Naming Conventions

back http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology
=== Subscripts - simulate Greek lexicon in English ===
The idea for subscripts came from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry%27s_paradox
The subscript x is used to denote that a user of the symbols design, pattern, random , evolve etc. hasn't documented in what type of PatternOrDesign sense the words are being used or that user of these semantic tools don't know what he is trying to say.
In English the word "lovex" alone doesn't tell us what type of lovex is implied - (Agape, Phile). By using subscripts we thus simulate the Greek Lexicon. Subscripts allows everybody to document their world view without having to invent thousands of different words. Winston Churchill knew 15000, the KJV had a lexicon of 8000 and Shakespear thousands more. YEC, ID and atheists can now all use "evolution", "selection" etc. to document their views, avoiding arguments about the meaning of words because words have no meaning. Only the idea that for example CharlesKingsley had with evolution1 has meaning not the word itself.
=== Tautology naming conventions ===
* 'Necessary truth', axiom or logical validity Tautology1. Tautology1 is a logical form and is true by definition. Describing an electric charge as a quality of matter on which an electric field acts is a narrative logical form schematic that enables one to grasp electricity theory at a higher layer of abstraction. An electric field is a region in space that exerts a force on electric charge, is a Tautology1 verbal schematic that is part of wider theory of electricity and as such is a stepping stone to understanding the deeper concepts of the theory. Using these logical forms as stepping stones should be seen in the same light as children doing the three R's , a process of automating low level concepts, in which logical validity's will be repeated for their pedagogical effect. The sentence "...an electric charge is a quality of matter on which an electric field acts..." by itself would be meaningless, it is only valid as part of a wider descriptive scheme, in the same way that axioms such as 1=1 should be seen as the logical basis of all we do and say.
* Tautological expression Tautology2. Pleonasm, not a fallacy.
* Rhetorical tautology Tautology3 Logical fallacy, says same thing twice making conclusion a non-sequitur.
* Logical tautology Tautology4 Unintended consequence from automated theorem verification where result reduces to a redundancy such as 7=7.
* Truthiness-tautology or hidden tautology, combines a truism with saying the same thing twice Tautology5
* Strawtology Tautology6
* Questology Tautology7
* DoubleTautology Tautology8Tautology used in such a way that the PatternOrDesign distinction isn't clear. Many are of the view that the pattern design distinction is a false dichotomy, that design is subset of pattern as HoWard1 put it. Evolution was the symbol used by CharlesKingsley in his interpretation of Darwin(1863) in the "....absolute empire of accident.... sense - Evolution1. The sentence "...the engineer evolved the bridge...." would be in the design sense - Evolution2. Evolution3 would be the sense HoWard1, Wilkins and Dawkins uses it , they reject the PatternOrDesign dichotomy. Wilkins uses natural , rarified , ordinary, non-complex and simple design (http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/PatternOrDesign#Wilkins_on_rarified_.2C_simple.2C_natural_design), whether in Evolution1 , Evolution2 or EvolutionNo idea what I am trying to sayisn't clear. From a theist perspective there is only a pattern(Evolution1) or design(Evolution2). An apparent design depending on context still resorts under the rubric of pattern. Evolution4 would be in the "....it looks designed, but is only apparent design...".
* Pedagogical Tautology Tautology9 Such as A or not-A stated in an introductory course to set theory: the instructor didn't say A or not-A and therefore you ancestor was a monkey. Such would have made a it a rhetorical tautology. He stated the obvious as part of the supportive scaffolding for set theory.
The first four types of tautologies are listed in that order because most people of conflicting world views would agree on their definitions. From five to eight is wide op for debate and one's world view would influence whether the definitions are valid. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern entry is really design patterns. It all depends what the concept is because any word even "pattern" or "random" can be used in the pattern or design sense. In one context pattern is a proxy for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness, while a "selection out of a random pattern" is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sample. Under Naming Conventions is a list of the intended meanings with Evolution, Tautology, Random, design etc.
The logical proposition (A or not-A) can't be refuted or rendered invalid but neither can it be verified. Same with "what happens, happens" and "7=7". But the sentence "7=7 and therefore my mommy had long teeth and a tail" is a fallacy , the conclusion is a non-sequitur and is called a "rhetorical tautology3". All tautologies reside under the rubric "semantic tautologyx" but not all tautologies1 are fallacious. Some tautologies1 are logical validity's while others(tautology3) involve an argumentation scheme where the conclusion doesn't follow logically. Many are equivocating between different concepts in different contexts,they use the same semantic object (tautologyx) but the concepts aren't the same.
=== Science ===
* Science1. Proxy for materialist belief system. A known quote is "Creationism isn't science". But Creationism is defined as not being materialistic thus it reduces to: that which is defined as not being materialistic isn't materialistic and therefore materialism is the correct world view. This says the same thing twice making it a rhetorical tautology and the conclusion a non-sequitur. A science1 adherent believes matter created itself in violation of the first law1(metaphorical usage) of thermodynamics which states1(pending): matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
The third option, that matter could have existed for eternity isn't falsifiable because we as describers of our world are bound by space and time. As time bound beings we have no experience of what eternity could be like. If we postulate that the universe might have existed for eternity we could also speculate that the universe might be balanced on the back of a giant turtle at the vast unseen edge1(metaphor) of the universe, it might be true but there is no way to disprove such a notion.
* Science2. Agrees that Science1 is a rhetorical tautology but still rejects any form of theism, leaning more to a form of agnostisism than outright atheism.
* Science3. Prof. Herrmann a YEC usage: "Science at the very least is a well reasoned description". Maxwell was a YEC and his descriptions of magnetism were "at the very least" well reasoned. Science1. and Science2 practitioners don't agree with Maxwell's world view but this doesn't invalidate his Science3.
