David Rintoul sez Natural Selection chooses- Are you kidding me?
-
OK over on the Amazon discussion page I have David Rintoul, the tool, saying that natural selection fits Wm. Dembski's definition of intelligence because natural selection chooses.
Are you shitting me? Natural selection chooses? Really?
I know with artificial selection we choose- but with nature whatever survives to reproduce, survives to reproduce.
Now back to the stupid point at hand- are there any evos out there who agree with the tool and can actually provide some peer-reviewed references to support the claim?
Or do the majority of evos understand that tehre isn't any choosing going on?
OK over on the Amazon discussion page I have David Rintoul, the tool, saying that natural selection fits Wm. Dembski's definition of intelligence because natural selection chooses.
Are you shitting me? Natural selection chooses? Really?
I know with artificial selection we choose- but with nature whatever survives to reproduce, survives to reproduce.
Now back to the stupid point at hand- are there any evos out there who agree with the tool and can actually provide some peer-reviewed references to support the claim?
Or do the majority of evos understand that tehre isn't any choosing going on?
posted by Joe G @ 7:30 AM
21 Comments:
At 10:37 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Natural Selection
Selection:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/selection
Synonyms: choice, choosing, election, picking, selecting
At 10:41 AM,
Joe G said…
LoL!
All selection isn't natural selection.
Geez Rich- can't you read?
I said:
I know with artificial selection we choose- but with nature whatever survives to reproduce, survives to reproduce.
Ya see Rich natural selection is a RESULT.
And RESULTS do not select anything.
But thanks for the laugh you clueless votard.
At 10:43 AM,
Joe G said…
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural+selection
Nothing about choices in that definition.
Perhaps Rich can find some textbook or scientific paper that says natural selection chooses.
He sure as hell can't use a dictinary properly.
At 10:46 AM,
Joe G said…
How soon they forget:
The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, 1971), reissued in 2001 by William Provine:
"Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets. (pp. 199-200)"
At 10:58 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Natural selection is a process.
oh,
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/choose
—Synonyms
1. Choose, select, pick, elect, prefer indicate a decision that one or more possibilities are to be regarded more highly than others. ..
At 11:06 AM,
Joe G said…
Natural selection is a RESULT:
“Natural selection is the result of differences in survival and reproduction among individuals of a population that vary in one or more heritable traits.” Page 11 “Biology: Concepts and Applications” Starr fifth edition
“Natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity—it is mindless and mechanistic.” UBerkley
“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.” Dawkins in “The Blind Watchmaker
“Natural selection is therefore a result of three processes, as first described by Darwin:
Variation
Inheritance
Fecundity
which together result in non-random, unequal survival and reproduction of individuals, which results in changes in the phenotypes present in populations of organisms over time.”- Allen McNeill prof. introductory biology and evolution at Cornell University
Anything else I can help you with?
At 11:07 AM,
Joe G said…
Is Natural Selection Really Non-Random?
It's all there for you to ignore as ignorant people tend to do...
At 11:08 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
I love me some quotemine!
next paragraph:
"Natural selection is the necessary outcome of discernible and often quanitifiable causes..."
And please keep reading to ensure I'm not quotemining.
http://books.google.com/books?id=8Mj0ptluGeQC&pg=PA199&lpg=PA199&dq=%22Natural+selection+does+not+act+on+anything,+nor+does+it+select+%22&source=bl&ots=_LZXdP7hQm&sig=InyoLr_TPFUlt_2NnBP2veeJFaM&hl=en&ei=pbK9TJPULsOmnAeu9rSaDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22Natural%20selection%20does%20not%20act%20on%20anything%2C%20nor%20does%20it%20select%20%22&f=false
Right - cross posting at AtBC so we can laugh at your quotemmining.
Also - half of your quote doesn't exist in the version I'm looking at in google books.
At 11:11 AM,
Joe G said…
Rich quotes:
""Natural selection is the necessary outcome of discernible and often quanitifiable causes..."
OUTCOME = RESULT
Thanks for proving my point.
How does what you just quoted in any way contradict what I quoted?
Rich sez:
Also - half of your quote doesn't exist in the version I'm looking at in google books.
