HoWard1

=== Howard's concept with natural selection ===
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2008-02/msg00605.html
=== ===
=== Theory of Evolution ===
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/tree/browse_frm/thread/e3fad710cd222857/c1815440dbedce6e?rnum=151&_done=%2Fgroup%2Ftalk.origins%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fe3fad710cd222857%2Fb02728db1178e4b2%3F#doc_6e26ad10bfc3d5eb
"...........The biological theory of evolution is about organisms changing to adapt to new situations over time by *modifying* pre-existing structures/functions or taking advantage of novel accidents (to pre-existing material) that have some current utility......."
Note in particular his usage the term "novel accidents". Many neo-Aristotelians use the symbol Non-Random but actually mean by this "novel accidents" , "result of accident" or "absolute empire of accident" (Charles Kingsley) in some Multi-Universe theoretic framework.
from thread GeneExpressionNaturalSelection
== Design subset of pattern ==
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/tree/browse_frm/thread/94dcbb4b7acda3d0/72b2c531f31cdb72?rnum=61&_done=%2Fgroup%2Ftalk.origins%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F94dcbb4b7acda3d0%2F2301c79303d4b72d%3F#doc_c827427acaadd4a8
Design patterns are a subset of the universe of all patterns. 
Or, more briefly, design is a subset of pattern. I meant what I 
said. Substituting the very similar word "model", design is a subset 
of all models or perceptual structures that can be copied. 
=== What did the selecting? ===
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2010-05/msg06916.html
IN response to JerryFodor's : Who did the selecting2 we get ".... not who3, but what3 did the selecting3....". Thus a human is a 'what3' and not a 'who2' depending on how they view the PatternOrDesign issue in terms of Naming Conventions.
Howard views the 'what3 human' making decisions3 in terms of "... design3 is subset of pattern3....". A theist views the 'who2 human' making decisions2 to convey the same
intent as Augustus 2000 years ago when "selectus2" was used to symbolically represent ideas in terms of the PatternOrDesign dichotomy.
=== Tautology concept ===
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2008-02/msg01232.html
I suggest you learn the difference between a tautology and something
that is true by definition. They are not the same thing. A tautology
is when the definition provides no additional information; that is,
the term is described by terms that mean the same thing. As in the
classic opium causes sleepiness because of its somnambulent
properties. In contrast we have defined natural selection in terms of
'differential reproductive success'. Differential reproductive
success is measurable independently and must be so measured prior to
the determination that natural selection has happened. Measuring the
reproductive success of two phenotypically different populations
certainly does not guarantee that natural selection has occurred. I
have given you examples of natural selection NOT being guaranteed by
determining the levels of reproductive success.
Your complaint must be that you disagree with the *direction* of NS,
when it happens, that is considered to be 'beneficial'. That is, you
want death and sterility to be 'beneficial'. You are a 'death
cultist'.
=== Howard defines NS ===
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2008-02/msg01232.html
Natural selection does not even meet this definition. I have said
that NS occurs when and only when |rs1 - rs2| > 0. That is, NS is
conditional upon the presence of *particular* values of rs1 and rs2.
When rs1 = (approximately) rs2, NS has not happened.
=== NS ===
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/tree/browse_frm/thread/dbad1206ce7c6d18/9c77bbf94ec13431?rnum=11&q=%22natural+selection%22&_done=%2Fgroup%2Ftalk.origins%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fdbad1206ce7c6d18%2Fe10f47bc6a491e8%3Fq%3D%2522natural%2Bselection%2522%26#doc_0e10f47bc6a491e8
I agree that the tautology objection to the observation that natural
selection exists is silly and is largely based on a definition that one
rarely uses or even sees anymore in standard texts (except to discuss
its defects, starting with its use of the superlative -est ending rather
than the comparative -er ending). But so is the denial that natural
selection exists as a fact of nature (based on equally silly
misunderstandings) that you express regularly and regularly conflate
with 'evolution by the mechanism of natural selection'. One does not
need to think that evolution happens to recognize that natural selection
does. Natural selection was well recognized prior to Darwin.
