AristotleTautological

Category:TauTology
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/4828cd8302a35bfa/0040ffe978d4e32c?tvc=1#0040ffe978d4e32c
and
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/browse_frm/thread/1007c1b1ec65cabe?tvc=1
=== jkh ===
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php%3Fsection%3Dlibrary%26page%3Ddawkins_29_2&usg=AFQjCNGs2ugK7p97M-u9A27ZuTNjsJgUmw
>As Darwin himself was at pains to point out, natural selection is all about differential survival within species, not >between them.
Where did Darwin use the term "differential survival" in OoS ? 
=== asdfasdfasdf ===
== asdf ==
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/1ff4a54ecdfa3cec/daac4a62f719931b
I wrote a whole article here http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology that explains who Burroughs was and what his concept and the concept Charles Kingsley had with Darwin: Absolute empire of accident. This might not be your concept but NS has no single true meaning. NS isn't a concept only you can have a concept, NS would be a semantic device to communicate your concept in 1922 John burroughs writing in The Atlantic had a specific concept: "....chance or natural selection...." He used NS to communicate his interpretation of Darwin as "chance" , this is also how Osborn understood Darwin in 1924 New York Times, read my article, I can't do it for you....
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/1ff4a54ecdfa3cec/5a95d6217732272b?tvc=1#5a95d6217732272b
> You have Burroughs wrong.
Motivate for what you say by citing his writings. 
Burroughs, Charles Kingsley and Osborn(New york times 1922, 5Aug) interpreted Darwin's writings as being "stuff happened by chance".Osborn said "....happening by chance as Darwin had at one time supposed...". Osborn after being influenced by Waagen changed his mind from 1898 to 1922. The understanding back then with natural selection was as a proxy for "chance". I have cited the references if you differ then cite your sources and don't attempt at history revisionism. ....Citations, citations, where is your and Wikipedia's opening paragraph citation? 
On Nov 23, 5:58 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> At this point, backspace clearly reveals himself as an amateur at
> everything. Unwilling to do the heavy lifting. Wanting someone else
> to do the hard work of scholarship. It is, *in fact*, up to you to
> "figure out" how NS is defined mathematically and how it is used in
> science. *You* need to do that if *you* want to make a serious
> critique of the concept. 
Whos concept Burroughs, Osborn or Charles Kingsley? The fact that wikipedia NS page has a section on Darwin means we are dealing with his concept, if not then why isn't there a seperate page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwins_concept_with_Natural_Selection.
=== osboron ===
uses ns in 1898 but not 1924 uses ;'evolution" onlyh never said natuarl seelciton . waagen changed his mind from 1898 to 1924, kinksley and burroughs interpreted NS as "absolute empire of accident", 1918 last harvast "...chance of natural selelction...", thus when that cat walked over a keyboard in 2009 saying ".....ns is a key mechanism of evolutoin......" did the kitty read last harvast? Who wrote that sentence andwhat was the concept he or the cat had ? conjuring trick humpreys
=== post 220 ===
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_nature_of_things
Add this 
 * Only because the people see
 So much in land and sky
 For which they do not know the cause,
 They think Divinities are working there.
 If they could but see that
 Nothing can be created from nothing,
 Then they would advance one more step
 Toward the answer that they seek:
 Those eternal elements became
 Everything that is,
 Without interference from Gods."
 --Lucretius, " De rerum natura," written about 60 BC 
What's more; the concept was well established long before Darwin:
"..............Darwin and earlier naturalists, including Titus Lucretius in 55 B.C. and
Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck in 1809 emphasized that competition favored the
fittest. (W.F. Loomis in "Life As It Is")....................."
why sof is not a tautology
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/tree/browse_frm/thread/fd51834a522e7c54/22bde67565a842bd?_done=%2Fgroup%2Ftalk.origins%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Ffd51834a522e7c54%2F22bde67565a842bd%3Ftvc%3D1%26&tvc=1
=== nov 30 ===
=== 16nov ===
=== post 200 ===
=== post 196 ===
Note how PZ Myers used truisms and tautologies but never said "selection", only evolution. Why does he not use natural selection? This is something I picked up in this thread: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/94dcbb4b7acda3d0/2301c79303d4b72d#2301c79303d4b72d
It is also not clear how he explains where the first talking monkey came from and what its mother looked like.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/11/dang_computer.php
>The human brain exists. 
What an amazing insight, what brilliance, what sheer magnificent display of intellectual fidelity. 
>We can see that the brain forms by natural processes. 
Depends who says so.
>We can see advantages to individuals in our lineage that are smarter. 
Here is the tautology: "....those with advantages are smarter...." or "....those that are smarter will have advantages.....". Can you think of any way to refute this? 
> We can readily infer from the available evidence in anatomy, comparative biology, 
Who has inferred what? 
=== asdf ===
=== 195 ===
=== 2 ===
=== rephrase ===
The theory of the survival, is organisms surviving because of favorable variations.
=== rephrase ===
