GeneExpressionNaturalSelection

Category:TauTology
See HoWard1
=== asdf ===
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/9dbfc95ae01d6dbc/d80597307d769dc0#d80597307d769dc0
On Mar 4, 10:42 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > What about
> > people who would use "selection" in the design sense when climbing
> > that hill.
 
> Perhaps you would care to quote from a textbook or manual on breeding
> in which the magical difference between those two words is discussed?
Words have no meaning. Do you know what is the difference between a design and pattern and that any word even "non-random" can be used to symbolically represent chance and not directed, as in "..... natural selection is non-random...."
Many authors say this but what they mean is "..... natural selection shall forever be absolute empire of accident, for strategic reasons, we are just using non-random but we don't mean directed...."
Many time i have asked "do you mean directed with non-random" and the answer is always no. But either your house built itself or it was made. Either a manufacturing plant was directed or it made itself. 
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/browse_frm/thread/44322b41d10ecfce/21056ae9baa4dd95?q=%22natural+selection%22#21056ae9baa4dd95
On May 2 2004, 7:45 pm, "Zachriel" wrote:
> "IKnowHimDoYou" <IKnow...@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
> 
> news:IKnowHim-0205040915100001@pm1-34.kalama.com...
> 
> >Natural Selectionor How Goo changed to You
> 
> > Natural selction, as defined by the evolutionary religionists,
> 
> The study of biological evolution is a science, not a religion.
> 
> > actually
> > involves only cyclical variations in fundamentally stable populations;
> > these do not show a population headed in the direction of becoming
> > something different(Cog or Dat). Simple logic(which is unknown in the
> > Darwinist camps) shows how absurb it is to describenatural selectionas
> > information generating. Natural selectiondoes not actually "select,"
> 
> Sure it does.
> 
> > much less create. The term is a misleading metaphor for the proposition
> > that early death or sterility is not necessarily random. Some creatures
> > may survive to reproduce because they have some advantageous attributes(as
> > the ability to run faster or leap higher to avoid being eaten), but the
> > quality has to be there already beforenatural selectioncan favor it.
> 
> That's correct. New traits and modifications of existing traits are caused
> by mutation *before* they are acted upon byNatural Selection. 
Are you using "acted apon" in the pattern or design sense? Darwin used the term in the pattern sense.
 
> > Death doesn't do any creating, whether it is radom or not.
> 
> Everybody dies. But some reproduce before dying. This is known as
> differential reproduction.
Who says differential reproduction, it wasn't Darwin.
== ddd ==
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/e3fad710cd222857/b02728db1178e4b2#b02728db1178e4b2
=== natural retention ===
On Mar 5, 1:31 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >Terms, sentences, words and phrases have no meaning, you can only
> >extended an idea. What idea that Darwin had 150 years ago explained
> >how chemicals turns into humans?
 
> natural selection.
And what concept does this represent, who said NS? 
 
> >Among Darwin's last words upon the factors of Evolution are those in
> >the sixth edition of the Origin of Species (1880, p. 424). In the
> >modi- fication of species he refers as causes, successively to his
> >own, to Lamarck's, and to Buffon's factor in the following clear
> >language: 
>>"This has been effected chiefly through the natural
> >selection of numerous, successive, slight, favourable variations;
> >aided in an important manner by the inherited effects of the use and
> >disuse of parts ; and in an un- important manner that is, in relation
> >to adaptive structures, whether past or present by the direct action
> >of external conditions, and by variations which seem to us in our
> >ignorance to arise spon- taneously." Later, in the Descent of Man
> >(1881,
Would you agree that we could replace Natural selection with Natural retention in the above paragraph? The question then would be is "retention" being used in the design or pattern sense. 
 
> you keep spinning yourself in circles, achieving a fanatical vertigo.
> the concept of natural selection is empirical.
> 
> since your view of the world excludes, for religious reasons,
> empricism, natural selection as a testable idea is meaningless to you.
Natural selection or retention/perservation/survival. 
=== uu ===
=== ggg ===
=== dddd ===
=== uuu ===
=== asdf ===
=== 4444 ===
=== etrerere ===
=== ddd ===
http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2009/03/more_skepticism_of_natural_sel.php
".....The differences that make us human are more likely due to
mutations that were favorable to us in the particular environment into
which we moved, and these mutations then accumulated through
time......."
Other than noting the mutations were accumulated how was their
favorability measured? 
=== df ===
=== uhuh ===
=== cdddd ===
=== asdf ===
== 8888 ==
{{{
On Mar 1, 9:28 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Which depends to which theory as formulated by which individual you
> > are referring to, were you talking Darwin, about his idea,concept ,
> > reference frame, hopes and dreams which symbolically represented with
> > the symbol NS?
 