Natural selection is a frequently observed feature of the *interaction
between organisms and their environment*. It is the observation that
the *environment* (which is unintelligent) in which organisms live often
can, but does not inevitably do so, discriminate (in a stochastic
fashion) between *different phenotypes* of an organism living in that
environment, favoring one phenotype over the other and specifically
favoring phenotypes that are better adapted to life in that particular
environment. 
NOTES: favoring<=>better adapted - tautology
When it does so, the phenotype which is favored will (in
the stochastic sense of 'be more likely to' rather than the inevitable
causal sense 'must') have *greater reproductive success* than the
alternate phenotype; that is, greater reproductive success is a
consequence of being better adapted to a particular local environment.
[Of course, for evolution to be a consequence of natural selection, the
phenotypic differences that the environment discriminates between must
be a consequence, at least in part, of genetic differences. However, we
are talking solely about natural selection at this point. And natural
selection occurs just as relentlessly and ruthlessly (and
unintelligently) if the phenotypic differences are due to accident or
environment or developmental abnormality. The unintelligent
environment, as it relates to and interacts with life as a dog, will
favor the dog with four good legs and discriminate against the one with
none regardless of whether the legless condition is due to genetic
defect, accident, or developmental abnormality.]
Note the basic requirements for determining whether natural selection
has occurred: There must be *different phenotypes* that are interacting
with the *environment* relevant to that organism. Natural selection,
when it occurs under these conditions, is an observational consequence
of a comparison. Natural selection is a population phenomenon and is a
comparison of *phenotypes* and not *individuals*. Thus, one can talk
about the fitter *phenotype* but not the fitter *individuals*. The
survival of any single individual in a population may be a simple
anomoly (the environment only provides a stochastic bias, not a virtual
certainty). To declare that one *phenotype* is *fitter than* another,
one must be looking at a population average, not an individual.
Although a comparison of *different phenotypes* and their interaction
with a particular *environment* is the basic requirement for determining
whether natural selection has occurred, merely having two (or more)
different phenotypes in an environment does not guarantee that natural
selection will occur (or will have occurred). *Natural selection* is
only said to occur when one of the two phenotypes has a *statistically
significant* difference on the metric of reproductive success.
Phenotypes which do not affect nor produce a statistically significant
difference in the metric of reproductive success are *selectively*
neutral wrt one another.
******By convention, and in accordance with the common useage of the
term "fitter", the phenotype which has the significantly greater
reproductive success is called the *fitter* phenotype in that particular
enviroment. That is because reproductive success is the only
recognizable universal "goal" of or metric upon which to compare living
organisms. [You are, of course, quite free to disagree with the use of
this metric and claim that the less reproductively successful organisms
should be declared to be 'fitter'.]******
[I emphasized the above paragraph, because it is, in fact, crucial. If
one wants to argue against natural selection, one must argue against
this point. I am claiming that the only *apparent* or *scientifically
detectable* or *empirically useful* universal "goal" of *all* life on
earth is, empirically if not theologically, maximal reproductive
success. This makes reproductive success the only valid metric for
measuring natural selection and defining 'greater reproductive success'
as 'fitter' is indeed consistent with common understanding of the term
'fitter'. If one agrees with the validity of using differential
reproductive success as the metric for determining whether natural
selection occurs (or has occurred), then anytime that one observes
differential reproductive success of one phenotype relative to another
significantly greater than can be accounted for by random genetic drift,
one is observing an event due to natural selection -- that is, a
difference due to the local environment discriminating between
phenotypes. That means that even if Kettlewell had not done his
experiments, industrial melanism in moths would *still* be an example of
natural selection.]
So let's summarize: Natural selection is said to have occurred when, in
any comparison of two phenotypic variants in an organism in a specific
environment, there is a significant average difference in reproductive
success of organisms with alternate phenotypes in that environment. By
convention, the phenotype which leads to greater reproductive success is
called the 'fitter' phenotype.
