evolution:

Variation (non-constancy of species)
Descent from Common Ancestry
Gradualness (no discontinuities)
Diversity (multiplication of species)
Natural Selection (see below)

The Five Facts of Natural Selection
1. Every population has such high fertility that its size would increase exponentially if not constrained. (Paley & Malthus)
2. The size of populations remains stable over time (steady-state stability) (Mayr, through observation)
3. The resources available to every species are limited (Malthus)
4. No two individuals of a population are exactly the same; population thinking (Darwin)
5. Many of the differences among the individuals of a population are heritable. (Mayr, through observation)

Therefore, Natural Selection, when viewed at a populational level and over considerable periods of time, results in Evolution.

Natural Selection Is A Two-Step Process:

Step 1: Production of Variation - through imperfect recombination (primary), and random occurrences (random mating selection, modification through external sources (cosmic rays, random environmental influence).

Step 2: Nonrandom Survival and Reproduction - Success of phenotypes at adaptation, combined with nonrandom sexual selection.

Pan, Natural Selection is a very appropriate term to describe evolution. It is not nonsensical. It is not whimsical.

(References: Mayr, "What Evolution Is"; Darwin, "On the Origin of the Species"; Dawkins, "The Extended Phenotype")

PanAtheist · 08-26-2006, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Tenspace wrote

Natural Selection Is A Two-Step Process:

Step 1: Production of Variation - through imperfect recombination (primary), and random occurrences (random mating selection, modification through external sources (cosmic rays, random environmental influence).

Step 2: Nonrandom Survival and Reproduction - Success of phenotypes at adaptation, combined with nonrandom sexual selection.

Darwin says that has production of variation is not part of "natural selection".
He says so above in the quote above, that DinoNoun posted.

PanAtheist · 08-26-2006, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Tenspace wrote

Quote:

PanAtheist wrote

The phrase "Natural Selection" is as non-sensical (and as embarassing as) "God".

:wall:

The Five Cornerstones of Evolution:

Variation (non-constancy of species)
Descent from Common Ancestry
Gradualness (no discontinuities)
Diversity (multiplication of species)
Natural Selection (see below)

The Five Facts of Natural Selection
1. Every population has such high fertility that its size would increase exponentially if not constrained. (Paley & Malthus)
2. The size of populations remains stable over time (steady-state stability) (Mayr, through observation)
3. The resources available to every species are limited (Malthus)
4. No two individuals of a population are exactly the same; population thinking (Darwin)
5. Many of the differences among the individuals of a population are heritable. (Mayr, through observation)

Therefore, Natural Selection, when viewed at a populational level and over considerable periods of time, results in Evolution.

Natural Selection Is A Two-Step Process:

Step 1: Production of Variation - through imperfect recombination (primary), and random occurrences (random mating selection, modification through external sources (cosmic rays, random environmental influence).

Step 2: Nonrandom Survival and Reproduction - Success of phenotypes at adaptation, combined with nonrandom sexual selection.

Pan, Natural Selection is a very appropriate term to describe evolution. It is not nonsensical. It is not whimsical.

(References: Mayr, "What Evolution Is"; Darwin, "On the Origin of the Species"; Dawkins, "The Extended Phenotype")

Once again you talk about the concept!
(And wrongly, to boot!)

This discussion is about the words of the term, ie it's name.

Tenspace · 08-26-2006, 08:05 AM

Quote:

PanAtheist wrote

Quote:

Tenspace wrote

Natural Selection Is A Two-Step Process:

Step 1: Production of Variation - through imperfect recombination (primary), and random occurrences (random mating selection, modification through external sources (cosmic rays, random environmental influence).

Step 2: Nonrandom Survival and Reproduction - Success of phenotypes at adaptation, combined with nonrandom sexual selection.

Darwin says that has production of variation is not part of "natural selection".
He says so above in the quote above, that DinoNoun posted.

So why don't you discuss it instead of simply refuting what I wrote?