* Science4 The reverse of Science3, a "well reasoned description" by an atheist isn't invalid from a YEC perspective just because the world view differs. Laplace was an atheist , this doesn't make his math invalid.
* Sciencek Materialist who rejects the usage of subscripts and insists that words have actual meanings. Believes that meaning has a physical location. Most likely Dawkins, Wilkins, HoWard1
=== Natural Selection ===
NS1 Darwin's coining of the term 1858. This excluded genes as physical molecules or cybernetic abstractions. His premise was VesTiges1844 from Robert Chambers who in turn used Fletcher's Rudiments of physiology(Haeckel lifted the embryos) idea. They all used as premise Aristotle's 'internal spontaneity' or 'spontaneous generation'. Fitness during this time was a different word for 'spontaneous generation', an notion falsified by Pasteur but still believed by many materialists today.
Either Fletcher or Chambers described how spiders magically came about via 'spontaneous generation' on the end of battery terminals. Darwin used NS1 was in this context. It had nothing to do with mutations(physical) or mutations(information) wise on genes. Darwin also never said Differential Reproductive Success (DRS). It is remarkable that Dawkins, HoWard1 and others insist that he did even though the terms don't appear anywhere in the writings of Darwin. We are dealing with a very strange form of mental illness the same we have with the much vaunted ToE which neither Dembski, Dawkins or Berlinski can actually point out where its wikipedia entry is. If a theory doesn't exist on Wikipedia then the chances are very good the theory doesn't exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution isn't a theory but a word . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Evolution would be the actual theory thingy, but the page doesn't exist. 
A debate with university educated materialists on talk.origins Usenet usually goes something as follows: (my alias is backspace on google.groups)
backspace: Darwin never said DRS.
talk.origins: Darwin used the term and described the concept.
backspace: What concept?
talk.origins: The concept he had with DRS.
backspace: Which is what exactly? 
talk.origins: The concept of DRS in OoS.
backspace: Darwin never wrote anything about any DRS in any of his works.
talk.origins: Yes, he certainly did.
backspace: Darwin never said DRS .
talk.origins: He did it is there.
backspace: No, it isn't.
talk.origins: Yes, it is.
NS2 term used in terms of genes as a physical molecule. Mutations etc.
NS3 term used in terms of genes as cybernetic abstraction that represents information but doesn't constitute information.
If you don't believe that spiders can magically 'poof' into existence then don't use NS1 when attempting science2 today. Rather use NS3 and clearly identify the person who you are interpreting. Note that the person can't be yourself, it must be somebody else as per Wikipedia NOR(no original research policy). There is nothing new under the sun, whatever idea you might have, the probability is very high that somebody previous had thought about it under a different semantic rubric.
For example Behe's concept of IC(irreducible complexity) or Irreducible_Functionality was articulated in the 19th century using different words. NS1 and fitness in 1870 were different terms for the same Epicurean and Arsitotelian logic and belief system: words change but the ideas have remained the same.
Universities and the mass media bombard us with endless rhetorical tautologies in order to convince society of their Epicurean world view. It is very difficult to obtain a degree(Bob Jones, Dembski, Harvard, MIT) without denying one's faith and sanity by "explaining" social, physical or mathematical phenomena in terms of Aristotle's warped logic. The YEC movement from Bob Jones, Ken Ham and Kent Hovind are sadly even more confused than Dawkins and are doing more damage to Xtianity then Dawkins. Many of them are sincere but their whole logic is undermined by their failure to understand what a rhetorical tautology is. In Paul's writings he always had more problems with false prophets or deceived Christians meaning good(Ken Ham seems to believe what he says) than with outright Epicurean opponents . His sharpest rebuke was reserved for those who believed God existed.
Measurements and observations are interpreted within a logical framework. A logical fallacy will lead one to erroneous conclusions when interpreting such raw data. Aristotle's tautological fallacy prevented scientific research and advancement as the Catholic church punished all dissent from Aristotle because his argumentation scheme were in such a way that the ".... truth of his propositions could not be disputed ...".
NS4 used in the preferential decision design sense in the talk.origins usenet thread on Automated Selection.
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2010-09/msg01337.html
Some would object and say that 'natural selection' doesn't mean preferential decision which is correct since NS isn't a sentence and SentencesHaveNoMeaning, thus neither can a term like NS have any meaning. My idea though as a YEC in terms of the pattern/design, disorder/order, cause/effect sense has meaning. Pattern, design, selection and natural are but tools to convey such meaning within a knowledge context of genes as a cybernetic abstraction.
* Preferential <=> natural
* Decision <=> selection
Pattern, design, selection and natural are but tools to convey such meaning within a knowledge context of genes as a cybernetic abstraction. It is meaningless to say that Preferential Decision selected for one over the other. Rather I made a PD or NS for cake over banana.
1) At http://bit.ly/gVwUAQ the poster wrote "...To evolve IC systems, Natural Selection must select variations based on what that part will do in the future, after the IC systems are put together....."
Lets rephrase this in terms of PD.
2) "...To evolve IC systems, Preferential Decision must select variations based on what that part will do in the future, after the IC systems are put together....."
Both Sentence 1) and 2) are grammatically correct but just as meaningless as 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously
Thus lets rephrase again for one possible but not neccassarily correct idea(It depends what the user of the objects decision, natural, selection is trying to convey. Whether his concept is correct or not or conflicts with your world view is irrelevant. In the context of this section what he actually intends is the issue not whether one might agree with it or not):
Lets rephrase this in terms of PD.
