Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Friday, October 22, 2010

Zachriel Thinks that Natural Selection Really Selects! LoL!!!

-
Zachriel having been banned from most forums posts over on AtBC-

In response to

nullasalus: First question: It would be incorrect to say that moths with lighter wings were selected for, wouldn't it?


Zachriel sez:
That's correct. They are selected against.

RotFLMAO!

No Zachriel nature does not select for or against.

It does not choose- what a dolt-

Ask a biologist

27 Comments:

  • At 9:13 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: Zachriel having been banned from most forums posts over on AtBC-

    Nope. Just ID blogs.

    Selection is the proper term biologists use when referring to the tendency towards differential reproductive success due to heritable variations. As nullasalus was asking in those terms, the answer was correct. In his scenario, lighter wingers are subject to negative selection.

     
  • At 9:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    Selection is the proper term biologists use when referring to the tendency towards differential reproductive success due to heritable variations.

    Nature does not select- it does not choose.

    Natural selection is a result.

    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)"

    And from my ask the biologist page:

    ""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."


    and

    ""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 9:50 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Nevertheless, selection is the term that is used. If it confuses you, just substitute "the tendency towards differential reproductive success due to heritable variations" whenever you see the term.

     
  • At 9:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    Nevertheless, selection is the term that is used.

    So you don't care if that word is used incorrectly.

    Got it.

    The bottom line is once again you have been exposed as a poseur.

     
  • At 10:10 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: So you don't care if that word is used incorrectly.

    It was a neologism coined by Darwin. It was probably not the best choice of phrases, but that's irrelevant to its modern usage.
    It has entered the scientific lexicon to mean "the tendency towards differential reproductive success due to heritable variations". It selects in the same sense as a sieve 'selects'.

     
  • At 10:10 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    So Zachriel gets caught talking out of his ass- again- and tries to defend what he said by trying to divert attention away from it.


    LoL!!!

     
  • At 10:18 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    It was a neologism coined by Darwin.

    Liar- Darwin stole natural selection from Blythe.

    Zachriel:
    It was probably not the best choice of phrases, but that's irrelevant to its modern usage.

    It's modern usuage does not say that nature selects.

    IOW you talked out of your ass- as usual.

    Zachriel:
    It selects in the same sense as a sieve 'selects'.

    Natural selection is a RESULT you moron- what the fuck is wrong with you?

    You got caught talking out of your ass and acting like a cry-baby isn't a good defense.

     
  • At 10:32 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Zachriel: It was a neologism coined by Darwin.

    Joe G: Darwin stole natural selection from Blythe.

    Darwin is usually credited with coining the term, but if you have evidence that Blythe used the term previous to Darwin, please provide it.

    Zachriel: It was probably not the best choice of phrases, but that's irrelevant to its modern usage.

    Joe G: It's modern usuage does not say that nature selects.

    Select is the term used in modern biology to refer to the tendency of heritable variations towards differential reproductive success.

     
  • At 11:02 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    Darwin is usually credited with coining the term,

    So what?

    Zachriel:
    but if you have evidence that Blythe used the term previous to Darwin, please provide it.

    Are you admitting that you are too stupid to search for yourself?

    blyth

    But none of this excuses you from talking out of your ass by saying:

    They are selected against.

    When referring to NS.

    So stop trying to change the subject- it just makes you look like more of an ass and provides evidence behind your bannings.

    But seeing you are an anonymous coward you don't care what you look like on the internet...

     
  • At 11:49 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Nope. Just ID blogs. "

    Funny how ID blogs 'expel' dissenting views.

    Joe fails to grasp a term may have multiple meanings.

     
  • At 12:58 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    According to your cite, "However, {Blyth} never actually used the term 'natural selection'."

    In any case, your original post was misguided. Nullasalus was using the term to refer to the tendency towards differential reproductive success due to heritable variations.

     
  • At 2:36 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    Funny how ID blogs 'expel' dissenting views.

    It has been my experience they just ban evotards who can't support their position and usually end up whining all the time.

     
  • At 2:38 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    In any case, your original post was misguided.

    No, you fucked up.

    My original post just exposed what you did.

    Natural selection does not select for or against.

    It is just a result.

     
  • At 2:45 PM, Blogger EJS said…

    Cut and paste from wikipedia link provided by Joe G, seems to contradict Joe G's assertion that the term Natural Selection was stolen from Blyth:

    "Edward Blyth wrote three articles on variation, discussing the effects of artificial selection and describing the process in nature (later called natural selection) as restoring organisms in the wild to their archetype (rather than forming new species). However, he never actually used the term "natural selection".[4] These articles were published in The Magazine of Natural History between 1835 and 1837."

     
  • At 2:57 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Yeah wikipedia is an authority- not.

    How do you know what Blyth discussed in private?

    Did everything he say make it into publication?

     
  • At 3:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Oops- my bad- I was WRONG-

    It was BEFORE Blyth-

    William Wells

     
  • At 3:26 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Joe G: Yeah wikipedia is an authority- not.

    It's your cite.

    Joe G: It was BEFORE Blyth- William Wells

    You just cited Wikipedia again!

    The article on Wells doesn't mention that he coined the term. However, Wikipedia's article on natural selection indicates Darwin was the first to use the term.

    In any case, natural selection is the term used to refer to the tendency towards differential reproductive success due to heritable variations.

     
  • At 3:28 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And I could be totally wrong and no one used teh term "Natural Selection" before Charles- but that would be because it is just stupid to think that nature does any selecting.

    What is obvious is that there were scientists talking about the concept well before Darwin - however most likely they were smart enough not to use those two words together- it's an oxymoron.

     
  • At 3:49 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zachriel:
    In any case, natural selection is the term used to refer to the tendency towards differential reproductive success due to heritable variations.

    Exactly what I have been saying for years.

    However natural selection is an oxymoron as nature does not select.

    You fucked up.

     
  • At 8:53 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    So, you were wrong. Does that mean, in your own eyes, you are a stupid, fucked-up, child-molesting, son-of-a-bitch who is too retarded to feed himself from his mommy's teat?

    That seems to be your standard of interaction. I just want to be the first to say, "You shouldn't be too harsh on yourself, Joe. Lots of people make incorrect statements on the intertubes. You should put this one behind you and know that you aren't most of those things in the above list."

     
  • At 3:54 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Erik:
    So, you were wrong.

    I said I could be.

    That is always a possibility.

    However assholes like you are wrong 95%+ of the time- proven.

    Not only that you lie, badger and never support anything you say.

    All of that is what gets you the you are a stupid, fucked-up, child-molesting, son-of-a-bitch who is too retarded to feed himself from his mommy's teat award.

    Am I clear?

     
  • At 9:53 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    Your mommy still loves you, Joe.

     
  • At 11:55 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    She died in 1984.

    However, unlike you, at least I knew who my mother was.

     
  • At 7:28 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Oh, Blipey new your mother. Biblically.

     
  • At 8:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    He told me he knew you, your mother, father, sister and cat anally.

     
  • At 12:52 AM, Blogger blipey said…

    Brilliant, Joe! Don Rickles is jealous.

     
  • At 7:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And you make pathological liars jealous.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home