Those that survived had favorable variations.
What a genius Osborn was don't think? 
=== asdf ===
=== 3727373 ===
=== kljhkj ===
=== asdf ===
=== post 2 ===
== pend ==
http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/2005/02/15/eyes_part_one_opening_up_the_russian_doll.php
"....The more scientists study the eye, the more they recognize that Darwin was right. This is not to say that they know everything about how the eye evolved...."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye#History_of_research
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random
=== shaftesbury ===
'...How far Religion necessarily implies Virtue; and whether it be a
true Saying, That it is impossible for an Atheist to be virtuous, or
share any real degree of Honesty, or Merit.....”
Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury, Characteristicks of Men,
Manners, Opinions, Times, vol. 2 [1737]
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=812&layout=html
== PENDING ==
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection
"....In evolutionary biology, group selection refers to the idea that alleles can become fixed or spread in a population because of the benefits they bestow on groups, regardless of the alleles' effect on the fitness of individuals within that group....."
The words 'evolutionary' , selection, alleles and fitness are arbitrary irrelevant ornamentation around the tautological core in order to disguise the mythological premise of Gods slaying see-monsters with the battle now between organisms themselves, the strong allele outwitting the weak allele. 
Let us replace these weasel words to expose the tautology: 
=== rephrase1 ===
"....In the land of OZ , the God Zeus refers to the idea that rabbits can become fixed or spread in a population because of the benefits they bestow on groups, regardless of the rabbit's effect on the fitness of individuals within that group....."
=== rephrase2 ===
"....In the land of OZ , the God Zeus refers to the idea that rabbits spread in a population because of the benefits they bestow on groups of rabbits, regardless of the rabbit's effect on the suitability (Spencer used suitable for fitness) of individuals within that group....."
=== rephrase3 ===
"...........They spread because of the benefits they bestow............."
The fact that the rabbits spread implies that they are "suitable" the word Spencer used for "fitness", spread functions as a disguised tautology and to make this clear suitable is added in next reprase.
=== rephrase4 ===
"....Suitable rabbits spread in a population because of the benefits they bestow on groups of rabbits...." 
"suitable" and "benefits" alludes to the same fact, the proposition is formulated in such a way that it cannot be disputed.
=== rephrase4 ===
"...........The suitable spread because of the benefits they bestow............."
"suitable" and "benefits" alludes to the same fact, the proposition is formulated in such a way that it cannot be disputed.
=== rephrase5 ===
"....The suitable are beneficial. ..."
Can you think of anyway to refute this, any test that could falsify it? Those that are suitable implies that they will be beneficial and those that are beneficial implies they are suitable - how could be any other way. This tautological core is then fleshed out with semantic trivia such as selection, allele, strong selection, weak selection, group selection, evolution etc. 
=== asdf ===
=== post 66 ===
=== asdf ===
You are misstating me. I said that for last 5850 years "selectus" was used in 99% of cases to indicate somebody or something(pantheist rocks) making a decision. With the advent of pragmatics the last 30 years it became clear that any word can be used in either volition, non-volition sense. The deceit is that the last 150 years "selection" was used but nobody knew what was meant by this. The confusion is so severe that the YEC apologetics movement went around attacking evolution , but they were like a boxer hitting in the air, with the deceitful university professors laughing at them because they never defined what they meant with "evolution" , selection etc : What was the mechanism. I am not making the same mistake, by asking you to spell out what you mean: Did anybody have intent with your usage of selection, if not then why are using the word? Rather say what you mean: What will be, will be and therefore a monkey gave birth to a human. 
You certainly can use "selection" in the non-volition sense but this would be just as strange as saying " I hate you my love" to your wife , where she now has to decode your pragmatics that you actually mean you love her. I would indicate a form of mental illness, if not madness. 
=== 61 ===
On Oct 20, 11:58 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Are you saying that directed isn't a synonym for non-random?
 
> > > No, he's countering your assertion that non-random is a synonym for
> > > "will volition".
> 
> > Do you mean directed isn't a synonym for volition?
 
> I meant what I said. Nothing more, nothing less.
But only you know what you meant. My usage of directed, volition, selected, decision,will and goal are all synonymous. Perhaps in your language universe they are not, this is where the problem lies, something AIG and ICR fails to understand. They are doing more damage to the mental health of the world then the atheists. Paul had the least problems with the non-believers, it was always those claiming to be on God's side causing the damage. 
You can't be born-again or give your heart to God, or pray if you are insane. God expects you be in your sane mind, something which society is rapidly losing. 
=== 62 ===
=== 63 ===
Category:TauTology