3) "...To evolve IC systems, the Gaia nature selection force enacts a Preferential Decision for the
variant based on what that part will do in the future, after the IC system is assembled by Lord Gaia ....."
Most users of the object NS won't intend 3) but all would agree that with 3) we can deduce the exact meaning the sentence is both grammatically correct and meaningful. Not so though with 1) and 2)
Ken Ham in an audio broadcast said .... I believe in Natural Selection .....
In terms of PD .....I believe in Preferential Decision...
Both sentences are grammatically correct but meaningless.
Rephrase for possible meaningful idea in the design sense(PatternOrDesign):
* '.... I believe in the Preferential Decision making ability that John has for cake over sweets....'
* '.... I believe in the Natural Selection making ability that John has for cake over sweets....'
* '.... I believe that John made a more Natural Selection for cake over sweets....'
Conclusion:
The way NS and DRS is used in sentences is grammatically correct but meaningless. They are not "wrong", it is far worse than being wrong but meaningless.
==== Usenet Post ====
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/85a94032b6655845#
Bob Casanova wrote:
* > He means that selection acts without intent, on current
* > populations in current environments. As you know very well.
One can enact a selection for sweets over banana. But to say "....selection acts without intent....." is grammatically correct but as meaningless as Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. The entire origins debate is bogged down with Meaningless sentences. There are at least three options:
* Sentences are grammatically correct but conveys a wrong idea.
* Sentences are grammatically correct but conveys a correct idea.
* Sentences are grammatically correct but meaningless, worse than either correct or incorrect. The way "natural selection" was used doomed the origins debate to wasted ink the last 150 years. Around 1953 Chomsky probably became the first human to realize this. He didn't make a fuss over this because he love for his job overrode his love for the truth and thus went along with the sham. You see the primary issue isn't YEC or Atheism but being in your sane mind and then only adopting a world view in the context of meaningful sentence construction.
1) At http://bit.ly/gVwUAQ the poster wrote "...To evolve IC systems, Natural Selection must select variations based on what that part will do in the future, after the IC systems are put together....."
Lets rephrase this in terms of PD.
2) "...To evolve IC systems, Preferential Decision(Natural Selection) must select variations based on what that part will do in the future, after the IC systems are put together....."
Both Sentence 1) and 2) are grammatically correct but just as meaningless as 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously
Thus lets rephrase again for one possible but not neccassarily correct idea(It depends what the user of the objects decision, natural, selection is trying to convey. Whether his concept is correct or not or conflicts with your world view is irrelevant. In the context of this section what he actually intends is the issue not whether one might agree with it or not):
Lets rephrase this in terms of PD or NS:
3) "...To evolve IC systems, the Gaia nature selection force enacts a Preferential Decision(Natural Selection) for the variant based on what that part will do in the future, after the IC system is assembled by Lord Gaia ....."
Most users of the object NS won't intend 3) but all would agree that with 3) we can deduce the exact meaning the sentence is both grammatically correct and meaningful. Not so though with 1) and 2).
== Evolution ==
* Evolution1 Used by CharlesKingsley in his interpretation of Darwin(1863) in the "....absolute empire of accident...." or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness sense.
* Evolution2. The sentence "...the engineer evolved the bridge...." would be in the design sense as theists understand design from their PatternOrDesign dichotomy world view.
* Evolution3 would be the sense HoWard1, Wilkins and Dawkins uses it , they reject the PatternOrDesign dichotomy. HoWard1 would say "...the engineer evolved the bridge...." but means by that ".... designx is subset of patternx....." which could mean that all design is just "apparent design" because the mind is an illusion created by chemical reactions in the brain. Dawkins states that where some see design it actually apparant design. We could also say that some see a pattern whichis only an apparant pattern.
* Evolution4 - Wilkins uses natural , rarified , ordinary, non-complex and simple design (http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/PatternOrDesign#Wilkins_on_rarified_.2C_simple.2C_natural_design), whether in Evolution1 , Evolution2 or EvolutionNo idea what I am trying to sayisn't clear.
* Evolution5 Rejects 1 to 4.
* Evolution6a Evolutionist that accepts Evolution3 but rejects the multi-universe theory. Nick Keighley from the Wikipedia selection article thread.
* Evolution6b Evolutionist that accepts Evolution3 and accepts the multi-universe theory. RichardDawkins most probably.
* Evolution7a The Latin Evolvere sense which meant an unrolling action in the design sense. As in the carpet was unrolled by a person, intent, volition or will.
* Evolution7b The Latin Evolvere sense which meant an unrolling action in the pattern sense. As in the carpet unrolled by itself after a tornado struck.
* Evolution7c The Latin Evolvere sense which meant an unrolling action in the HoWard1 sense.
* Evolutionk Materialist who rejects the usage of subscripts and insists that words have actual meanings. Believes that meaning has a physical location. Most likely Dawkins, Wilkins, HoWard1
* Evolution8 Acquisition of new attributes that weren't in the previous generations(Adaptation).
* Evolution9 Expression of Ex nihilo created attributes that were either expressed or unexpressed in the previous generations.(Robot1). Expression must not be confused with acquisition, like your condition of existence isn't the same thing as your position(location) of existence. In Gould's book Wonderful life he equivocates between condition and location. 
EvolVere - Ontology or history of the word must be explored. At http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology#What_does_Common_Ancestor_mean.3F Wilkins stated that if you read RichardDawkins you are "...guaranteed to get it wrong..." , thus we should subdivide Evolution3 into Evolution3a and Evolution3b. We have hundreds of Aristotelians at universities using the symbol evolution, what they mean though could be anything.