It is important to realize that observing a phenotypic difference does
not, by itself, tell us which, if either, phenotype is 'fitter' in any
particular environment. One can certainly use standard engineering
reasoning (by recognizing that the goal is greater reproductive success)
to make educated guesses, but must be prepared for surpises. [For
example, longevity, if it interfers with net reproductive success as is
the case in C. elegans and many other organisms, can be less 'fit' than
quick burnout due to high reproduction early on.]
OTOH, because of the definition of 'fitter' given above, if one observes
a case in nature where one phenotype is observed to have *significantly
greater* reproductive success than an alternate phenotype, one can
reasonably infer that natural selection is involved in determining the
relative numbers of the two phenotypes both now and in the future (so
long as the environment remains constant) and look for reasons why the
local environment dumbly and unintelligently significantly favors one
phenotype over the other.
IOW, the alternative to natural selection are simply cases where there
is no selection at all. Those are the only two alternatives that exist
in nature*: No selection or selection (in a specific environment). To
say that natural selection does not occur, like you seem to, is contrary
to observed reality.
*One could, I guess, make a claim that every example of the environment
discriminating between phenotypes currently ascribed to *natural*
selection is actually *artificial* selection guided by some unknown and
unobservable intelligent agency other than man. But since all examples
of natural selection involve phenotypes that are deleterious (some to
the state of being lethal, and all in the sense of affecting
reproductive success) and show consistency with engineering principles
of better by the metric of reproductive success, I see no reason for
unnecessarily multiplying the causitive agencies and explanations here.
One of the many reasons why "Survival of the fittest." is a poor
definition of natural selection (and has been recognized as a poor
definition since Darwin's time) is that it can be (and often is) falsely
interpretable as being a description of an individual property divorced
from environment rather than a comparative description of the
interaction of a phenotype in a population with a particular
environment. That is in addition to 'survival' not being the
appropriate metric by which selection is measured.
*When* natural selection is used as biologists use it, it is an
observational fact about how organisms interact with their environment.
 Namely, we say that natural selection occurs when there is a
significant difference in the metric of reproductive success because the
local environment discriminates (unintelligently) between two variant
phenotypes in an organism.
[snip stuff based on the poorest of definitions of NS]
=== synonys for ns ===
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/ac52c73b1fc53deb/d54c8c61a7eddff8?q=natural+selection++measured#d54c8c61a7eddff8
> As I have posted we
> can't seperate SoF and artificial selection from natural selection if
> by NS we are communicating Darwin's intent.
SoF is an older and not particularly useful description of NS. It is
only (mis)used by creationists today. The term artificial, as opposed
to natural, refers to "intelligent designed" selection (artifice
refers to man-made things) as opposed to selection by the dumb
unintelligent sieving action of the environment. Both involve
"selection" or "discrimination" or "differential consequences", to use
some related words you might choose to try to understand (as opposed
to the terms you are willfully not understanding). Your refusal to
even consider the above as a meaningful answer is evidence of your
dimness and post-modernist wishful thinking
=== asdf ===
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/c1902dbe5979d87f/e33da9126b98e291#e33da9126b98e291
=== Evolution is not random ===
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2008-03/msg01398.html
 http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
 "...There is probably no other statement which is a better indication
 that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a
 large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the
 fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very
 opposite of chance..."
 Howard here Mark Isaak seems to say that "selection" can only be used
 in the design sense
No he isn't. He is using the word in the sense that the process of NS
produces a non-chance consequence. That is no different than saying
that the process of the physical chemistry of freezing produces a non-
random result in crystal formation.
 but of course we can use any word in either the
 pattern or the design sense, it depends what is your intent with the
 word, the word alone can't have some sort of universal immovable
 intent.
Get this through your skull. Pattern and design are not opposites.
