TauTology

TableOfContents

concept
(http://bit.ly/ds42t) A TAUTOLOGY IZ TE LABEL 4 SAYIN TEH SAME TING TWICE AN WUT DIS MEANZ CANT BE SEPARATD FRUM TEH PRAGMATICS OV TEH INDIVIDUAL. CONCLUSHUNS AS 2 WUT IT MEANZ 2 FORMULATE TEH SAME CONCEPT TWICE WILL GENERALLY EMINATE FRUM WHOMEVR IZ ARBITRATIN TEH PROPR PARSIN OV TEH WERDZ AT ISSUE. AN ELEMENT OV INTERPERSONAL POWR-DYNAMICS CAN INFUSE ITSELF INTO DEFINISHUNAL DEBATEZ. TEH EDITOR CAN LABEL SOMETHIN TAUTOLOGY SO AS 2 BETTR DISMIS TEH OPPOSISHUNS POSISHUN IF IT CONFLICTS WIF HIS WURLD VIEW. SAYIN TEH SAME TING TWICE TAKEZ ON VARYIN NUANCEZ EITHR FALLASHUS, LOGICALLY VALID OR POETIC:

* RHETORIC, PROPOSISHUNS. * LANGUAGE VERBOSITY, EXPRESHUNS, POETRY, LANGUAGE REDUNDANCY. * LOGICAL VALIDITY. * LOGICALLY VALID BUT UNINTENDD AN THUS LOGICAL TAUTOLOGY - HTTP://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/TAUTOLOGY_(LOGIC). * REPETISHUN OV TEH SAME IDEA IN DIFFERENT WERDZ. (HTTP://TAUTOLOGY.NET/) * IN LOGIC, TAUTOLOGY IZ PROPOSISHUN DAT IZ ALREADY TRUE BY DEFINISHUN, NOT CUZ OV ANY LOGICAL DEDUCSHUN. * USE OV AN EXTRA WERD IN FRASE OR SENTENCE WHICH UNNECESARILY REPEATS AN IDEA, EG TEH ANNUAL POETRY FESTIVAL IZ STAGD EVRY YER. * AN ARGUMENT IZ SED 2 BE TAUTOLOGY IF IT CANT BE FALSE. * SUM ARGUMENTS R FORMULATD SUCH DAT IT CUD BE CALLD TRUTHINES-TAUTOLOGY, IT FORMULATD SO DAT IT CANT BE DISPUTD, SOMEWHERE TWEEN TRUISM AN TAUTOLOGY.

A RHETORICAL TAUTOLOGY IZ DEFIND AS SERIEZ OV STATEMENTS DAT COMPRIZE AN ARGUMENT, WHEREBY TEH STATEMENTS R CONSTRUCTD IN SUCH WAI DAT TEH TRUTH OV TEH PROPOSISHUNS R GUARANTED OR DAT TEH TRUTH OV TEH PROPOSISHUNS CANT BE DISPUTD BY DEFININ TURM IN TERMS OV ANOTHR SELF REFERENTIALLY: IT SEZ TEH SAME TING TWICE OR REPEATS TEH SAME CONCEPT USIN WERDZ OR TERMS IN DA SYNONYMOUS SENSE. TEH ARGUMENT IZ FORMULATD IN SUCH WAI DAT IT CANT BE REFUTD. STORY IN DA NEW YORK TIEMS ISNT CONFIRMD BY READIN IT TWICE AN NEITHR IZ WURLD VIEW CONFIRMD BY EXPRESIN IT MULTIPLE WAYS.

CONSEQUENTLY TEH STATEMENT CONVEYS NO USEFUL INFORMASHUN REGARDLES OV ITZ LENGTH OR COMPLEXITY MAKIN IT UNFALSIFIABLE. IT FORMULATIN DESCRIPSHUN IN WAI DAT MASQUERADEZ AS AN EXPLANASHUN WHEN TEH REAL REASON 4 DA FENOMENA CANT BE INDEPENDENTLY DERIVD. TEH STATEMENT "IF U CANT FIND SOMETHIN (DAT U LOST), U R NOT LOOKIN IN DA RITE PLACE" IZ TAUTOLOGICAL. IT TRUE AN CANT BE DISPUTD, BUT CONVEYS NO USEFUL INFORMASHUN. AS FYSICAL EXAMPLE, 2 PULAY GAME OV DARTS WER TEH DART BORD WUZ FULL OV BULLS-EYEZ CUD BE CALLD "TAUTOLOGICAL" GAME. TEH PLAYR WUD NOT LOSE. ANY ARGUMENT CONTAININ TAUTOLOGY IZ FLAWD AN MUST BE CONSIDERD LOGICALFALLACY.

A TAUTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT IZ NOT AN ARGUMENT; TAUTOLOGICAL GAME IZ NOT GAME. MATHEMATICAL EQUASHUNS, SUCH AS E = MC2, R NOT TAUTOLOGIEZ. TEH TERMS ON BOTH SIDEZ OV TEH EQUASHUN R DEFIND ELSEWHERE INDEPENDENTLY. TEH EQUAL SIGN DOEZ NOT MEEN "IZ DEFIND BY" BUT RATHR EQUAL 2, ESTABLISHIN AN EQUIVALENCE. IT DOESNT DEFINE WAN TURM IN TURMS OV ANOTHR. ACCELERASHUN AN MAS INDEPENDENTLY DOAN EQUAL FORCE BUT THEIR PRODUCT MA AS DERIVD BY NEWTON DOEZ, HENCE TEH EQUASHUN F=MA ISNT TAUTOLOGY. TEH SECOND LAW RELATEZ AN EXTERNAL INFLUENCE, TEH FORCE, 2 TEH ACCELERASHUN OV AN OBJECT IN SPACE AN TIEM, IT ISNT TAUTOLOGICAL STATEMENT,THEY R INDEPENDENTLY MEASURABLE.

A TAUTOLOGY CANT BE FALSIFID SIMPLY CUZ IT JUS TAUTOLOGY. ALL DAT CAN BE DUN IZ 2 NON VERIFY IT. NON VERIFICASHUN IZ NOT EQUIVALENT 2 REFUTASHUN. (HTTP://GROUPS.GOOGLE.COM/GROUP/SCI.BIO.EVOLUSHUN/BROWSE_THREAD/THREAD/EA6CB92232F2E69C/E49F197B34B00632?Q=ARISTOTLE+OR+TAUTOLOGY#E49F197B34B00632)

X=X CUD BE LOGICAL VALIDITY,MATHEMATICAL REDUNDANCY OR LOGICAL TAUTOLOGY DEPENDIN ON TEH HTTP://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/PRAGMATICS OR MOTIV BEHIND IT. THAR IZ NO LANGUAGE WITHOUT MOTIV. TRUISM IZ TRUE BY DEFINISHUN, IT NOT TAUTOLOGY BUT CAN BE REFORMULATD IN TAUTOLOGICAL MANNR IN ORDR 2 DISGUIZE TEH TRUISTIC NACHUR OV TEH ORIGINAL STATEMENT AN UNDERLYIN PREMISEZ. TEH DIVIDIN LINE TWEEN TRUISM AN AN OBSERVASHUN IZ PRAGMATICS. NEITHR IZ BEGGIN TEH QUESHUN TAUTOLOGY. TRUISM IZ EMBEDDD INSIDE AN ARGUMENT IN AN ATTEMPT 2 DISGUIZE DAT TEH CONCLUSHUN BASD ON TEH ARGUMENTS CORE IZ NON_SEQUITUR_(LOGIC) NON SEQUITUR (LOGIC). TEH SUN SHINEZ IZ AN OBSERVASHUN, IT BECOMEZ TRUISM IF USD IN AN ARGUMENT 2 INFLUENCE TEH HEARR 2 COME 2 CONCLUSHUN WHICH DOESNT FOLLOW LOGICALLY FRUM TEH CORE OV TEH ARGUMENT.

TEH TRUISM IN SUCH CASE SHUD BE CONSIDERD RED HERRIN (LOGICAL FALLACY) AN IRRELEVANT PIECE OV TRIVIA EMPLOYD AS RHETORICAL SMOKE SCREEN. TAUTOLOGIEZ, CIRCULARREASONIN AN TRUISMS R USD TOGETHR AS RHETORICAL DEVICE IN DECEPTIV ATTEMPT 2 ARGUE 4 VIEW IF IT ISNT POSIBLE 2 INDEPENDENTLY ESTABLISH TEH REAL REASON 4 DA VIEWPOINT ELSEWHERE. TEH SEEMIN COMPLEXITY OV SUCH AN ARGUMENT MITE COMEZ ACROS AS WELL REASOND BUT IZ RLY JUS TEH ARTICULASHUN OV WURLD VIEW DAT CANT BE FALSIFID.

RHETORICAL TAUTOLOGIEZ R SYNONYMOUS PULAY WIF WERDZ DAT ALLUDEZ 2 TEH SAME FACT BUT IN DOIN SO PREZINTS ITSELF AS AN EXPLANASHUN GIVIN TEH ILLUSHUN OV UNCOVERIN TEH AKSHUL REASON 4 DA OBSERVASHUN. AN EXAMPLE OV DIS WUD BE TEH FOLLOWIN PROPOSISHUN:

* FAVORABLE TRAITS BECOME MOAR COMMON AN UNFAVORABLE TRAITS BECOME LES COMMON.

TEH WERD FAVORABLE AN TEH TURM MOAR COMMON SEZ TEH SAME TING TWICE, WHICH DOESNT TELL US TEH AKSHUL REASON TEH TRAITS BECOME MOAR COMMON. DIS AR TEH ILLUSTRATD WIF 2 QUESHUNS:

* OTHR THAN NOTIN TEH TRAITS BECAME MOAR COMMON HOW WUZ THEIR FAVORABILITY MEASURD? * OTHR THAN NOTIN TEH TRAITS WUZ FAVORABLE HOW WUZ THEIR CAPACITY 2 INCREASE MEASURD?

