FoxnewsJonathanPragmatics

TableOfContents
Category:TauTology
=== random natural selection ===
JerryAdler , SeedMagazine
=== adsf ===
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/2feef56c7bedd98c/#
Dave Scott from http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-response-to-father-jonathan-at-fox-news/ replies to 
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184953,00.html
Foxnews priest Jonathan:
"..No reasonable person denies that life forms can evolve, but it’s quite different to say that through purely random natural selection one species evolves into another to the point of reaching human intelligence..."
Note that Jonathan uses "random natural Selection", but Coyne at http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070618&s=coyne061807 said:"...Humans, the product of non-random natural selection, are the biological equivalent of a 747, and in some ways they are even more complex....."
Who's pragmatics with natural selection must I refer to when talking about the NS - the random or non-random intent?
Dave Scott replies:
"....Since we can observe in living tissue that random mutation + natural selection is capable of causing descent with modification today...."
What was Dave Scott's intent with natural selection in this quote: random or non-random?
Jonathan states: "...They are being taught a very unscientific theory called Neo-Darwinism, the belief that there is NO purpose or intelligence behind life forms, that it’s all random..."
But on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Modern_evolutionary_synthesis#Modern_synthesisis_is_not_defined I quoted a journal stating that it is not defined:
"There is no canonical definition of neo-Darwinism, and surprisingly few writers on the subject seem to consider it necessary to spell out precisely what it is that they are discussing. This is especially curious in view of the controversy which dogs the theory, for one might have thought that a first step towards resolving the dispute over its status would be to decide upon a generally acceptable definition over it. ... Of course, the lack of firm definition does, as we shall see, make the theory much easier to defend." P.T. Saunders & M.W. Ho, "Is Neo-Darwinism Falsifiable? - And Does It Matter?", Nature and System (1982) 4:179-196, p. 179.
If Neo-Darwinims or the "Modern synthesis" as it is called today is not defined then according to who's belief is there no purpose behind life forms? 
http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2006_06_24_archive.html
"....Taylor believed that evolution occurs, and he also believed that random natural selection played a role in evolution. However, he came to doubt Darwinism, the idea that random natural selection and a few other naturalistic processes explain the life we see around us...."
Gordon Rattray Taylor was Chief Science Advisor to BBC Television. If he talks about "Random Natural Selection", John Harshman and Dawkins talks about "Non-random Natural Selection" but Darwin never "randomed" anything in OriginSpecies then whos's intent with Natural Selection is Taylor, Dawkins and Harshman communicating? Its obvious that we are dealing here with 
a structural ambiguity.
Cathy posts on:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/yet-another-feather-in-natural-selections-cap-what-hasnt-it-accomplished/#comment-29307
"...Creating a mutation to prove what random natural selection is capable of doing is contradictory....
Dave Scott replies:
"...Sometimes it’s difficult or impossible to do this and that’s the bane of the study of evolution in the distant past...."
We are told that Evolution = RM + NS. Who's version of evolution is Scott referring to in his reply to Cathy? 
At http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?s=832502d3bf6727b0f00bf3b7277ba4fc&p=4793725&postcount=14
Espritch says:"...But evolution is an undirected process....." His intent is that evolution is a random process. 
What would Espritch intent be with Random(ev) = Random(mut) + NS ? It could be Random(ev) = random + non-random or it could be Random(ev) = random + random. 
And the whole pragmatics surrounding this term Evolution = RM+NS is what the linguists addressed here:
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0210c&L=linguist&P=6328
"...Now it is considered as a result that while mutation is random, natural selection is non-random. ?!...But what does this mean?.... The issue of 'random evolution' is left untouched by this revised terminology. You can't have you cake and eat it too....." 
Noam Chomsky says that natural selection can't explain where language came from. Of course it can't - natural selection doesn't exist.
=== Sandiago.com ===
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?as_q=&num=20&btnG=Search+Archives&as_epq=random+natural+selection&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_ldate=&as_hdate=&lr=&as_src=&as_price=p0&as_scoring=
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20051222-0727-science-evolution.html
"...The journal's editor in chief, Don Kennedy, acknowledged this was a reference to the rise of the theory of intelligent design, which holds that some aspects of nature are so complex that they must be the work of an unnamed creator rather than the result of random natural selection, as Darwin argued...."