There is "design pattern" and "non-design pattern". The distinction
between them is that the former requires an animate agent. To
properly identify whether an observed "pattern" is a "design pattern"
or a "non-design pattern", the only reliable method is empirical
observation of the designer or his/her/its/their empirical non-
presence. One simply cannot distinguish between "designed" and "non-
designed" patterns merely by looking at the patterns in the absence of
other outside evidence. Too many false positives and false negatives
in the absence of outside knowledge of manufacturing or non-
manufacturing processes.
 Selection in the pattern sense is almost always used in the poetic
 sense or in outright poetry, we are dealing with "science" (whatever
 that is supposed to mean) and not poetry, thus "selection" given the
 context of our discussion must always be in the design sense and
 another word must be used if you are communicating an intent in the
 pattern sense.
Yawn. I know you don't like the term "selection" when used in the
phrase "natural selection". So use another term. Just don't be such a
post-modernist that you think that the empirical reality of NS will
disappear in a puff of post-modernist smoke if one doesn't use the
word "selection". That would be like pretending that you can walk out
the 23rd story window without consequence if only we magically make
the word "gravity" disappear.
=== Howards explains NS ===
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/abe4fd5d2244b463?pli=1
On Aug 11, 12:37 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 11, 6:25 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
> > I take it your thought process, such as it is, was interrupted here.
> > But you may continue to present the rest of this with appropriate
> > citation as to when, where, and who and how it fits into whatever
> > argument you have (if any) with the *modern* scientific understanding
> > of NS.
> What would this be?
The modern scientific understanding of NS? I have already described
it. Let me repeat:
***repost****
Rather than use examples unrelated to the biological meaning of the
phrases "natural selection", "artificial selection", and "selective
neutrality", let's use examples that clearly point out their meaning.
I will give you an opportunity to make simple replies, but you will
*also* have to justify those replies. I will justify what I say by
always giving a "because" explanation of why I made the choice of
terms I did.
Remember that "natural selection" involves a comparison of two
alternative features in an organism on some metric of "differential
reproductive success". I will use the metric of "differential
survival until reproductive maturity" in my examples, but remember
that there are other possible ways of measuring 'reproductive
success'.
We will be looking at an imaginary organism (but one that has
features  like many real ones), the Lake Monroe Oysters. The oysters
have two  alternative features: some are red and taste like shit,
others are  blue and taste like ambrosia. Once a year, the oysters,
about a  thousand strong, put out their little legs and walk to a
small pond  owned by Gene Poole, where they dump in all their gametes
(sperm and  eggs) and then die without ever going back to Lake
Monroe. But, 10  days later, all the little oyster babies (about
10,000 strong) walk  from Gene Poole Pond back to Lake Monroe, where
they either grow up  over the course of the next year or die. The
survivors then repeat  the process to make the next generation. And
so on.
Example One  The adults that go to Gene Poole Pond are 30% red/shit
and 70% blue/  ambrosia. They empty their gametes into the Gene Poole
Pond and,  because fusion to produce zygotes is a random process
according to  Mendelian genetics and according to the rules of Hardy-
Weinberg, we  get just about 30% red and 70% blue progeny in the pond
that will  travel back to Lake Monroe. Quite a number of these
progeny (about  90%) will die over the course of the year (see Malthus
for an  explanation). But, when we look at the progeny that survive
their  year in Lake Monroe and go back to the Gene Poole Pond for the
next  oyster orgy, we observe that 30% are red and 70% are blue. What
this  means is that there has been no "*differential* survival until
reproductive maturity" with respect to the two alternative features
(phenotypes) we are following: red or blue. That is, all the death
that has occurred was due either to chance alone or to features
unlinked to the color/taste of the  oysters. The key feature to look
at is the % of red versus blue in  the parent generation at birth
(actually, at zygote fusion) and in  the adult breeders.