TEH ARGUMENT IZ FORMULATD IN SUCH WAI DAT IT CANT BE REFUTD. FURTHERMORE TEH UNDERLYIN PREMIZE AN WERD VIEW OV TEH FORMULATOR MUST BE QUESHUND CUZ IT MITE CONTAIN CIRCULARITY, FALSEDICHOTOMIEZ,RETROSPECTIVESPECIFICASHUN WIF TEH TAUTOLOGY AN ATTEMPT 2 DISGUIZE THEES UNDERLYIN LOGICAL FALLACIEZ. WUT HE ASSUMEZ 2 BE TEH TRUTH WILL CAST DIFFERENT LIGHT ON TEH SENTENCE DEN ANOTHR PERSON WIF DIFFERENT WURLD VIEW CUZ THAR IZ NO LANGUAGE WITHOUT MOTIV AN NO SENTENCE HAS SINGLE TRUE MEANIN, TEH SENTENCE MUST BE INTERPRETD WITHIN TEH PERSONS PRAGMATICS. IF KAT WALKD OVAR KEYBORD AN BY RANDOM LUCK TYPD OUT TEH SENTENCE IT WUD HAS NO MEANIN. IDENTIFY TAUTOLOGY

IDENTIFY TEH TERMS IN SENTENCE OR PASAGE USD IN DA SYNONYMOUS SENSE. TAEK ANY OV THEES TERMS OR WERDZ AN REFORMULATE TEH SENTENCE AS QUESHUN IN TERMS OV TEH OTHR WERD. DIS WILL SHOW WHETHR TEH TERMS OR WERDZ SEZ TEH SAME TING TWICE. CIRCULAR REASONIN ISNT TAUTOLOGY BEGGIN TEH QUESHUN ASSUMEZ TEH PREMIZE IN DA CONCLUSHUN, SUCH AS TIKTAALIK. HOW DOEZ WAN KNOE WHETHR HE HAD KIDZ OR NOT, IF HE HAD NO OFFSPRIN, HOW CUD HE BE TEH ANCESTOR OV ANYBODY? CIRCULAR REASONIN ISNT SAYIN TEH SAME TING TWICE. GOULDZ PUNKEEK CONFUSEZ TEH ISSUE, IT DEALS WIF PERCEPSHUN OV SCALE BUT DOESNT ESCAPE TEH CIRCULARITY OV TEH ARGUMENT.

Is a tautology true by definition?
IS TAUTOLOGY DEFIND AS SOMETHIN WHICH IZ TRUE BY DEFINISHUN? DIS DEPENDZ WUT IZ MEANT WIF "TAUTOLOGY", NO WERD HAS SINGLE TRUE MEANIN AS PER HTTP://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/PRAGMATICS. THAR R RANGE OV CONCEPTS 4 WHICH WAN WERD WILL NOT SUFFICE PARTICULARLY IN DA ENGLISH LANGUAGE, GREEK IN CONTRAST HAS SINGLE WERDZ WIF SINGLE MEANIN SUCH AS AGAPE. RHETORICAL TAUTOLOGY INVOLVEZ DECEITFUL ATTEMPT AT PERSUASHUN. TAUTOLOGICAL EXPRESHUNS R USD IN POETRY. TEH LOGICAL VALIDITY X = X CUD ALSO BE RHETORICAL TAUTOLOGY OR TAUTOLOGICAL PROPOSISHUN IF USD IN DIFFERENT CONTEXT SUCH AS: X=X AN THEREFORE MONKEY GAEV BIRF 2 HOOMAN(NON_SEQUITUR_(LOGIC)).

IT DEPENDZ ON TEH CONTEXT IN WHICH TERMS AN WERDZ R USD BY SIGNAL SENDR AN HOW SIGNAL RECEIVR DECODEZ IT. IN COMPUTR GENERATD THEOREM VERIFICASHUN TEH IDEA IZ 2 AVOID LOGICAL TAUTOLOGIEZ SUCH AS X=X SINCE DIS AR TEH NOT RESULT 2 BE OBTAIND. TEH RESULT WUD BE LOGICALLY VALID BUT UNINTENDD AN THUS LOGICAL TAUTOLOGY( HTTP://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/TAUTOLOGY_(LOGIC)) IF X=X IZ GENERATD IT ASSUMD DAT TEH SET THEORIST WUZ NOT TRYIN 2 DECEITFULLY CONVINCE OTHERS OV HIS WURLD VIEW, HENCE LOGICAL TAUTOLOGY AN NOT RHETORICAL TAUTOLOGY. OBVIOUSLY X=X BUT WHEN TUTORIN ENTRY LEVEL ALGEBRA X=X MITE NOT BE SO OBVIOUS AN TEH LOGICAL VALIDITY OV X=X NEEDZ 2 BE GRASPD AS LOW LEVEL CONCEPT. X=X IN WAN CONTEXT SEZ TEH SAME TING TWICE IN ORDR 2 CONVINCE OV WURLD VIEW WHICH IZ NON_SEQUITUR. IN ANOTHR CONTEXT AFFIRMS IT AS LOGICAL VALIDITY 4 ITZ PEDAGOGICAL USE AN IN ANOTHR CONTEXT IZ LOGICAL VALIDITY BUT NOT INTENDD(LOGICAL TAUTOLOGY).