From a YEC theist perspective there is only a pattern(Evolution1) or design(Evolution2) distinction. He believes it like he believes the sun is shining and can't therefore be expected to "suspend" his religious metaphysical beliefs and enter HumptyDumpty space when engaging with non-theists. The theist and non-theist inhabit separate language realities, but the non-theist are using symbols such as evolution, selection which before 1859 was used by theists to project their world view in terms of a pattern(Evolution1) or design(Evolution2) dichotomy. With the result that it has become impossible to determine what YEC, ID and atheist apollogetics movements are trying to say.
DavidBerlinski, Ken Ham, Dembski and Dawkins are deriving substantial revenue from books and seminars making it a disincentive to clarify what they mean with tautology, selection, design and evolution, since the words themselves have no meaning. A great way to make money from selling books is to have the YEC, ID and Atheist side never define their terms so one can't say whether either side was right or wrong after finishing "The design inference" by Dembski, resulting in the searching soul buying yet another book such as "The Devils delusion" by DavidBerlinski or "The God delusion" by Dawkins.
The evolutionists3 of today characterize CharlesKingsley, JohnBurroughs and HenryFairfieldOsborn as not being "true evolutionists" or not understanding the concept, which is the No True Scotsman fallacy. These early authors around the time of Darwin were type evolutionists1. They still had some vague notion that man descended from something with long teeth and a tail after a battle for survival , but their argumentation scheme is rejected today by evolutionists3.
Their argument might have been erroneous but they were still evolutionistsx. From Gandalf the wizard,Sumerian pagans, Empedocles, Aristotle , New York times - NyTimesNaturalSelection, Economist - TautologiesInEconomist right up to RichardDawkins they all employ the same TauTology3 argumentation narrative within a fire/water, ying/yang battle for survival dichotomy in science, sociology, economics, spirituality , religion and politics. Any conclusion from such whether Evolution1 , 2 or 3 is a non-sequitur. Evolutionary process, Evolvability, Developmental plasticity, phenotypic accommodation, selection, natural are but an ever expanding lexicon of symbol salad that enables the Sumerian pagan mythology to embedded into whatever would be the latest discoveries, because the Aristotelian type TauTology3 narrative was formulated in such a way that it could explain everything past, present and future. This includes genes as a cybernetic abstraction or physical molecule. See George Gilder
"phenotypic accommodation" are quasi-intellectual, pseudo-sophisticated weasel words used to represent the same Aristotelian tautological banality for a different era. Many scientists have two religious belief systems one on Sunday at church and the other one on Monday and they tunnel through a semantic wormhole between the two by invoking the HumptyDumpty principle. Trouble with this is that the Lord Jesus Christ will remove their names from the book of life if they invoke the HumptyDumpty principle their religion is futile, God demands that one have consistent belief system on Sunday and Monday when writing that journal paper. If you want to go to heaven your academic career is over even before it started. Your decision is between your immortal soul and inserting "natural selection" into that paper on transition matrices in the biophysics journal. The Evolution3 adherents don't care what you believe on Sunday as long you write that the transition matrix that maps polypeptide space into frog space got naturaled on Monday. (VerbingNouns). In the same manner it was allowed for the early Xtians to worship Christ as long as they also said "Caesar is Lord".
The denial of faith is much more subtle today. Xtians are expected to write that paper in terms of the Atomist dichotomy sense. All facets from mathematics like Conway's "Game of Life" are presented in this manner.
=== Evolution or Derivation 1874 ===
p.150 from Charles Hodge What is Darwinism
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19192/19192-h/19192-h.htm#Footnote_34_34
There is another significant fact which goes[Pg 150] to prove that the denial of design, which is the "creative idea" of Darwinism, is the main cause of its popularity and success. Professor Owen, England's greatest naturalist, is a derivationist. Derivation and evolution are convertible terms. Both include the denial that species are primordial, or have each a different origin; and both imply that one species is formed out of another and simpler form. Professor Owen, however, although a derivationist, or evolutionist, is a very strenuous anti-Darwinian. He differs from Darwin as to two points. First, as to Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest. He says that is inconsistent with facts and utterly insufficient to account for the origin of species. He refers the origin of species to an inherent tendency to change impressed on them from the beginning. And second, he admits design. He denies that the succession and origin of species are due to chance, and expresses his belief in the constant operation of creative power in the formation of species from the varied descendants of more generalized forms.[48] He believes "that all living things have been produced by such law (of variation) in time, their[Pg 151] position and uses in the world having been preordained by the Creator."[49] Professor Owen says he has taught the doctrine of derivation (evolution) for thirty years, but it attracted little attention. As soon, however, as Darwin leaves out design, we have a prairie-fire. A prairie-fire, happily, does not continue very long; and while it lasts, it burns up little else than stubble.
There are four points discussed by Hodge, see Popper for the others.
=== Evolutionary processes ===
The Arsitotelians have an ever expanding lexicon as with the bulleted terms. But because words and terms don't have any meaning(SentencesHaveNoMeaning) they are but different symbols to represent a concept in either the PatternOrDesign sense. 
* Evolutionary process-x Force , mechanism or process. 
* Evolutionary principlex Principle , mechanism or process? 
* Evolvabilityx 
* Developmental plasticityx 
* phenotypic accommodationx 
* genetic accommodationx 
* Punctuated evolutionx Confuses a perception of scale with mechanism 
* Phenotypic innovationx Who did the innovatingx? 
* facilitated variationx - Who did the facilitatingx? 
* Epigeneticx 
* Inheritancex 
* multi-level selectionx 
== Design ==
* Design1 Design in the pattern sense
* Design2 Design in the theist PatternOrDesign dichotomy sense
* Design3 Design in the Evolution3 sense.