Now, of course, the actual %s will probably not  be *exactly* 30/70
for the same reason you would not expect to get  *exactly* 50 heads:
50 tails every time you flipped an honest coin 100  times. But there
are statistical ways to estimate whether the  observed result is
*significantly* different from such a random  expectation. Observing a
31% to 69% ratio would not be a surprising  result if the numbers are
small enough in the population or in a  random sample from the
population. In this case, we would observe 310  red to 690 blue in
the adult breeders. A deviation from expectation this large or
smaller  than the expected 300 and 700 would happen by chance about
half the  time, so I would consider this to be merely a chance
deviation and not  a significant deviation. [I am using a simple chi-
square test and  regard any deviation that could occur by chance 95%
of the time to be  non-significant.]
A second minor point, but an evolutionarily important one, is that,
as  many a gambler has found out, "chance has no memory". If the new
%  entering the Gene Poole Pond is 31%/69%, the expectation of chance
is  that that (rather  than 30/70) would be the expected %s entering
Lake Monroe and exiting  it the next year. This is the reason why
selective neutrality leads  to neutral drift and eventual fixation of
one or the other  phenotypes.
A third minor point. I am ignoring the diploid genetics of this case,
so I am not examining specific *genotypes*. If I did, I might find
that this is an example of "stabilizing selection" like that seen in
sickle cell anemia. That would only be observable over a number of
generations (by deviation from the expectations of random drift) or
by  examining the ratios of homozygotes and heterozygotes in the
genes.
This is an example of the *absence* of "significant differential
selection". Or, if you prefer, an example where neither color had
any  *differential* effect on survival. In biology, this pure chance
process is NOT called "natural selection" precisely because there is
no *differential* selection related to the features. This example is
(tentatively) called "selective neutrality" and leads to "neutral
drift". Again, this is NOT considered "natural selection". However,
the random walk that occurs by "neutral drift" does lead to evolution
(genetic change) over time to the extent that these features are
genetic. [And this would also lead to the discovery of "stabilizing
selection" if that were the reason for the apparent absence of
change.]
To summarize: In the absence of evidence for *selection*, there is
no  "natural selection"; there is "selective neutrality" leading to
"neutral drift". IOW, pure chance and only chance is NOT "natural
selection". It is "selective neutrality" and only selective
neutrality that represents pure chance. There is no *differential
selection* at all in the case of selective neutrality,  unless it was
done by a designer who was trying and succeeding in  mimicking a
completely random process (which is very difficult for  humans to do
without using a random number generator of some kind),  there is no
way to call such a result a product of "design". So  "selective
neutrality" is almost always a "pattern" and *specifically*  is
always  a "random pattern" wrt the measured metric of "differential
reproductive success between the two alternative features". The only
way such a result can ever be a "design" is when a "designer"
*successfully* mimics a random, pure chance result. The only way
to know that is by knowledge of the existence and intent of the
"designer". It would be impossible to tell by examination of the
"pattern" alone.
And, initially, it is not possible (if the genetics are unknown) to
distinguish between "stabilizing selection" due to heterozygote vigor
and "selective neutrality". The difference between them would only
become obvious as the pattern deviates over many generations from the
probability expectations of neutral drift.
Now, it is your turn. Does the above *random* *non-selective*
described process that biologists call "selective neutrality" produce
"pattern" or "design". Explain why you think so, if your thinking
differs from mine.
Example Two  The adults that go to Gene Poole Pond are 30% red/shit
and 70% blue/  ambrosia and produce just about 30% red and 70% blue
progeny in the  pond that will travel back to Lake Monroe. Quite a
number of these  progeny will die over the course of the year (see
Malthus for an  explanation). But, when we look at the progeny that
survive their  year in Lake Monroe and go back to the Gene Poole Pond
for the next  oyster orgy, we observe that *now* 80% are red and 20%
are blue.
Humans had been forbidden anywhere in the Lake Monroe watershed for
this entire year because of a toxic (to humans) algae bloom. The
lake  was also much warmer than usual.