Darwin never said natural selection is random.
"..Kennedy said Science picked evolution as the year's biggest breakthrough in part because it was a "hot topic," but stressed there was a wealth of research that justified the choice...."
Who's version of evolution was the biggest breakthrough - random or non-random?
=== asdfas f ===
DarwinMisquotedOnWikipedia
=== asdfadf ===
=== asdf ===
=== post 30 ===
=== kayakers ===
=== Post 41 Huxley intent ===
HuxleyPragmatics
On Sep 24, 7:19 pm, Kent Paul Dolan 
> >>> Why would you want to call branches in this
> >>> context a sieve?
> >> Because they sieve things, as was clearly explained,
> >> with examples.
No, they don't "sieve" things. The branches have no intent, motive or will to sieve. The branches is a pattern not a design. And calling it a "sieve" is an entirely arbitrary invention which flows from your confused mind. I say your mind is confused because to you state that selection, choice, preference and making a decision need not imply consciousness. For me to see to Ham, Dawkins, Dembski suffer from this mental health problem over the meaning of the word "decision" is actually terrifying. It is like imagine I am in some sort of giant Scientology mind control experiment where everybody is now in a sense "crazy" because their language is not the same language as my language. I am sane , rational and normal and anybody who thinks that "decision, selection,preference and choice" can be concatenated with the word "natural" is delusional.
http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2007/10/further-thoughts-from-outspoken.html "...Huxley in his presentation of Darwin makes a very critical point. He says that "random" means a mutation in the offspring that we observers could not have predicted from looking at the parents. In short, it means "unexpected" and "surprising," and it is defined purely and strictly in respect of human observers. Huxley's definition, in other words, has zero metaphysical or theological implications. From the mere fact that we human observers cannot predict an event, it is absurd to conclude that the event does not follow a regular pattern. Early human beings could not predict eclipses--so they appeared to happen at random. Yet this did not mean that eclipses did not follow a regular and predictable pattern. For Huxley, "random" simply referred to the limits of our knowledge; it did not mean that the course of evolution was itself random. The course of evolution could be the unfolding of an intelligent design or it could the result of a cosmic law of progress. It is simply bad logic to jump from the Darwin/Huxley concept of random to conclusion that the process of evolution is itself random. People today forget the fact that those who embraced Darwin's theory in the 19th century saw it as scientific proof that progress was built into the universe--after all, if evolution led from microbes to Michelangelo, then who could possibly fail to see that the universe was constantly progressing, and not simply drifting randomly and without direction....."
"..Darwin/Huxley concept of random..." or in other words the intent Darwin/Huxley had with "random". Note that Darwin didn't use the word "random" in OoS. What the author is trying to say below was that Huxley's intent differed from what some people's intent is with "random" today. He motivates that the intent Huxley had with "random" was "unexpected" and "surprising". Wether his conclusion is valid or not doesn't really bother me, just that we should really try and get these words intent, motive, will and pragmatics into the lexicon of these debates or we will still be confusing the semantics with the intent a 100 years from now.
> Perhaps someone should introduce you to the concept
> of a "dictionary"???
A dictionary gives us the semantics of the word. The intent though depends on what your motive or will is with the word in the sentence that only you as a free agent can generate. In order to understand your intent we agree that the dictionary definition of "selection" is a choice, preference and goal directed decision. Frogs don't have goals thus they are not a "success" or an "achievement" not even a "differential reproductive achievement" and neither does nature have any goals hence "natural" can't make decisions or implement choices making the correct "selections". I am right and anybody else who differs needs mental help. 
=== Reply to Glenn ===
=== Reply to backspace AND glen ===
=== Reply post 73 ===
=== post 79 to Wolandd ===
{{{
Woland wrote:
> If all humans vanished this Friday all of these things that we have
> words for would still exist. It doesn't matter if Allah, Brahma or
> baby Jesus originally created them. The labels ( wordy soundy noises)
> we place on things ( by things I mean physical obejects and processes,
> I do not mean abstract concepts like 'patriotism,' which exist but not
> outside of the human brain) are not the thing.