=== Gift ===
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology#Tautology
* Gift1 Unreserved as in Greek type Agape love gift. The sense John 3:16 would use gift or gave.
* Gift2 Bundled with expectation of reciprocating behavior. Love in the Greek Phile sense.
* Gift3 Other
* Gift4 Other
=== ToE ===
The much used term Theory of evolution which redirects to 'Evolution' on wikipedia. YEC, atheists and ID are suffering from a form of mental illness. The more one asks them to state what theory2 where by whom the less they can explain what the theory2 is. Hundreds of millions of people from all world views have been brainwashed to either refute or defend some concept called ToE but nobody can tell us what exactly this theory is. Society is suffering from a deep mental malaise. It like imagine an argument over whether X+Y = Z but never being informed as to the values of X and Y, the question can't be confirmed nor denied: this is where the debate should have stopped. But YEC,ID ,materialists have been conned into refuting or defending something which isn't defined. The only thing worse that having a debate about something which is demonstrably wrong is debating something which until it is defined isn't even wrong:
we have a false dichotomy between defending or refuting the ToEx. The third option is that there doesn't exist a theory2 of evolutionx is seemingly never considered by Dawkins, AiG and http://www.uncommondescent.com
ID: ID has refuted the ToE.
reply: What theory exactly?
ID: mmmh u,. mmmmh u well you know the 'Theory of evolution', the one at Wikipedia.
reply: There is no entry for ToE or 'theory_of_evolution' on wikipedia, it doesn't exist. What is the 
theory that explains the transition matrix that maps poly-peptide space into frog space?
ID: Well, you know the ToE.
reply: Darwin couldn't do math how did he solve a problem he couldn't define. 
and so the farce from Dembski, AIG, Ken Ham, Dawkins and Berlinski continues. Lets try and bring society back from the brink of Scientology type induced mental illness with subscripts.
* ToE1 The first usage of the symbol string "theory of evolution" by Darwin in OoS third edition around 1861 I think. He only used the term twice in the entire book because he objected to the theistic implications understood back then in that social , semantic context that God was a prime mover. The knowledge and premise context with both ToE and NS by Charles Darwin in 1861 was within Robert Chambers VesTiges(1844) which was influenced by Fletcher's rudiments of physiology. Fletcher's work was quoted in the Scottish Journal of Medicine. He fabricated embryonic stages and his fraud was lifted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Haeckel . Darwin believed in Aristotle's concept of "internal spontaneity" or 'spontaneous generation' , encapsulating this with the term NS.
* ToE2 The absolute empire of accident sense as CharlesKingsly used it back in in 1863.
* ToE3 Modern day atheist university professor usage, no idea what they are talking about.
* ToE4 Vatican stated that there are many theories of evolution. This is not a falsifiable view2 because one can't disprove a negative. On mars there might be five hidden invisible dragons, one can't prove that there isn't any. The Vatican should cite a single paper explaining how nothing turned into something via a mechanism we can't define , that would be a bold falsifiable paper.
=== Theory ===
* theory1 Darwin's type theories which he stated can't be in doubt.
* theory2 Popper falsification. Falsifiable theories are always in doubt. A theory is in terms of a defined problem description. With biology the problem is that Life itself isn't defined within materialist premises as Prof.Cleland from NASA pointed out in article in seed magazine. One can't solve a problem that isn't even defined. Language Himself(Christ) , 2000 years ago said: I am Life.
=== Fitness ===
Word used by PierreMaupertuis 1759, Treviranus and Spencer 1851. A reader in 1858 undestood "Fitness" as a synonym for suitability or in equilibrium(Herbert Spencer) as in somebody being suitable for marriage. 
Neither Darwin nor Spencer could do calculus, their idea had nothing to do with algorithms or "fitness functions". Today in machine learning, involving advanced calculus the same word is used but not the same idea. Spencer could not have solved a problem he couldn't define. Fitness is a good example of materialist tying themselves up in a semantic knot: Etymological_fallacy,Polysemy, Equivocation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquinas had a belief in "spontaneous generation" which he got from the works of Aristotle.
Fitness is another word for Aristotle's concept of "internal spontaneity". Chamber's VesTiges and Fletcher's Rudiments of physiology described experiments where spiders magically poofed into existence on the ends of battery terminals. It was in this speculative context , that "fitness" was used. The concepts have changed from 1759, but the same word is used, leading to a mental health problem in society as they assign an actual meaning to 'fitness'.
* Fitness1 Aristotle's concept of "internal spontaneity"
* Fitness2 PierreMaupertuis 1759 used Fitness for the same Aristotelian concept.
* Fitness3 Spencer(1851) concept of "suitability" in a social, culture context such as suitability for marriage.
* Fitness4 LuCretius(50 BC) - "...combats the notion that the constitution of nature has been ... determined by Intelligent Design. The inter-action of the atoms throughout infinite time rendered all manner of combinations possible. Of these the fit ones persisted, while the unfit ones disappeared...." interpreted 1874 by JohnTyndall. In other words LuCretius meant "..... those with internal spontaneity persisited, while those without spontaneity disappeared. It was this same "spontaneity" or "fitness" that Fletcher and Chamber's invoked in their writings about spiders spontaneisly coming into existence.
* Fitness5 2010 , Huge confusion, nobody knows what is going on. Berlinksi wrote in Black Mischief ".... if pigs had wheels mounted on ball bearings instead of trotters, on what scale of porcine fitness would they be...? " Aristole's used "internal spontaneity" more in a type of Yin_and_yang dichotomy sense.