Would you ask Edison his opinion on lithium-ion storage?

Maybe we have progressed and added to Darwin's original theory since its inception. My text was referenced. I did not make it up. It is from Mayr and Dawkins.

So, now that I've had my fun with recursive refutations, let's talk about what you said:

Production of Variation is not a part of Natural Selection? According to Darwin? Here's the salient part of DinaNoun's post:

Some have even
imagined that natural selection induces variability, whereas it implies only the preservation of such variations as arise and are beneficial to the being under its conditions of life.

Note the word "induces". Darwin is saying that natural selection does not initiate variability. He is not saying that variability is not a part of selection. He goes on to say that No one objects to agriculturists speaking of the potent effects of man’s selection; and in this case the individual differences given by nature, which man for some object selects, must of necessity first occur.

That is variation. Variation is a necessity that must first occur for selection to be effective. Therefore, the first step in selection is a population with inherent variation. Per Darwin.

08-26-2006, 08:06 AM

What, exactly, is nonsensical about the term, "natural selection?" Are you saying that selection implies artificial? So, if you have a sieve with small holes, allowing only fine particles through, that sieve doesn't select fine particles? Bull.
Selection just means a system favours a certain feature. The sieve favours small particles. Evolution favours reproducers.

Tenspace · 08-26-2006, 08:07 AM

Quote:

PanAtheist wrote

Once again you talk about the concept!
(And wrongly, to boot!)

This discussion is about the words of the term, ie it's name.

And without the underlying concept, the words are meaningless. You want to make this a fight over semantics?

Oh, and how was I wrong about the concept of evolution?

08-26-2006, 08:10 AM

Quote:

PanAtheist wrote

I can't believe that Down wants to talk about my attitude!

Down hasn't once addressed any points that I have made - just dismissed them as nothings!

Your attitude is condescending. You laugh and mock people for using terms that are still used in publications from 2006 from MIT and Harvard. If they are willing to use the perfectly sensible term "natural selection" forgive me for disagreeing with you. ..ie dismissing them as nothings. People can discuss all they want but dont laugh and mock people for not adopting your groundless unsupported terminology.

The reason I claimed you seemed to be taking credit for the term "differential survival" is that you said something like "thanks for picking up on the term" as if I was using it just because you said it.

On a related matter. What do you think the creationist camp would make of the scientific community changing something about darwins theory? Would they interpret that as evolution not being real and that scientists are doubting it...of course they would since they are willing to misquote and distort everything darwin had said. If people are too confused by natural selection then changing it to some other name wont help them it will just confude them further.

PanAtheist · 08-26-2006, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Tenspace wrote

Quote:

PanAtheist wrote

Once again you talk about the concept!
(And wrongly, to boot!)

This discussion is about the words of the term, ie it's name.

And without the underlying concept, the words are meaningless. You want to make this a fight over semantics?

Oh, and how was I wrong about the concept of evolution?

... the concept of natural selection ... ( this is what you and I have been discussing, no? :D )
... wrong according to Darwin ...

... and we have discussed this both already ...
... okay? are we clear at least on that ?! :D

Victus · 08-26-2006, 08:17 AM

PanAtheist is starting to remind me of a less amusing version of Cal.

Tenspace · 08-26-2006, 08:22 AM

Quote:

PanAtheist wrote

Quote:

Tenspace wrote

Quote:

PanAtheist wrote

Once again you talk about the concept!
(And wrongly, to boot!)

This discussion is about the words of the term, ie it's name.

And without the underlying concept, the words are meaningless. You want to make this a fight over semantics?

Oh, and how was I wrong about the concept of evolution?

... the concept of natural selection ... ( this is what you and I have been discussing, no? :D )
... wrong according to Darwin ...

... and we have discussed this both already ...
... okay? are we clear at least on that ?! :D

We will be once you respond to my post showing how you misunderstood Darwin's words, making you the one who is wrong, not me.

Edit: It's this post, just in case you missed it.