That is because you are an imbecile and don't know how to read.
And of course you will cross-post to atbc that is what cry-babies have to do- run and get some support.
At 11:18 AM,
Joe G said…
So we have Rich with an unsupported claim that I quote-mined.
He then quotes something that confirms what I said.
He goes on to say what i quoted isn't all there- weell Richtard you have to keep reading ypou moron.
My cite sates pages 199-200- the rest of what i quoted is on page 200 you imbecile.
Some how that part won't make it to atbc though...
At 11:20 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
http://tiny.cc/741qu
At 11:21 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
Yes, you've ommited the part that says "Natural selection is the necessary outcome of discernible and often quanitifiable causes..."
How very creationist of you!
At 11:25 AM,
Joe G said…
Use this link asswipe:
The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics
Just scroll down to pages 199 and 200.
Notice that he also says that NS is not a mechanism...
At 11:29 AM,
Joe G said…
Rich sez:
Yes, you've ommited the part that says "Natural selection is the necessary outcome of discernible and often quanitifiable causes..."
How does that contradict anything I quoted?
I also didn't quote:
"Natural selection as a natural force belongs in the insubstantial category already populated by the Becker/ Stahl phlogiston (Endler 1986) and Newton's "ether""
That is very damming...
At 12:07 PM,
Joe G said…
So Richtard accuses me of quote-mining- doesn't have anything to support that claim- most likely because he has no idea what quote-mining is (run and look it up tardo)- sez he is going to run back to atbc because cry-babies need a little support and does absolutely nothing to show that natuiral selection chooses except to post dictionary definitions of words that don't even have any relevance.
Sweet...
At 7:22 AM,
Joe G said…
Ask a Biologist -
"You are correct as is of course Dawkins. If "nature" was able to "choose" then would imply sentience leading back to the idea of an all knowing deity who makes decisions on our behalf.
The central point of natural selection is that it is a random event and those that confer an advantage survive and are able to reproduce and thus pass on to the next generation that advantage."
"You can say that natural selection "chooses", and that statement would contain a poetic truth. But in terms of mechanism, it would be more precise to say that it's an undirected process that gives rise to an outcome that appears to be directed.
Here's a simple analogy that I find helpful: variation is like nature throwing dice at random, and natural selection is like only keeping the sixes. it looks as though nature is throwing sixes all the time; but really, it's just killing everything that doesn't throw a six. Nature's tough like that."
"Just to add I think one of the problems with talking about natural selection is that we (and indeed Darwin) often explain and measure it by analogy to artificial selection. In artificial selection someone (e.g. a breeder) determines which individuals will be selected to produce the next generation, and these individuals really are chosen based on the trait being selected.
Natural selection isn't like this. Although we often use phrases like "natural selection acts on variation in X..." this isn't really a great way to put it. Natural selection is the name we give to the fitness consequences of variation in X, so it would be better to say "natural selection arises from variation in X". This makes is clearer that selection is not really being imposed on a trait (by someone/something choosing) rather it is a consequence of variation in that trait."
At 10:23 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
The quotemine was you leaving out the bit that states "Natural selection is the necessary outcome of discernible and often quanitifiable causes..."
At 11:08 AM,
Joe G said…
No Rich, that part doesn't contradict anything in what i quoted.
IOW you don't know what a quote-mine is.
However what you quoted does support my claim that NS is a result.
Thanks.
At 1:48 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Joe: "tehre [sic] isn't any choosing going on?"
"Natural selection is the necessary outcome of discernible and often quanitifiable causes..."
At 2:09 PM,
Joe G said…
Richtard quots AGAIN:
"Natural selection is the necessary outcome of discernible and often quanitifiable causes..."
It is an outcome, ie a RESULT just as I said.
here isn't any choosing going on.
Shit I even asked the biologists and they agreed with me.
Go figure...
So keep picking on typos it appears that is the best you can do.
At 8:01 PM,
Joe G said…
Hey Rich- no one seems to give a shit about your false accusation of a quote-mine over on atbc.
Looks like they know you are full of shit too...
Post a Comment
<< Home