* Fitness6 Increase in informational attributes, that weren't previously there, via PatrickMatthew, JamesHutton natural means of competitive selection, which Darwin(Charles Hodge contracted to they oxymoron natural selection. 
* Fitness7 Expression of Behe's front-loaded information, 100mil years down the line, there was no increase in information when the elephant developed from an ancestor , becoming a different species. 
* Fitness8 All organisms only express their attributes(Robot1), they don't adapt or add information. 
Definitions: Some definitions in text books.
:Fitness is defined as the genetic contribution of an individual to succeeding generations, relative to the contributions of other individuals in the population (Raven & Johnson, 1992).
Notes: Replace "genetic contributions here " with "atoms" to trace back this sentence to the Atomists.
rephrase: :Fitness is defined as the good atoms contribution to succeeding atoms, relative to the contributions of the bad atoms in the population of atoms.
== Language ==
* Language1 In the sense that consciousness is a chemical reaction in the brain. They assign actual meanings to words. Can't explain where the number 7 will be when the last conscious being dies.
* Language2 Information is neither matter nor energy YEC view. Words have no meaning only ideas have meaning. Such ideas must be in either the axiomatic - mechanistic, pattern-design, synonym - antonym sense etc.
* Language3 Information is neither matter nor energy ID view.
== Information ==
* Information1 In the sense that meaning,information are bound to the atoms spinning in ones head.
* Information2 Information is neither matter nor energy, it is a condition of existence that has no physical
location. Symbols represent information, they don't constitute it. YEC, ID view.
== John Wilkin's usage of 'design' ==
* natural design3
* rarified design3
* ordinary design3
* non-complex design3
* simple design3
== The symbol Selection(which has no meaning) ==
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF011_1.html
* Natural selection (Darwin meant natural preservation1 - EpiCurus)
* Artificial selection3 or should that be 2?
* Unconscious selection (OoS)
* Blind selection Kenneth Miller says NS is blind
* Stupid selection Selectionx that is blind and also stupid
* Non-Stupid selection Selectionx that is blind but not stupid
* Principle of Finality (OoS)
* Cumulative selection x
* Single-step selection x
* Group selection
* Chance selection
* Random selection
* Selection at random
* Strong selection
* Weak selection
* natural selection3
* rarified selection3
* ordinary selection3
* non-complex selection3
* simple selection3
== Natural Selection acts ==
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/EpiCurus#Darwin_on_natural_selection_acts
* acts1 pattern or absolute empire of accident sense As in: the tornado acted on the house destroying it. Tornado's don't have intent even though 'acted' was used.
* acts2 Design sense within the PatternOrDesign view The engineer acted on the boat, molding it.
== Environment ==
* environment1 Physical location.
* environment2 Condition of existence , mental state, no physical location. You are not adapted to your condition of existence because it is already described by your attributes, neither can you be better adapted.
== Aristotelian ==
* Aristotelian1 As Wilkins would use it, yet to be defined.
* Aristotelian2 Pending, depends on whether an author is * Evolution5 etc.
* Aristotelian3 Proxy for rhetorical tautological arguments.
=== Random ===
* Random1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness
* Random2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sample
* Random3 ??
Lets take the common *semantic* understanding with the word "Random". Semantically its dictionary definition is without purpose. But since "random" has no meaning it could actually convey purpose depending on the intent. Under the rubric of "random" we have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sample and many more concepts.
Place five bags of marbles each labeled q,u,a,r,k respectively, with each bag containing all the letters of the alphabet. Do a "selection at random" or "probability selection" as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sample by placing your hand inside and selecting each marble until the target letter is met. The whole exercise is steering towards a purposeful goal.
The phrase selection at random represents design, volition or intent even though it has the word 'random' in it. 
An idea needs to be decoded as one uses the symbols "pattern" and "design" in their relevant contexts given the premise: Mind before matter or matter before mind. Either premise will forever be one of faith. http://raherrmann.com/ calls http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness a strong delusion. Pure randomness doesn't exist in mathematics, it is a metaphysical position.
== Wikipedia evolution article ==
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_evolution#cite_note-Futuyma-0
"...Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations...."
Is change being used in the pattern or designs sense by Futuyama(2005) who was given as the citation. Why isn't Darwin being referenced with his usage of evolution in the "...absolute empire of accident ...."
=== Self-organization ===
Even self-organization can but only represent a concept in the order/disorder, design/pattern and cause/effect sense. Either the universe made itself or it was made.
".....Gould also specifically pointed out an error in the use of the term "polyploidy"; stated that Johnson incorrectly refers to Otto Schindewolf as a saltationist, "attacks" outdated statements of Simpson and Mayr; fails to point out that Henry Fairfield Osborn corrected his own mistake regarding Nebraska Man; and stated that Johnson overlooks "self-organizing properties of molecules and other physical systems" that, in Gould's opinion, makes the self-assembly of RNA or DNA plausible. Gould states that Darwinism's bringing together of "widely disparate information under a uniquely consistent explanation" implies that it is a successful theory, that amphibians have features that imply a "fishy past", and that the genealogical tree of Therapsida is a convincing example of macroevolution.[3]...
Were these "self-organizing" in the pattern or design sense? A pattern represnts itself , a design represents something other than itself.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=dubitable-darwin-why-some-smart-non-2010-07-06
If our past was improbable, our future might be as well. Recognizing this implication of evolutionary theory, some scientists have proposed alternative mechanisms to make life more robust. For example, biochemists such as Ilya Prigogine and Stuart Kauffman (cited by Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini) have postulated "self-organization" forces that made the origin of life and its subsequent history highly probable.