JOHNWILKINS CONFUSEZ THEES SUBTLETIEZ BY DEFININ TAUTOLOGY:".... SOMETHIN WHICH IZ DEFIND AS BEAN TRUE BY DEFINISHUN..." DUE 2 HIS PARTICULAR WURLD VIEW AN HIS REALIZASHUN DAT SURVIVALOFTHEFITTEST BY HTTP://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/GOTTFRIED_REINHOLD_TREVIRANUS, BUFFON AN SPENCR WUZ TAUTOLOGICAL PROPOSISHUN. C JOHNWILKINS 4 HIS POST ON DIS ISSUE. THAR R THREADZ BY WILKINS ON USENET TALK.ORIGINS DEALIN WIF TEH HTTP://WWW.TALKORIGINS.ORG TAUTOLOGY ARTICLE DAT HE WROTE WER HE STATD DAT TEH ARTICLE IZ OUT OV DATE, AN NEEDZ 2 BE REWRITTEN.

X=X AN WUT HAPPENS, HAPPENS R TRUE BY DEFINISHUN BUT WUT IZ TEH CONTEXT IN WHICH IT USD OR TEH PRAGMATICS? TEH ISSUE ISNT TEH SEMANTIC DEFINISHUN OV WERD BUT TEH MULTIPLE CONCEPTS DAT CAN BE SPEEKD WIF WERDZ SUCH AS 4 EXAMPLE "RANDOM,SELECSHUN, ACCUMULASHUN ETC.", WHICH ELSEWHERE IN DIS DOCUMENT IZ SHOWN 2 BE ABLE 2 BE USD IN BOTH TEH VOLISHUNAL AN NON-VOLISHUNAL SENSE. THAR R 5 GREEK WERDZ 4 LUV: AGAPE, FILE, EROS. AGAPE IZ USD IN DA NEW TESTAMENT 2 DESCRIBE CEILIN CATS LUV 4 MAN. EROS MEANZ SEKSUAL LUV AN ISNT USD IN DA NEW TESTAMENT.

IN ENGLISH TEH CONTEXT OR PRAGMATICS WIF TEH WERD "LUV" DETERMINEZ WUT IZ MEANT BY SIGNAL SENDR 2 SIGNAL RECEIVR. TEH NEO-ARISTOTELIANZ, -NEO-EMPEDOCLIANZ (NOT EVOLUSHUNISTS, WERD COIND BY DARWIN IN OOS) R EXPLOITIN TEH ENGLISH LANGUAGE 2 HIDE WUT THEY MEEN BY WERDZ SUCH AS SELECSHUN(HOO DID TEH SELECTIN?),MODIFICASHUN(HOO DID TEH MODIFYIN) ACCUMULASHUN, EVOLUSHUN ETC: WUT WILL BE , WILL BE. THEIR PREMIZE IZ TEH RETROSPECTIVESPECIFICASHUN FALLACY: WIDELY HELD PREMIZE IZ TEH MULTI-UNIVERS THEORY,OUT OV BILLIONS OV POSIBLE UNIVERSEZ WE WUZ TEH WAN DAT HAPPEND 2 BE IN EXISTENCE, BUT TEH SAMPLE SPACE IZ AKSHULLY 2: EITHR WE EXIST OR WE DOAN.

* X=X, AN THEREFORE MONKEY GAEV BIRF 2 HOOMAN(NON_SEQUITUR) - RHETORICAL TAUTOLOGY OR FALLASHUS. * X=X, IN AN ENTRY LEVEL CLAS ON ALGEBRA STATD 4 ITZ PEDAGOGICAL USE - LOGICAL VALIDITY AN NOT FALLASHUS. * X=X, IN COMPUTR THEOREM VERIFICASHUN, BUT UNINTENDD RESULT - LOGICAL TAUTOLOGY AN NOT FALLASHUS. * X=X, JOKINGLY SED BY WAN SET THEORIST 2 ANOTHR - TAUTOLOGICAL EXPRESHUN AN NOT FALLASHUS. * X=X RANDOM PAPR PICKD UP IN DA STREET WUT IT MEEN? IT DEPENDZ ON HOO SED X = X - HTTP://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/PRAGMATICS. AN TEH SAME GOEZ 4 NACHURAL SELECSHUN WHICH LIEK U HAS GREEN LIGHT HAS NO SINGLE TRUE MEANIN. * 4=3, RANDOM PAPR PICKD UP IN DA STREET MEANZ WUT? WITHOUT KNOWIN HOO WROTE IT ISNT EVEN WRONG.

TEH SUBTLETIEZ AN NUANCEZ OV WUT IT MEANZ 2 SAY TEH SAME TING TWICE CANT BE SEPARATD FRUM HTTP://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/PRAGMATICS. TEH EDITORS OV HTTP://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/TAUTOLOGY_(RHETORIC) REFUSE 2 INCORPORATE HTTP://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/PRAGMATICS WIF IT DUE 2 THEIR ARISTOTELIAN, EMPEDOCLIAN AN EPICURIAN WURLD VIEW. DIS WURLD VIEW OV ATOMS FIGHTIN ON ANOTHR WIF TEH BEST ATOM SURVIVIN HAS BEEN RETOLD 4 MODERN MAN AS TEH BATTLE TWEEN ORGANISMS, RESULTIN IN AN UNFALSISFIABLE TALE CUZ IF TEH DINGBAT WON INSTEAD OV TEH WOMBAT WE WUD BE TOLD TEH SAME STORY.TAUTOLOGIEZ FRUM ARISTOTLE, EMPEDOCLEZ, JAMEZ HUTTON AN HENRY F. OSBORN

"...TEH IDEA OV TEH SURVIVAL OV TEH FITTEST MUST AKSHULLY BE TRACD BAK 2 EMPEDOCLEZ, 6 SENTURIEZ BEFORE CHRIST....", P.117 FRUM TEH GREEKZ 2 DARWIN BY HENRYFAIRFIELDOSBORN. HTTP://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/GOTTFRIED_REINHOLD_TREVIRANUS AN BUFFON COIND SOF AN SPENCR LIFTD IT FRUM THEM.