Patriotism existed from before time began in the mind of God himself, since he is language. When Christ confused the languages at the tower of babel he supernaturally made certain that the intent and semantics with "humility", "choice", decision and selection was the exact same concept in every person's mind. Since God gave us the concept of "Selection" no man can change the semantics and intent of the word. 
> > > People have been breeding plants and animals together based on desired
> > > traits for thousands of years. Feel free to call it what you like.
> > What is your agenda, world view and metaphysical beliefs concerning
> > this. You know what mine is but what is yours?
 
> It's "artificial" ( Stuff that just doesn't happen in the world
> without human intervention,you know, as opposed to natural) in that a
> person is deciding which dogs will reproduce based on traits that
> specific dogs exhibit, for example; I want a big of a dog as possible.
> I then go about only breeding the biggest dogs. I am preventing The
> dogs from just running around and reproducing with anything they can
> get there paws on. Thats what it means. Thats what everyone who has
> ever used it means. You disagreeing about the word choice does not
> change its existence.
"Artificial Selection" is a single unmotivated term that Darwin plucked out of thin air a 150 years ago. Nobody artificialed anything before 1859. There is nothing new under the sun, man selecting for traits of cows has been going on for thousands of years - there is nothing "artificial" or "bad" or "inferior" about this. Even Dr.Wilkins didn't know this. He told me that "... the concept was in play before Darwin's time...." after I pointed this out to him. What he fails to understand is that I want to know the INTENT with the term, only then can we talk about "concepts". And Darwin didn't tell us his intent! And thus everybody is inventing their own intent and attributing it to Darwin. I am saying that you can't do this without motivating from his book exactly how you derived Darwin's intent with artificial selection. 
> I don't have an agenda that I'm aware of. I have no idea what my world
> view is. If you need to pigeon-hole people you could put me as a
> satellite orbiting eastern Buddhism (not Zen, but certainly not
> western either). 
Dear Wolan this is exactly my point: You are into Buddism which means Wilkins and Harshman views you as delusional. Yet you Ken Ham, Harshman, Wilkins all "believe" in artificial and natural selection! This is impossible!
How could everybody believe in the same thing yet interpret it differently or derive different metaphysical conclusions from it? 
Because it doesn't exist. This is the option that Ken Ham, Harshman, Wolan and the bunny kissers aren't willing to consider. 
And an atheist like Prof.Fodor has come to the same conclusion: How could everybody believe in NS yet their conclusions differ ? Each camp is so busy fighting for his world view that nobody seems to notice that Linguistics takes precedent over your world view, religious beliefs or science. Everything is subject unto language - our language and anything which contradicts the rules of language must be rejected no matter how catchy and pleasing to the ear AS and NS sounds. 
=== TO POST: 94 kermit ===
Organisms respond to their environment what has this got to do with the word "natural" and a goal directed decision? Lets take the Pepperd moth 
story. http://www.icr.org completely misses the point. Even if the moths were staged and the research a fraud - it doesn't matter. The confusion is one of semantics and intent, specifically the difference between the words "detection" and "selection". 
Lets say I walk past a black floor with white marbles on it but I had no original intent of selecting for marbles and just casually walk past, filing the image somewhere in my subconscious mind. Tomorrow somebody looking for marbles wanting to "select" for marbles asks me about marbles and I remember about the visual contrast the previous day that I *detected*. The other person implementing his goal directed decision to select for marbles would have stopped to pick them up had he seen them. 
A bird goes out looking for moths to eat. The bird *detects* the white moths, since birds don't have teleological goals towards their higher destiny
the correct term to use for the the black moths being eaten is in the *detection* not *selection* sense and certainly nothing got naturaled. 
Lets paint a room black and release white and black moths and put a bird inside. Obviously in the same way that I would have *detected* the white marbles a bird would *detect* the white moths first. One can say the bird *selected* for the white moths, but only if we understand that the word 
*selection* is used to convey the intent in the "detection" sense. 
What has the bird *detecting* white moths inside the room got to do with the word *natural*? What naturaled in this process of *detection*. If this process of detecting a color contrast means something got naturaled then everytime my dog sees a white cat on the lawn and goes ballistic he is also getting naturaled. It is tant-amount to painting a red circle around the arrow.