Other theorists have proposed that natural selection may favor not just genes or individuals but populations, species, even entire ecosystems. The most extreme version of this group-selection concept is Gaia theory, which holds that all of life somehow conspires to ensure its continued survival. Self-organization and Gaia are flawed theories that have won few adherents, but that doesn't mean that the problem they address doesn't exist.
== selection of rocks ==
Selection, modification, random, "selection at random" , random selection, probability sample, directed selection, non-random selection are all symbol strings, they are not concepts. Only a conscious being can have a concept and uses these symbol strings to encode his concept.
* 1) What happens happens.: There was a selection of rocks on the mountain after the earthquake. The earthquake had no intent to assemble an assortment or selection of rocks, the symbol string selection in this case isn't associated with consciousness.
* 2) The mountaineers assembled a selection of rocks to form a camp. Selection here conveys the concept of consciousness.
* 3) Outside there lies a selection of rocks. What this means depends on who says so Pragmatics. For example Peter could have placed a selection of rocks outside(design) or a storm could have dislodged a selection of rocks(pattern) from a mountain. The sentence would be just as meaningless as "You have a green light" if it isn't known who said so as per the Pragmatics article on Wikipedia.
* 3) Random selection or Selection at random - what is the difference? See http://bit.ly/19lJrY
See http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2007-12/msg04506.html for the concept John Harshman has with "selection". 
JH wrote: "......Selection does not implicitly denote intellegence....." Which is correct in the same way that "random" isn't always used in "what happens happens" sense as per http://bit.ly/19lJrY. The examples JH gave are in the sense of 1) - what will be, will be. The problem is that it isn't always clear in what context "selection" is being used or why it is being used at all because in 99% of cases "selectus or selection" is used to convey the concept of volition. Who did the selecting? - nobody then why are transmutationists using selection.
:Sam wrote: "...Get a jar of peanuts. Close your eyes and reach into the jar, selecting a peanut. You have now randomly selected a peanut! Don't they have bingo where you live? Or the lottery?..." which was addressed here http://bit.ly/19lJrY
== accumulation ==
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=51836&p=1171619#p1171619
LogosCalamus wrote:".....I use the word "accumulation" in preference to "selection". Accumulation does not imply intelligent choice. Selection is a good word to use if you believe god did it, or if there exist a mathematical patern. There are scientists, evolutionary humanists and evo-psychologists who debate the usefulness of "selection"....."
It depends what is your intent with "accumulation".
* A) There was an accumulation of sand over time on the mountain
* B) There was an accumulation of fish by the fishermen.
* C) See http://www.perrymarshallspeaks.com and http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/ for the pattern - design distinction.
A- is a pattern and B- is a design. You either have patterns or designs. There is no intent behind a pattern but a design always has an intent. "selection" implies a choice 99% of the time as per the "selection of rocks" example.
=== Random ===
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=73333
"...How does science, in particular evolutionary biology, define the
terms "random" and "non-random"? ...:"
SusuExp replies:
"...There are no hard definitions - which can be a problem. Random can mean stochastic (i.e. given the same innitial conditions, you can get different outcomes)
It can mean unformly distributed (i.e. all the outcomes are equally likely) It can mean centered (i.e. deviations from the expected value are equally likely to be above it as they are below it) It can mean symetrically distributed (i.e. f(E(f)+x)=f(E(f)-x))
In evolutionary biology it can mean uncorrelated to selection...."
=== What does Quark mean ? ===
In Atomic theory a quark is an invisibly small particle. In Germany it is a type of cheese. If you pick up blank paper in the street with only quark written on it, not know who wrote it, what would it mean(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics0? Phenotype, like quark has no meaning it can only symbolically represent an idea. In one context it is an acceptable synonym for "organism", in another it isn't clear what is being referred to because there are thousands of different ideas for which a few words are being used: Phenotype, fitness, genotype, meme, selection, preservation, retention, survival, common ancestor etc..
A rock only represents itself, in the same way "quark" spelt out with stones on a mountain, visible from the air only represents itself - it has no meaning. A rock might be a spherical rock, or triangular or square, placed side by side. Each square,triangular and square rock only represents itself, it remains a rock, it doesn't mean anything. By analogy make the shapes "q", "u" and "a", "r", "k" placed side by side chiseled out of a rock. And then place the spherical , triangular and square rocks side by side. What then is the meaning of the three rocks side by side? Individually they remain rocks, they only represent themselves, collectively they remain a cluster of rocks, round, square and triangular. But to signal sender and signal receiver they now symbolically represent "quark", which in turn only represents whatever you want to make it symbolically represent.
Lets map the spherical, round and triangular in our minds: round -> q, square -> u and triangular -> a and place these rocks side by side. They now symbolically represent another symbol which in turn represents an idea. What is the meaning then of a round,square or triangular rock? It has no meaning,it remains a rock, but it can be used to symbolically represent a meaning, with such a meaning being abstract , like the number 7 neither here nor there. The meaning has no physical location, like the environment we are in , or condition of existence, it isn't a geographical location.
One can't therefore point to the symbols "quark" laid out on the mountain and say they mean something in Atomic theory or means German cheese. Like a cluster of rocks they only represent their own shapes and matter, they mean nothing, but can be used to symbolically represent whatever idea one wishes - HumptyDumpty principle. In the same way the word "random" has no meaning, depending on the various contexts it is used either the idea of intention or no intention is represented. "Natural selection" and "Survival of the fittest" means nothing, the terms were symbolic representations of a "chance" concept by JohnBurroughs, CharlesKingsley and HenryFairfieldOsborn within their reference , cultural context and biases. Fisher used the term "Fundamental theorem of natural selection" within his advanced mathematics background , representing a different idea than Darwin because Darwin couldn't do mathematics.
