Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-26-2006, 02:06 AM   #46
Down21
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
PanAtheist wrote
Quote:
Tenspace wrote
Pan, do you even study modern evolutionary theory? Do you read Dawkins, Mayr, Gould?
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?
Sorry to bring this up again off topic but.....

First of all, Darwin spoke of differential survival well before you did (you seemed to take the credit for that in an earlier post). Darwins central tenet was differential reproductive success ie differential survival since those who reproduce more efficiently must live to do so.

You cant come around laughing and insulting people who dont use your terminology when you have not even given a decent explanation as to why we should adopt it. Imagine I start using your terminology and go to a biology conference and start talking about Enovations. Nobody in the room would have a clue what I was talking about. "Oh, let me explain, I frequent an internet forum where some guy has given a vague explanation as to why I should stop using the term natural selection". Id be laughed out of the room. Scientists are slow to change their minds on both terminology and theory but it does happen. Until you can get something published in a peer reviewed journal nobody in science will listen to you. Some of the proteins I work with have changed names a few times. This is annoying but usually the changes avoid further confusion when more family members are discovered etc. So change can happen and can be positive but not without a published rational discussion as to why the terminology should change. Until then I suggest you stop laughing at people for not adopting your terminology. Since it's natural selection you want to change I wont expect to see that anytime soon.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2006, 05:21 AM   #47
PanAtheist
Obsessed Member
 
PanAtheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 2,017
Quote:
DinaNoun wrote
Quote:
PanAtheist wrote
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!
Darwin addressed this kind of objection himself, almost 150 years ago.

Quote:
Several writers have misapprehended or objected to the term Natural Selection. 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. No one objects to
agriculturists speaking of the potent effects of manís selection; and in this case the individual differences
given by nature, which man for some object selects, must of necessity first occur. Others have objected
that the term selection implies conscious choice in the animals which become modified; and it has even
been urged that, as plants have no volition, natural selection is not applicable to them! In the literal sense
of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a false term; but who ever objected to chemists speaking of the
elective affinities of the various elements? Ė and yet an acid cannot strictly be said to elect the base with
which it in preference combines. It has been said that I speak of natural selection as an active
power or Deity; but who objects to an author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the
movements of the planets? Every one knows what is meant and is implied by such metaphorical
expressions; and they are almost necessary for brevity. So again it is difficult to avoid personifying
the word Nature; but I mean by Nature, only the aggregate action and product of many natural laws,
and by laws the sequence of events as ascertained by us. With a little familiarity such superficial
objection will be forgotten.

(bold emphasis added, Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection Or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, The Modern Library, 1998, p109)
Thanks DinaNoun, that's a great quote, and really adds to the discussion! (At last, someone adds to this discussion! :D )
Thanks very much for looking it up for us (?and typing it out?).
Darwin can certainly write can't he!

It is clear from the quote that his term had already in his life-time produced a mass of confusion.
And his defence, and clarification, of the term is enlightening and astute.

But the mass of confusion he reported was real and was caused by the words of the term itself.
It was real and involved real people!
And it did not help the advance of the BIG IDEA.

Today, there is a mass of confusion and mistaken ideas about all things "evolution".
And this too is real, and has had very real and dire consequences (yes USA, I am thinking of you!)
People (biologists very much included) talk and write about "evolution" in sloppy, and downright false ways, and again this has had very real, and bad, effects.
Without leadership from biologists in-how-to-communicate-well , the media and the public have struggled to talk about and think about the ideas in "evolution" successfully. This has hindered the dissemination of understanding, and held back the progress of The Enlightenment. The disastrous results can be witnessed on this forum day in and day out. (This is serious stuff! The Origin was published almost 150 years ago!)

People at this forum are ever deriding creationists for their idiocy!

We could equally say that scientists have been idiotic in their retention of downright misleading terms and reckless use of language - and say that in doing so they have created a niche for creationists to thrive. Again, with very real effects!