> The author of the link provided no definitions because he or she
> assumes a certain amount of facts in order to get to the reason-for-
> being or point of their essay. Definitions, of course, are very
> important. But the whole point of this particular essay is to
> establish that natural selection is a list of facts. The implication
> being, in turn, that this list of facts, in conjunction with random
> mutation, acts as a creative force. Excluding random mutation,
> everything is supported except the implication that the facts act as a
> creative force. That part is assumed based on the facts. In short, the
> essay is defending a just-so story.
> 
> Ray
I broadly agree but note that "random mutation" has to do with genetic changes, something Darwin knew nothing about. My focus is on how the term NS was used in the context of 1859, their reference frame with their knowledge....... which had nothing to do with genes. 
Genes and "random mutations" is important to discuss in our context but the most important concept is realizing that NS has no meaning, it was and remains merely the symbolic rerpresentation of an idea. That idea in 1859 wasn't genes but something else: The reformulation or reintroduction, co-option , embedding of Aristotle, Democritus, Heraclitus and Empedocles ideas which in turn are based on Sumerian and Babilonian pagan religions which had battle for survival theme between fire and water, Gods and and seamonsters etc..... which today is the battle between the Alleles. 
Thus overly fixation on "random mutation" especially from Dembski, the ID crowd is really doing damage to the understanding the underlying Pagan myths we are dealing with. 
}}
== df ==
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2005/11/is-natural-selection-tautology.php
> In population genetics, fitness is usually defined by reference to reproductive success. 
Who defined it, who said reproductive success? 
> The details vary - some authors define fitness by the absolute number of offspring, some by reference to the population average, and so on -
And who are they? 
> but roughly speaking, the fittest organism (or gene) is the one with the greatest number of offspring. 
You have represented an idea "greatest number of offspring" with the symbol fitness - why did you do this and who told you to do this, because I certainly didn't. Did Darwin maybe? 
> It may therefore be said that the ‘reproduction of the fittest’ is a tautology: the fittest individuals necessarily have the most offspring, 
> because that is how fitness is defined.
That depends who defined what when and where, who represented whatever idea with the symbol "fitness" ? 
> This is apparently regarded by Creationists as some kind of knockout blow for the theory of evolution by natural selection.
What theory? 
> Oddly enough, they also argue that natural selection is inadequate, impossible, and so on, which would be absurd if they really believed it 
> was a tautology. 
Natural selection isn't even a sentence, it has no meaning, who has said that what idea defined by whom is inadequate for what? 
> But the point I want to emphasise is that even if we define fitness by reference to reproductive success 
Who is this "we" now? I haven't defined fitness as being anything, it means nothing, it is just a symbol. 
> (which is convenient, but not essential, in population genetics), 
Who considers what essential in the differential equations describing pop.genetics, certainly not Darwin he didn't know about genes and could do differential equations , the idea that he symbolically represented with "natural selection" had nothing to do with genes - what idea are you referring to? 
> this in no way implies that the theory of evolution by natural selection (TENS) is a tautology.
Well, who knows, that theory where by whom isn't a tautology. This term "theory of evolution" Darwin used only twice in his book , are you referring to the ideas he encoded with the term. As in the ideas, because the idea is separate from the symbol string. 
> TENS involves at least the following seven empirical facts or generalisations:
Maybe they do, but according to whom are they facts? Are they not perhaps truisms. ?
> 1. Individual organisms differ in reproductive success.
Which depends on what idea and who has this idea being symbolically represented with the symbol RS. 
> This is not a tautology: it is an empirical matter of fact.
Ofcourse it isn't a tautology, it is a cluster of symbols that is supposed to symbolically represent and idea: Only ideas can be tautological, symbols like rocks and trees can't be tautological.
> 2. Differences in reproductive success are associated with phenotypic traits.
Who has associated what with they symbol "phenotypic" - who says so? 
> Traits associated with superior reproductive success (in a given environment, etc.) may be described as adaptive. 
Linux isn't adapted to its environment and neither is a tiger, Linux and Tigers viewed as abstract representations of an algorithm in somebodies mind are already described by their attributes. 
> It is not a tautology that adaptive traits exist. 
Depends who says adaptive traits and what concept they are projecting in terms of what I have written above.
> It would be logically possible that differences in reproductive success are merely a matter of chance.
Depends who says RS and what concept he has in mind.
> In this case there would be no way of predicting whether a trait would increase in frequency from one generation to the next. After a 
> succession of many generations, purely by chance, some traits might increase or decrease in frequency, but this would be genetic drift, not 
> natural selection. 
Some decrease, some don' t - what happens , happens. 
> 3. Some adaptive traits are heritable. 
Who says so, what is the concept being projected with "adaptive". 
> They tend to be reproduced by genetic inheritance, even over many generations. 
Truism, every act of reproduction involves genes. 
> This is not a tautology. 
Of course not , it is a truism. 
> It would be logically possible that offspring did not share their parents’ adaptive traits, or that these would disappear after a few 
> generations.
Some share traits , some don't - what happens, happens. 
> 5. Some mutations increase adaptiveness. This is not a tautology.
Which depends who says "adaptiveness" and how he solved the transition matrix that maps polypeptice space into frog-space. 
> 6. There is no inbuilt limit to the amount of cumulative genetic change. This is not a tautology.
Correct, at first it was a truism, the way you state it , it becomes a truism. 
> 7. Perhaps most important of all, mutations have no tendency to occur in directions favourable to adaptive traits. It is often said (and I 
> have recently said it myself) that mutation is random with respect to adaptativeness, but this can be misleading. 
Who says adaptiveness? 
>I conclude that while population genetics may contain some tautological statements (as John Maynard Smith once remarked, any theory involving >two lines of algebra will contain tautologies), 
Any theory contains axiomatic premises or logical validity's such as A or not-A. 
> the theory of evolution by natural selection is by no means a tautology, and rumours of its death are, as usual, greatly exaggerated.
Which depends to which theory as formulated by which individual you are referring to, not once did you say Darwin, were you talking about his idea,concept , reference frame, hopes and dreams which symbolically represented with the symbol NS?