Berlinski wrote: "....Natural selection as some sort of universal mechanism is just as implausible as a single differential equation explaining all of physics...." Remeber NS doesn't mean anything. It was coined as a proxy for the battle between atoms myth form the Summerian and Babilonian pagan religions taken over by Democritus. It brought in the battle between fire and water dichotomy into a Biblical based "protect the weak" society. The Summerian pagans from the US federal government forces all aspects of human activity from politics, sociology, physics and especially biology at univserity to present their findings in a "nature red in tooth and claw" manner with the term Natural selection. They will drop the term only if their mythology can be perpetuated under a different symbol. Thus the real reason why "natural selection" finds it way into mathematics (Darwin couldn't do math) , physics, cosmology is to force all scientific finding to be presented within this ancient Babilonian mythological world view.
Before the Berlin wall came down there were two types of judges the few deceived who actually believed the official state propaganda and the others who knew they were living a lie. Fodor, Chomsky, Wilkins and thousands of other academics know they are living and writing lies when using "natural selection" in their publications, but the free thinking human spirit at some point simply can't tolerate having to lie through his teeth for his doggy bag from the US Babillonian pagans every month. Fodor broke ranks because he has tenure, the others are cowering in fear knowing the job market out there is dead. Then we come to the fools who don't know that they were being used to perpetuate an ancient pagan religion under the term "natural selection" completely believing their own lies and deceit such as Danielle Dennette. Some are seeing the writing on the wall and hedging their bets, the situation has become intolerable and the Berlin wall built of seemingly impenetrable "natural selections" is coming down.
The confusion comes in that we have thousands of different concepts for which the same term "natural selection" is being used, with many insisting that their particular theory is the meaning of natural selection. But "natural selection", "natural preservation or natural retention" and "survival of the fittest" which Darwin insisted was a "better expression" like quark has no meaning, it can only symbolically represent an idea. To which idea is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection referring to? We don't know because there is no citation. It states that ".... natural selection is a key mechanism of evolution....." , which idea formulated by who with what background knowledge is a key mechanism of evolution , in terms of the transition matrix that maps polypeptide space into frog space?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
".....Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring chance mutations. It is one of two main arguments intended to support intelligent design, the other being specified complexity.[1] It is rejected by the scientific community,[2] which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3]..."
Which idea with "natural selection" is being referred to in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity article? Does X+Y = Z ? Who knows, without knowing what is X and Y the question can't be answered. Likewise we don't know what idea "natural selection" from the IC article is being represented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
"....Moreover, even cases where removing a certain component in an organic system will cause the system to fail do not demonstrate that the system couldn't have been formed in a step-by-step, evolutionary process......" CharlesKingsley's idea with an 'evolutionary process' was 'absolute empire of accident'. What concept did which editor have in mind with his symbol "...evolutionary process...."? Many authors say "Evolution doesn't happen by chance" which wasn't the same concept in 1863, why then is Darwin's terms being used.
Our minds consisting of grey matter, carbon atoms firing electrical impulses isn't where the real thought processes are being made, it symbolically represents the real you and will live for eternity when your matter turns to dust. Just like the idea of "7" has no physical location and the idea of "7" will never cease to exist, so your consciousness will live for ever. The idea of "7" existed from before time began and will only cease if consciousness ceases. If the last human dies tomorrow on this planet , will the idea of "7" cease to exist and if so then where exactly is the location of "7" ?
== What does Random mean? ==
Lets take the common *semantic* understanding with the word "Random". Semantically its dictionary definition is without purpose. But since "random" has no meaning it could actually convey purpose depending on the intent. 
Under the rubric of "random" we have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sample and many more concepts.
Place five bags of marbles each labeled q,u,a,r,k respectively, with each bag containing all the letters of the alphabet. Now do a "selection at random" or "probability selection" as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sample by placing your hand inside and selecting each marble until the target letter is met. The phrase "selection at random" now conveys design even though it has the word "random" in it. This demonstrates that no symbol either "selection", "pattern", "design" or "random" has any meaning, only ideas have meaning. And your idea needs to be decoded as you use the symbols "pattern" and "design" in their relevant contexts given your premise: Mind before matter or matter before mind. Either premise will forever be one of faith. http://raherrmann.com/ calls http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness a strong delusion. Pure randomness doesn't exist in mathematics, it is a metaphysical position.
== What it means to get naturaled from YEC ==
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/tree/browse_frm/thread/015c3069fc289984/60eedbbed97959a4?rnum=281&_done=%2Fgroup%2Ftalk.origins%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F015c3069fc289984%3F#doc_42b8b484fd88934c
Here is the confusion over what it means to get naturaled from the
creationists side, http://www.khouse.org/articles/2000/256/
"....Michael Behe has upset the comfort of the Darwinists by
highlighting a design attribute that he terms "irreducible
complexity." Consider, as an example, the familiar household mousetrap
in figure 2.
This simple device consists of five essential parts: (1) a platform
which holds (2) a hammer driven by (3) a spring when restrained by (4)
a holding bar until released by (5) a catch. This basic design has
defied attempts to simplify it further, or to reduce its complexity.
The significant feature is that with only four of the five parts one
cannot catch 4/5ths as many mice! Its function depends on each of its
essential elements, each of which involve substantial precision in
their specification. "Natural selection" cannot operate until there is
something to select from....."
"........"Natural selection" cannot operate until there is something
to select from....."
Is operate being used in the PatternOrDesign sense?
* The doctor couldn't operate until there were a patient to select from. operate used in the design sense
* The tornado couldn't operate until the air pressure system was right. this is a bit lame and incorrect example but hope you get the point
snuck
lear
Category:TauTology