But this *is* a case where there has been a significant
*differential*  impact on the metric of "*differential* survival until
reproductive  maturity" that is clearly strongly correlated with the
color of the  oysters. Red oysters have increased in frequency from
30% to 80%,  with a concommitant decrease in blue oysters. All in the
absence of  human intervention. Completely in the absence of any
known conscious  "designer" or intent. This *is* an example of what
Darwin meant by "natural  selection". And, not surprisingly, it also
meets the requirement of  "differential reproductive success due to
alternative phenotype" seen in  the modern definition of NS. A simple
chi square test shows the probability  of such a *difference*
occurring by chance to be much less than  0.01%. That is, the
*difference* in the "differential reproductive  success" (as measured
by differential survival to reproductive age) is  statistically
significant.
A biologist might hypothesize that this example of "natural
selection"  might be due to the red oysters being more resistant to
the toxin of  the algae or to a temperature effect (directly or
indirectly), but  identifying or even correctly identifying the cause
is not necessary  in declaring that this meets the requirement of
being "natural  selection" ala the *idea* described by Darwin when he
used that term.  All that is needed is evidence to support that this
is *significantly*  different from the expectations of chance alone
(that being described  in Example 1) and not known to be the
intentional product of a conscious agent.
To summarize: This is an example of "natural selection", that is,
significant differential reproductive success of one phenotype rather
than the alternative in the absence of human intervention in a
specified environment (Lake Monroe that year). It is the absence of
conscious human intervention that makes this "selection" "natural"
rather than "artificial" in Darwin's terminology. Because there was
no observable "designer" involved that had the intent or
consciousness  of selectively changing the ratio from the expectations
of a "random  pattern", one cannot call this example of "natural
selection"  "design". The result due to this "natural selection" is a
"pattern"  and *specifically* a "non-random pattern"  *because* of the
differential selection and the absence of a  designer.
Your turn: Do *you* agree that the above example is an example of
"natural selection" as that term was used by Darwin?, both because it
involves *selection* and because it does not involve humans (and thus
is not "artificial" by his usage). Do you agree that it is NS as
defined and ideated by modern biological scientists? Do you agree
that this is an example of a "pattern" rather than "design" because
of  the absence of a human or other designer's involvement and also
that  it represents a "non-random pattern." Explain.
Example 3.  Start out with the same 30/70 red/blue ratio. But now we
introduce  humans who love the blue oysters and, in fact, are part of
a Blue  Oyster Cult. The Blue Oyster Cult has observed the life cycle
of  oysters, and consciously recognize that if they go to the Gene
Poole  Pond and prevent the shit-tasting red oysters from reaching the
pond,  that they will have more of the delicious blue kind. So they
frantically remove red oysters (and compost them). Only 1/6th of the
starting 30% red oysters still manage to reach the pool. That is,
the  ratio of new oysters in the pool is now 5 to 70 (7% to 93%) red
to  blue. The next  generation to reach the pool is now also 7%/93%
(indicating that, in  the absence of the human intervention, the
traits were  indistinguishable from being selectively neutral wrt each
other; in  this case we can rule out "stabilizing selection" by
heterozygote  advantage). This is an example of what Darwin meant by
"artificial  selection" and represents a significant conscious change
in frequency  due to the conscious actions of humans to *selectively*
favor the blue  feature over the red.
This would be an example of "design", as would any example of
conscious "artificial selection".
Your turn. Do you agree that this is an example of "design" by your
understanding of that term and "artificial selection" as it was used
by Darwin? Do you agree that the *defining* feature of "design"
requires the involvement of humans or other animate design agents (at
minimum, although I would add that the design agent perform its
selection via conscious action)? Explain, especially if you have
some  other way of consistently identifying design that does not
require  knowledge of a designer.
The above 3 examples are rather clear cut. And they cover the
typical  examples of NS, AS, and selective neutrality. Of course, as
in all of  science and science based on induction and statistics, all
conclusions  of randomness and non-randomness are tentative and one
can have  marginal cases where one is not sure if the result is due
to  randomness (aka selective neutrality), natural selection (non-
random  and without a designer), or artificial selection (non-random
due to  the conscious action of a designer agent).