EMPEDOCLEZ-(600BC) "...DOSE ANIMALS PERISHD IMMEDIATELY, 4 THEY WUZ NOT FITTD 2 LIV, AN ONLY DOSE RANDOM COALISHUNS OV ELEMENTS WHICH WUZ FITTEST 2 LIV SURVIVD, AN CONTINUE 2 SURVIV TODAI...." HTTP://WWW.HYPATIA-LOVERS.COM/ANCIENTGREEKZ/SECSHUN12.HTML

ARISTOTLE - "....THINGS APPROPRIATELY CONSTITUTD WUZ PRESERVD AN THINGS NOT APPROPRIATELY CONSTITUTD PERISHD...."

DEMOCRITUS - "...DOSE IN HARMONY MAINTAIND THEMSELVEZ, WHILE TEH UNFIT DISAPPEAR... "

LUCRETIUS(JOHNTYNDALL-1874) - "...COMBATS TEH NOSHUN DAT TEH CONSTITUSHUN OV NACHUR HAS BEEN ... DETERMIND BY INTELLIGENT DESIGN. TEH INTR-ACSHUN OV TEH ATOMS THROUGHOUT INFINITE TIEM RENDERD ALL MANNR OV COMBINASHUNS POSIBLE. OV THEES TEH FIT ONEZ PERSISTD, WHILE TEH UNFIT ONEZ DISAPPEARD...."

JAMESHUTTON 1794- "...DOSE NOT ADAPTD WILL PERISH, WHILE DOSE ADAPTD 4 DA CIRCUMSTANCEZ, WILL BE BEST ADAPTD. ..."

PATRICKMATTHEWS 1831- "...DOSE INDIVIDUALS HOO POSESS NOT TEH REQUIZIET STRENGTH, FALL WITHOUT REPRODUCIN, THEIR PLACE BEAN OCCUPID BY TEH MOAR PERFIK OV THEIR OWN KIND...."

DARWIN OOS: 1860 - "...DIS PRESERVASHUN OV FAVOURABLE VARIASHUNS AN TEH REJECSHUN OV INJURIOUS VARIASHUNS, I CALL NACHURAL SELECSHUN...."

AN "..I HAS CALLD DIS PRINCIPLE, BY WHICH EACH SLIGHT VARIASHUN(A), IF USEFUL, IZ PRESERVD, BY TEH TURM OV NACHURAL SELECSHUN..."

"FRUM TEH GREEKZ 2 DARWIN" BY HENRYFAIRFIELDOSBORN " ... ALL TEH FAULTY ...DISAPPEARD, AN DAT DOSE DAT SURVIVD.... HAD TEH POWR OV .....PERPETUATIN THEMSELVEZ....."

JOHNWILKINS - "...DOSE DAT WERKD BETTR WUZ RETAIND...."

FRUM EMPEDOCLEZ 2 JOHNWILKINS IT TEH SAME TAUTOLOGY: TEH GUD WAN SURVIVD, TEH BAD WAN DID AN THEREFORE WHATEVR MAH WURLD VIEW(WHATEVR IT MITE BE) IZ CORRECT.

(ARISTOTLE, IN HIS "FYSICAE AUSCULTASHUNEZ" (LIB.2, CAP.8, S.2) OOS:".............SO WUT HINDERS TEH DIFFERENT PARTS (OV TEH BODY) FRUM HAVIN DIS MERELY ACCIDENTAL RELASHUN IN NACHUR? AS TEH TEETH, 4 EXAMPLE, GROW BY NECESITY, TEH FRUNT ONEZ SHARP, ADAPTD 4 DIVIDIN, AN TEH GRINDERS FLAT, AN SERVICEABLE 4 MASTICATIN TEH FUD; SINCE THEY WUZ NOT MADE 4 DA SAEK OV DIS, BUT IT WUZ TEH RESULT OV ACCIDENT. AN IN LIEK MANNR AS 2 OTHR PARTS IN WHICH THAR APPEARS 2 EXIST AN ADAPTASHUN 2 AN END. WHERESOEVR, THEREFORE, ALL THINGS TOGETHR (DAT IZ ALL TEH PARTS OV WAN WHOLE) HAPPEND LIEK AS IF THEY WUZ MADE 4 DA SAEK OV SOMETHIN, THEES WUZ PRESERVD, HAVIN BEEN APPROPRIATELY CONSTITUTD BY AN INTERNAL SPONTANEITY; AN WHATSOEVR THINGS WUZ NOT THUS CONSTITUTD, PERISHD AN STILL PERISH.........."

(JAMESHUTTON SED ESSENTIALLY TEH SAME TING BUT LEFT OUT TEH RESULT OV ACCIDENT PART DUE 2 HIS DEISTIC WURLD VIEW.)