So I appeal to all - please pick your words with care - and really think about what the words you pick are actually saying when you talk about "evolution" - and make sure that what they say is sane and true. All I am trying to do here is to help you realize the necessity of speaking truly if you wish to be successful at communicating these ideas - the spread of which is vital for the health of humankind.

Healthy genes act as team-players. They are teamish!
Their winning plays are
salvations of an aliveness of which they are a part.
Only a fraction of genes are selfish/parasitic (and they
parasitize teams).
PanAtheist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2006, 05:43 AM   #48
AndyHolland
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Tenspace wrote
Quote:
AndyHolland wrote
Objecting to Origin was not off topic - it was a common misconception as mentioned above.
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.

Quote:
AndyHolland wrote
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.
If survival is the goal, then why is death so important in evolution? Survival is a byproduct of emergent self-replication.
This issue is preference. CO2 + Energy -> C + O2.

Life that evolves to process O2 is preferred from a survival standpoint. Think about it.

Our once soda oceans, and once methane CO2 atmosphere were terraformed - that requires tremendous energy and time. The machinery to do that evolved into organisms when the time came to do so. But early on, if survival and death were mechanisms, then they would have simply used all available O2 for their own benefit.


andy holland
sinner
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2006, 05:46 AM   #49
myst7426
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
AndyHolland wrote
Quote:
Tenspace wrote
Quote:
AndyHolland wrote
Objecting to Origin was not off topic - it was a common misconception as mentioned above.
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.

Quote:
AndyHolland wrote
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.
If survival is the goal, then why is death so important in evolution? Survival is a byproduct of emergent self-replication.
This issue is preference. CO2 + Energy -> C + O2.

Life that evolves to process O2 is preferred from a survival standpoint. Think about it.

Our once soda oceans, and once methane CO2 atmosphere were terraformed - that requires tremendous energy and time. The machinery to do that evolved into organisms when the time came to do so. But early on, if survival and death were mechanisms, then they would have simply used all available O2 for their own benefit.


andy holland
sinner
http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewt...151028#p151028

You are arguing the same point here so finish it over here.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2006, 06:08 AM   #50
FishFace
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I'm not sure what Andy "The Sinner" Holland is trying to get at, here, but it seems to boil down to a basic misunderstanding of biology and the history of our atmosphere.

When considering abiogenesis, you just have to realise a simple fact. What replicates better: a self replicating molecule, or a non-replicating molecule? Duh. The former. Once you have a self-replicating molecule, evolution has to take place, in whatever direction chaos takes it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2006, 06:35 AM   #51
Tenspace
I Live Here
 
Tenspace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA
Posts: 10,218
Myst, I'm with ya buddy... this thread is so off track... if some *other* members could care to post additional refutations, we could get things going again.

Andy, please re-post your responses in another, more appropriate thread if you want to continue carrying on the conversation.

"Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor." - Justin's Dad
Tenspace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2006, 06:37 AM   #52
PanAtheist
Obsessed Member
 
PanAtheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 2,017
Quote:
Down21 wrote
Darwin spoke of differential survival well before Pan did (Pan seemed to take the credit for that in an earlier post).
:lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D

I introduced the term differential survival into this thread
... and pointed out that I had done so! (You are refering to this!)

How easily it is to misread something!
Down, you make my case for me! :D :D :D

Healthy genes act as team-players. They are teamish!
Their winning plays are
salvations of an aliveness of which they are a part.
Only a fraction of genes are selfish/parasitic (and they
parasitize teams).
PanAtheist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2006, 06:46 AM   #53
PanAtheist
Obsessed Member
 
PanAtheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 2,017
Quote:
Tenspace wrote
Okay, everyone, back to the refutations!

14.) That it is a 'Random' process.
It is a nonrandom process involving random and nonrandom input.
A Random Process is an antisensical oxymoronical nothing.
pro indicates that there is a direction involved.
And a direction makes it nonrandom.

