Automated Selection

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/3c6713a1bb23d97e#

Natural selection has no meaning
--

Logical validities isn't a process
On Jul 21, 12:20 am, Bob Casanova  wrote:

> NS is a process, a *defined* process, not a "thing".

Wikipedia tells us "..... NS is the process by which things that are favorable become more common...." What process?

"... those favorable become more common..." isn't a process but a generalized implicitly assumed logical validity. By explicitly stating it, it became a truism from which any conclusion is a non-sequitur. Logical validity's aren't processes.

DARWIN SAID THE PRINCIPELE OF NS, wikipeidia says PROCESS. A process isn't a principle, but since words have have no menaing the author cold indeed have menat principel. thus WHO SAY NS ? What is the intended meanig.? Only humans can have intent, thus whcih human wiht what intent?

WIKIPEDIA LABELED A LOGICAL VALIDITY A PROCESS. It is no more a process than "what happens, happens" and 7=7 is a process.

It depends though who wrote that, because process the symbol like circle the symbol has no meaning. Usually we mean a "cause-effect" process like water causing soil erosion. Yes, we read the word "process" but words have no meaning,only the idea with the word "process" has meaning: Who wrote that sentence? Nobody of course, because it contains a generalized logical validity applicable in many contexts. In other words the opening paragraph is far worse than being wrong: Unless we are told who wrote that it isn't even wrong.

Asking the question who wrote ".... those favorable became more common ..." is like asking wrote ".... what happens, happens...." - nobody wrote that. They are like '7=7' axioms, validity's given to us by fiat, neither refutable nor verifiable.

The term NS thus was associated with a generalized logical validity allowing the term NS to be used in descriptive schemas from cosmology, physics, biology etc. Because all fields of scientific study, literature and art pivots on axioms or logical validity's. Natural selection was used a proxy for such logical validity's. But logical validity's aren't processes. Because NS has no meaning one was therefore allowed to say that ".... favorable becomes more common ...." is a natural selection. All this meant was that the symbol 'NS' was a proxy for an logical validity. Just like Circle doesn't mean round, so NS doesn't mean anything.

with the term natural selection we find ourselves in "semantic never-never land" because words have no meaning. IF you pick up a paper with only "what happens, happens" written on you wouldn't know whether it was a logical validity stated for its pedagogical usage or validity explicitly stated making the idea behind it a truism.

Wikipedia tells us that "...Natural selection is the process...." but wikipedia doesn't tell us who say so. You see somebody has to say so. My usage of "natural artificial selection" in the "preferential forced decision" sense had meaning because I StephanusR said so, thus making it so. Saying so makes it so, if nobody says so then there is no meaning.

Again I ask who says: Natural selection is the process - who is this person?

from post 40:
> === What is natural selection === > Articulett: > Evolution is NOT about randomness unless you mean "unpredictable"-- > but that doesn't help you understand it more. Evolution is about what > gets passed on and why-- that is "natural selection"-- and calling it > "random" has no explanatory power and confuses more than it clarifies. > Which is why creationists use it.

In the balls filtering example with the ever reducing holes that filters out variable size balls thrue each layer we are dealing with predictable unpredictability. We can predict which size ball will be filtered throug, a design process, but we can't predict which of the same size balls numbered 1 to 10 will be filtered out first.

Thus when Articulett wrote "...randomness unless you mean "unpredictable"...." , the meaning can't be decoded, the single word "unpredictable" doesn't help us discern the pattern or design sense in which her sentence is used. All prose, poetry and sentences can only be in either the patter or design sense. Did Articulett use "unpredictable" in the predictable unpredictability sense or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness sense?

post 40
add:

Berlinski wrote: Ns as some sort of universal mechanism is just as implausible as a single differential equation explaining all of physics.

post 23
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/3c6713a1bb23d97e#

Darwin used 'natural preservation' and 'natural selection' in the same chance sense. There is no property called 'fitness' of a cow because a cow is already described by its attributes.

must read susu reply to pattern design distinction

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7428&hilit=selected+stochastic&start=650

Susu wrote: "....Selection has been described as a stochastic process for more than 70 years and stating that selection is random is nothing more and nothing less than agreeing with the basic work that went into the modern synthesis, especially that by the original 3 - Wright, Fisher and Haldane...."

What is it with tautologies
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/d2d978d8cebb7a42/45d646fea00ea792#45d646fea00ea792

- -- http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/d2d978d8cebb7a42#