PATRICKMATTHEWS IN ALL PROBABILITY GOT HIS TAUTOLOGY FRUM HUTTON AN DARWIN LIFTD "NACHURAL MEANZ OV SELECSHUN" FRUM MATTHEW WHILE READIN HIS BOOK ON TEH BEAGLE WHICH MOST PROBABLY WUZ REQUIRD READIN - (HTTP://PROBAWAY.WERDPRES.COM/2009/10/15/DARWINS-QUESHUNABLE-PRIORITY-OVAR-THOMAS-MATTHEW/)

ARISTOTLEZ PASAGE REDUCEZ 2: THINGS APPROPRIATELY CONSTITUTD WUZ PRESERVD AN THINGS NOT APPROPRIATELY CONSTITUTD PERISHD. OR IN OTHR WERDZ: TEH GUD ONEZ LIVD, TEH BAD ONEZ DID, WHICH EXPLAINS EVRYTHIN. APPROPRIATELY CONSTITUTD AN PRESERVD R SYNONYMOUS PULAY WIF WERDZ DAT ALLUDEZ 2 TEH SAME FACT BUT IT DOESNT INDEPENDENTLY DERIV TEH AKSHUL REASON SOMETHIN WUZ PRESERVD. 2 IDENTIFY TEH TAUTOLOGY TAEK ANY OV TEH SYNONYMOUS TERMS OR WERDZ AN FORMULATE QUESHUN:

* OTHR THAN NOTIN IT WUZ PRESERVD HOW WUZ IZ CONSTITUTABILITY MEASURD? * OTHR THAN NOTIN IT WUZ NOT CONSTITUTD HOW WUZ IZ PERISHABILITY MEASURD?

WUZ NOT CONSTITUTD AN PERISHABLE SEZ TEH SAME TING TWICE, MAKIN ARISTOTLEZ ARGUMENT WATERTIGHT, EXPLAININ EVRYTHIN, IT CANT BE REFUTD AN IZ THUS LOGICALFALLACY. HIS TAUTOLOGY REDUCEZ 2: TEH GUD(ATOM,IDEA,GENE) WAN LIVD, TEH BAD(ANIMAL,ATOM,GENE,IDEA) WAN DID. IT ROOTD IN ANCIENT MYTHOLOGY, TEH BATTLE TWEEN GODZ AN SEEMONSTERS, ZEUS, APOLLO ETC. WHICH BECAME TEH BATTLE TWEEN GUD AN BAD ATOMS FRUM TEH ATOMISTS(600BC), WHICH TODAI IZ FORMULATD BY DAWKINS AS: ".....TEH GUD GENE SURVIVD, TEH BAD GENE DID...." IN DA LIGHT OV ORIGINOFSPECIESASMYTH - HTTP://LOSTBORDERS.WERDPRES.COM/2009/03/09/TEH-ORIGIN-OV-SPECIEZ-AS-MYTH. TEH MYTHOLOGY IZ EXTENDD 2 ANYTHIN IN EXISTENCE,MATTR ABSTRACT IDEAS, AN AS NEW DISCOVERIEZ R MADE THRU TEH AGEZ, TEH MYTH IZ RETOLD BY TEH SECULAR PRIESTHOOD AN INCORPORATD BY TEH RELIGIOUS PRIESTHOOD. REPRODUCTIV SUCCES, GENOTYPE,FITNES, AN FENOTYPE ETC. R SEMANTIC AN STYLISTIC RUSEZ DAT ENABLEZ TEH MYTH 2 BE RETOLD BY TEH NEO-EMPEDOCLIANZ WITHIN R REFERENCE FRAME OV GENEZ AS CYBERNETICABSTRACSHUN.

AFTR QUOTIN ARISTOTLE, DARWIN WENT ON 2 SAY: "...... WE CAN C HER TEH PRINCIPLE OV NATURALSELECSHUN SHADOWD FORTH....". TEH QUESHUN IZ HOW DID DARWIN SOLVE TEH PROBLEM OV GENEZ AS CYBERNETICABSTRACSHUN IF HE COULDNT DEFINE TEH PROBLEM? DIS QUESHUN MUST BE EXTENDD BAK 2 ARISTOTLE AN TEH ANZWR IZ DAT ARISTOTLE EXPLAIND EVRYTHIN: PAST, PRESENT AN FUCHUR, THUS NOTHIN, HIS CONTROL OV TEH FACTS WUZ AN ILLUSHUN. FURTHERMORE ARISTOTLEZ PREMIZE DAT EVRYTHIN WUZ TEH RESULT OV ACCIDENT MEANZ DAT EVRYTHIN HE SED ULTIMATELY IZ TEH RESULT ON AN ACCIDENT, INCLUDIN TEH VRY PARAGRAF ITSELF, Y DEN SHUD WE BLEEV WERD HE SED?