We have already mentioned the possibility of a designer consciously
trying to mimic a non-selective result, and pointed out that that is
difficult for humans to acheive. And pointed out one possible
"selective" mechanism (heterozygote advantage) that might mimic
"selective neutrality" temporarily if one did not know the genetics
of  the system. That is part of the reason why scientific
explanations  are always tentative and subject to change in light of
further  evidence. Similarly, we might reconsider an example of
"natural  selection" if *empirical* evidence presented itself of a
likely  designer.
But there is at least one other example that is ambiguous. Namely
selection by a designer agent who is unconscious or unaware that he
is  producing a non-random result. And this example has been seen in
the  real world wrt the size of fish at maturity.
Example 4   As in the other examples, the starting population is
30%red and  70%blue oysters and that is also the %s of the offspring
that enter  Lake Monroe to mature. But now humans, who dearly love
the blue  oyster taste have, instead of doing selection to increase
the  frequency of blue oysters as in Example 3, harvested mature blue
oysters in  Lake Monroe just before the time of year in which the
oysters walk to  the Gene Poole Pond to mate. They put the blue
oysters in their pots,  stewily, and toss the red oysters back because
they love to eat the  blue ones and are disgusted by the red ones.
The humans ignore the  oysters after they leave Lake Monroe and walk
to Gene Poole Pond. Not  surprisingly, the % that reach the pond  now
are changed, to a *significantly different* 50% red and 50% blue,
because of the *selective* harvesting of blue oysters by humans.
Thus the next generation of oysters is now 50:50 red:blue instead of
30:70 and there are fewer and fewer blue oysters and more and more
red  ones in Lake Monroe, greatly increasing the value and cost of
blue  oysters. This is pretty obviously not the conscious intent of
the (rather ignorant)  humans harvesting the oysters, since it means
that there will be fewer  and fewer of the desirable blue oysters.
But it superficially is  "artificial selection" both because it is due
to human involvement  and represents differential non-random selection
of the alternative  types of oyster. So is this an example of
"pattern" rather than  "design" because the selection was not
*consciously* done to produce  the result but the result was an
inadvertent consequence of selective  predation done without thought
or intelligent foresight as to the consequences (which are  opposite
those a sentient human would want)? Or is this an example of
"design" because it is a non-random result produced by a active
designer agent, even if that result was not the intent of the
designer? Perhaps "artificial selection" should be restricted to
those that humans do consciously for their own purposes, like making
toy poodles because they are cute and sheep dogs because they are
useful to shepherds.
Unconscious selection by differential predation without intent to
selectively breed, might better be considered "natural" even  though
done by humans, just as it would be if done by wolves. Unlike  the
other examples, which are pretty clear cut, this one is more
ambiguous and I could support calling this either "design" or
"pattern" depending on the particular definition of those terms one
is  using. If you limit "design" to those patterns consciously
produced  with that pattern as the intent of the designer, then this
is not  "design". It also means that anthills and aphid slaves are
not  "design" because the organisms that design those do not have
consciousness, but only instinct. But feel free to make an argument
for one or the other. All I ask is that you be consistent, if you
can.
Example 5  Invent an invisible undetectable superintelligent and
omnipotent agent  that can produce whatever it wants and whatever can
be observed  without itself being observed. Explain all or any
random subset of  the other examples as being due to the actions of
this invisible and undetectable agent; thus  everything is due to the
actions of this unobservable agent. Is  everything then "design"? Or
are there still some results that are  only "pattern"? Which are
they?
And tell me why Example 2 ("natural selection") is a tautology?
 ******end repost*****
=== Notes ===
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/45ca7f03e9236b53#
On Jul 4, 3:19 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > But nothing is every adapted to its environment, it only expresses its
> > attributes as explained elsewhere.