Healthy genes act as team-players. They are teamish!
Their winning plays are
salvations of an aliveness of which they are a part.
Only a fraction of genes are selfish/parasitic (and they
parasitize teams).
PanAtheist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2006, 06:48 AM   #54
Down21
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
PanAtheist wrote
Quote:
Down21 wrote
Darwin spoke of differential survival well before Pan did (Pan seemed to take the credit for that in an earlier post).
:lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D

I introduced the term differential survival into this thread
... and pointed out that I had done so! (You are refering to this!)

How easily it is to misread something!
Down, you make my case for me! :D :D :D
Are you seriously trying to claim you coined the term "differential survival"? Just because you were the first to use it in a thread doesnt mean you invented that term.

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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2006, 06:52 AM   #55
PanAtheist
Obsessed Member
 
PanAtheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 2,017
Quote:
Down21 wrote
Quote:
PanAtheist wrote
Quote:
Down21 wrote
Darwin spoke of differential survival well before Pan did (Pan seemed to take the credit for that in an earlier post).
:lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D

I introduced the term differential survival into this thread
... and pointed out that I had done so! (You are refering to this!)

How easily it is to misread something!
Down, you make my case for me! :D :D :D
Are you seriously trying to claim you coined the term "differential survival"? Just because you were the first to use it in a thread doesnt mean you invented that term.
:lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D
:lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D
:lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D

You are unbelievable Down!
I brought the term into this thread, and you claim that I claim that I invented it!
YOU OUT OF THIS WORLD UNBELIEVABLE !!!


:lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D
:lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D
:lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D :lol: :D

Healthy genes act as team-players. They are teamish!
Their winning plays are
salvations of an aliveness of which they are a part.
Only a fraction of genes are selfish/parasitic (and they
parasitize teams).
PanAtheist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2006, 06:58 AM   #56
Tenspace
I Live Here
 
Tenspace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA
Posts: 10,218
Quote:
PanAtheist wrote
You are unbelievable Down!
I brought the term into this thread, and you claim that I claim that I invented it!
YOU OUT OF THIS WORLD UNBELIEVABLE !!!
Maybe if you provided an actual link instead of just underlining "into this thread' we'd know what the hell you were talking about.

"Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor." - Justin's Dad
Tenspace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2006, 07:06 AM   #57
PanAtheist
Obsessed Member
 
PanAtheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 2,017
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!

Healthy genes act as team-players. They are teamish!
Their winning plays are
salvations of an aliveness of which they are a part.
Only a fraction of genes are selfish/parasitic (and they
parasitize teams).
PanAtheist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2006, 07:07 AM   #58
PanAtheist
Obsessed Member
 
PanAtheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 2,017
Quote:
Tenspace wrote
Quote:
PanAtheist wrote
You are unbelievable Down!
I brought the term into this thread, and you claim that I claim that I invented it!
YOU OUT OF THIS WORLD UNBELIEVABLE !!!
Maybe if you provided an actual link instead of just underlining "into this thread' we'd know what the hell you were talking about.
No, Ten, I mean this thread ! :D

Healthy genes act as team-players. They are teamish!
Their winning plays are
salvations of an aliveness of which they are a part.
Only a fraction of genes are selfish/parasitic (and they
parasitize teams).
PanAtheist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2006, 07:08 AM   #59
Tenspace
I Live Here
 
Tenspace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA
Posts: 10,218
Quote:
PanAtheist wrote
Quote:
Tenspace wrote
Okay, everyone, back to the refutations!

14.) That it is a 'Random' process.
It is a nonrandom process involving random and nonrandom input.
A Random Process is an antisensical oxymoronical nothing.
pro indicates that there is a direction involved.
And a direction makes it nonrandom.
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:

In the Process of Beta Decay, does the electron (or positron) take a random or non-random path from the event?

"Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor." - Justin's Dad
Tenspace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2006, 07:11 AM   #60
PanAtheist
Obsessed Member
 
PanAtheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: England
Posts: 2,017
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!

Healthy genes act as team-players. They are teamish!
Their winning plays are
salvations of an aliveness of which they are a part.
Only a fraction of genes are selfish/parasitic (and they
parasitize teams).
PanAtheist is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:47 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2000 - , Raving Atheists [dot] com frequency-supranational frequency-supranational