ARISTOTLE FORMULATD RHETORICAL TAUTOLOGY IN ORDR 2 CONVINCE DAT TEH APPARENT DESIGN IN DA UNIVERS WUZ RESULT OV ACCIDENT. HE ALLOWD NO MEANZ 4 HIS WURLD VIEW 2 BE FALSIFIABLE, THUS HIS CONCLUSHUN BASD ON PROPOSISHUN WHICH CANT BE REFUTD WUZ NON_SEQUITUR_(LOGIC) NON SEQUITUR (LOGIC). THEES TAUTOLOGIEZ AN BATTLE-TWEEN-ATOMS-AN-ORGANISMS MYTH WUZ ORIGINALLY FRUM EMPEDOCLEZ 600B.C, REFORMULATD AN EXPANDD THRU TEH SENTURIEZ BY ARISTOTLE, DEMOCRITUS, EPICURUS,....DARWIN RITE UP 2 R MODERN ERA BY JOHNWILKINS, DAWKINS ETC HOO ALL BASICALLY SED TEH SAME TING: TEH GUD LIV, TEH BAD DYE. BUT FRUM SUCH BANALITY EACH PROPOGATEZ DIFFERENT WURLD VIEWS, DEISM, ATHEISM, PANTHEISM AN THEISM. NONE OV THEM REALIZD DAT THEIR WURLD VIEW DIDNT LOGICALLY FOLLOW FRUM TEH EMPEDOCLEZ TAUTOLOGY. IT WUZT RLY DARWIN DAT WUZ RESPONSIBLE 4 DA HITLR AN STALIN BUT EMPEDOCLEZ, IT SEEMS. CHARLESKINGSLEY IN LETTR DATD 1863 2 FREDERICKMAURICE HE INTERPRETD OOS AS: ".. DARWIN IZ CONQUERIN EVRYWHERE, AN RUSHIN IN LIEK FLOOD, BY TEH MERE FORCE OV TRUTH AN FACT. TEH WAN OR 2 HOO HOLD OUT AGAINST DARWIN R FORCD 2 TRY ALL SORTS OV SUBTERFUGEZ AS 2 FACT OR ELSE BY INVOKIN TEH TEDIUM THEOLOGIUM.... TEH STATE OV TEH SCIENTIFIC MIND; THEY FIND DAT NAO THEY HAS GOT RID OV AN INTERFERIN CEILIN CAT - MASTAH MAGICIAN AS I CALL IT -- THEY HAS 2 CHOOSE TWEEN TEH ABSOLUTE EMPIRE OV ACCIDENT AN LIVIN, IMMANENT, EVR-WERKIN CEILIN CAT..."

JOHNBURROUGHS IN HIS BOOK TEH LAST HARVEST(1922) INTERPRETD DARWIN AS: "....TRY 2 FINKZ OV DAT WANDERBL ORGAN, TEH EYE, WIF ALL ITZ MARVELOUS POWERS AN ADAPTASHUNS, AS TEH RESULT OV WUT WE CALL CHANCE OR NACHURAL SELECSHUN. WELL CUD DARWIN HAS SED DAT TEH EYE MADE HIM SHUDDR WHEN HE TRID 2 AKOWNT 4 IT BY NACHURAL SELECSHUN. Y, ITZ ADAPTASHUNS IN WAN RESPECT ALONE, MINOR THOUGH THEY BE, R ENOUGH 2 STAGGR ANY NUMBR OV SELECSHUNISTS...."

HENRYFAIRFIELDOSBORN WROTE NEW YORK TIEMS 1922, 5 AUG. "....WAAGENS OBSERVASHUNS DAT SPECIEZ DO NOT ORIGINATE BY CHANCE AS DARWIN HAD ONCE SUPPOSD, BUT THRU CONTINUEZ AN WELL ORDERD PROCES HAS SINCE BEEN CONFIRMD, HAS SINCE BEEN CONFIRMD BY AN OVERWHELMIN VOLUME OV TESTIMONY, SO DAT WE R NAO ABLE 2 ASSEMBLE AN PLACE IN ORDR LINE AFTR LINE OV ANIMALS IN THEIR TRUE EVOLUSHUNARY SUCCESHUN, EXTENDIN, IN DA CASE OV WUT I HAS CALLD TEH EDISHUN DE LUXE OV TEH HORSEZ , OVAR MILLIONS OV YEERS. ..... EVOLUSHUN TAKEZ TEH PLACE WIF TEH GRAVITASHUN LAW OV NEWTON.."

OSBORN HAS DIFFERENT CONCEPT WIF "NACHURAL SELECSHUN", "EVOLUSHUN" ETC. DEN TEH CONCEPT KINGSLEY, BURROUGHS AN DARWIN HAD. WHICH DEMONSTRATEZ TEH POINT DAT NO WERD OR FRASE HAS SINGLE TRUE MEANIN. SOMEBODY SED: OUTSIDE THAR IZ SELECSHUN OV ROCKZ. IF PETR PUT IT THAR DEN "SELECSHUN" IZ USD IN VOLISHUNAL SENSE, IF STORM HIT MOUNTAIN DEN NON-VOLISHUNAL. WUT DOEZ TEH VARIOUS AUTHORS TODAI MEEN WIF "SELECSHUN" : VOLISHUN OR NON-VOLISHUN?