> But those that have "attributes" that are a better fit to the local
> environment have a higher probability of transmitting their attributes
> to the future relative to those that don't.
reduce:
Those with attributes that are a better fit to the environment have a higher probability of transmitting their attributes
to the future relative to those that don't.
reduce:
Those with attributes that are a better fit to the environment have a higher probability of transmitting their attributes
to the future relative to those that don't.
'better fit' and 'higher probability' are dissimilar terms that alludes to the same fact, saying the same thing twice,making it a rhetorical tautology
reduce:
Those that are better have a higher probability of propagation then those that aren't better.
Finally:
* The good ones propagate and the bad ones don't.
=== Notes 2 ===
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/45ca7f03e9236b53#
On Jul 5, 12:38 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 4, 12:43 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > On Jul 4, 3:19 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > > > But nothing is every adapted to its environment, it only expresses its
> > > > attributes as explained elsewhere.
> > > But those that have "attributes" that are a better fit to the local
> > > environment have a higher probability of transmitting their attributes
> > > to the future relative to those that don't.
> 
> > reduce:
> > Those with attributes that are a better fit to the environment have a
> > higher probability of transmitting their attributes
> > to the future relative to those that don't.
> 
> > reduce:
> > Those with attributes that are a better fit to the environment have a
> > higher probability of transmitting their attributes
> > to the future relative to those that don't.
> 
> > 'better fit' and 'higher probability' are dissimilar terms that
> > alludes to the same fact,
> 
> No they don't. There is no _a priori_ reason, based on the meaning of
> those terms, that organisms with a better fit to their environment
> would necessarily have a "higher probability" of transmitting their
> attributes to the future. It certainly is true that, in our genetic
> systems, that is the case. But I could certainly artificially
> propagate individuals that have a poorer fit to their environment
> (minus my diabolic interference) and that, absent my meddling, would
> have a poor probability of transmitting their attributes to the
> future. Modern maize is an example.
> 
> > saying the same thing twice,making it a
> > rhetorical tautology
> 
> > reduce:
> > Those that are better have a higher probability of propagation then
> > those that aren't better.
> 
> > reduce:
> > The good ones propagate and the bad ones don't.
> 
> I never used and intentionally did not use the terms "good" and
> "bad". But if you have some problem with labeling the more
> reproductively fit individuals as being, from the perspective of the
> organism, "better", feel free to argue that early death and
> infertility are really "good" for a species. And that the best
> species is thus the one that goes extinct because it favors its least
> fit members for reproductive success. "Good" and "bad" are such
> relativistic terms.
You reformulated Democritus Atomism, the good atom surviving over the bad atom deprecating. This tautology masks the circular reasoning, his premise that the universe had no beginning(will have to get citation for this, I am not sure exactly what Democritus believed about the origins of the universe and am too busy now to look it up on wikipedia, if I am wrong, correct me).
Because if the good atom triumphed over the bad atom where did both the good and bad atom come from in the first place?
----
Howard wrote:
> > > But those that have "attributes" that are a better fit to the local
> > > environment have a higher probability of transmitting their attributes
> > > to the future relative to those that don't.
To reformulate what your wrote in terms of Democritus Atomism: 
The *better* fit atom has a *higher* probability of propagation then the less fit atom . This is of course indisputable and thus not a Popper falsifiable theory.
*Better* and *higher* are the key dissimilar words that refer to the same fact,saying the same thing twice, making any conclusion a non-sequitur
--------------
Spencer used 'equilibrium' and fitness as dissimilar terms to refer to the same concept. We can change fit to 'equilibrium' : 
* > The atom with better equilibrium has a *higher* probability of propagation then
* > the atom with less 'equilibrium'. 
ON the wikipedia fitness page we see the confusion as authors try and impress a meaning on the object fitness - it has no meaning, only the ideas of Spencer had meaning, not the objects 'equilibrium' or 'fitness' he used to represent such meaning.
Category:TauTology