NATURALSELECSHUN IZ AN OXYMORON(HTTP://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/OXYMORON) CONTRADICSHUN IN TERMS. C HTTP://WWW.PARTIALOBSERVR.COM/ARTICLE.CFM?ID=2808 4 PARTICULAR VIEW ON DIS. JOHNBURROUGHS INTERPRETASHUN OV DARWIN AS CHANCE OR NACHURAL SELECSHUN MEANT BURROUGHS USD "NACHURAL" 2 MEEN BY NACHUR OR CHANCE AN "SELECSHUN" MEANZ VOLISHUN, 2 CONTRADICTORY CONCEPTS IN WAN TURM WIF TEH WHOLE TURM USD BY BURROUGHS 2 CONVEY HIS INTERPRETASHUN OV DARWINS CONCEPT: "CHANCE". BUT TEH NACHURAL SELECSHUN OXYMORON CAN BE USD IN REVERSE 2 CONVEY VOLISHUNAL CONCEPT.

TODAI LOTZ DA USE NATURALSELECSHUN IN DA VOLISHUNAL SENSE. NS LIEK "U HAS GREEN LIGHT" HAS NO SINGLE TRUE MEANIN, TEH VARIOUS CONCEPTS IZ IMPORTANT BY LOTZ DA AUTHORS AN THEIR WURLD VIEW. TEH DIFFICULTY IZ DAT THEY ALL USD NATURALSELECSHUN BUT WUT THEY MEANT BY IT DIFFERD LIEK DAI CONTRASTS WIF NITE, WIF TEH OXYMORONIC NACHUR OV NACHURAL SELECSHUN EXACERBATIN SUCH CONFUSHUN.

FOXNEWSJONATHANPRAGMATICS AN JERRYADLR SEZ RANDOM NACHURAL SELECSHUN, DAWKINS TALKZ OV NON-RANDOM NACHURAL SELECSHUN OR DIRECTD NACHURAL SELECSHUN. NATURALSELECSHUN AS AN OXYMORON ALLOWS ITSELF 2 BE USD IN EITHR SENSE VOLISHUNAL,NON-RANDOM,DIRECTD OR NON-VOLISHUNAL,RANDOM,"WUT HAPPENS,HAPPENS". DARWIN, JOHNBURROUGHS AN CHARLESKINGSLEY INTERPRETIN DARWIN, USD TEH "RANDOM SIDE" OV NACHURAL SELECSHUN - NACHURAL, WHILE GIVEN TEH WURLD VIEW OR PRAGMATICS OV HENRYFAIRFIELDOSBORN, HE WUD PROBABLY HAS USD IT IN REVERSE, TEH DIRECTD SIDE - SELECSHUN. FURTHR RESEARCH IZ NEEDD ON TEH WURLD VIEW OV HENRYFAIRFIELDOSBORN. DARWIN USD EVOLUSHUN AN NACHURAL SELECSHUN INTERCHANGEABLY AN IT SO WIDELY DUN TODAI 2 TEH EXTENT DAT THAR ISNT RLY ANY DIFFERENCE IN DA CONCEPT USR IZ PROJECTIN: EITHR VOLISHUN OR NON-VOLISHUN, PATTERNS OR DESIGNS. DARWINS THEORY OV EVOLUSHUN FORMULASHUN IZ TEH SAME CONCEPT AS HIS REFORMULASHUN OV ARISTOTLE WHICH HE CALLD PRINCIPLE OV NACHURAL SELECSHUN.

DURIN TEH 19TH TREMAUX (HTTP://FILSCI-ARCHIV.PITT.EDU/ARCHIV/00003806/01/TREMAUX-ON-SPECIEZ.PDF) DIFFERD WIF TEH BELIEF HELD DEN DAT TEH MIND IZ AN ILLUSHUN. IF PERSON SEZ: "MAH MIND IZ AN ILLUSHUN CREATD BY TEH BRAIN" DEN DAT VRY SENTENCE ITSELF IZ AN ILLUSHUN CUZ IT WUZ FORMULATD BY HIS MIND. IN ADDISHUN Y SHUD WAN BLEEV WERD HE SEZ IF HE THINKZ EVRYTHIN HE SEZ IZ TEH RESULT OV ILLUSHUNS IN HIS HEAD? FRUM TEH GREEKZ 2 DARWIN BY HENRY OSBORN

P.246 "...TEH IDEA OV EVOLUSHUN, ROOTD IN DA COSMIC EVO- LUSHUN AN MOVEMENT  OV HERACLITUS AN ARISTOTLE, HAS PASD 2 TEH PROGRESIV DEVELOPMENT AN SUCCESHUN OV LIFE SEEN IN EMPEDOCLEZ, ARISTOTLE, BRUNO, DESCARTEZ, GOETHE, AN IN DA MOAR CONCRETE MUTABILITY OV SPECIEZ  OV BACON, LEIBNITZ, BUFFON, LAMARCK, AN ST. HILAIRE.

TEH DIRECT TRANZISHUN FRUM TEH INORGANIC 2 TEH ORGANIC IZ SEEN 2 HAS HAD HOST OV FRENZ, NEARLY 2 TEH PRESENT TIEM, INCLUDIN, BESIDEZ ALL TEH GREEKZ, LUCRETIUS, AUGUSTINE, MAILLET, BUFFON, ERASMUS DARWIN, LAMARCK, TREVIRANUS, OKEN, AN CHAMBERS- DEN WE HAS SEEN TEH DIFFICULTY OV ORIGIN  REMOVD WAN STEP BAK BY TEH  PRE-EXISTENT GERMS  OV ANAXA- GORAS, REVIVD BY MAILLET, ROBINET, DIDEROT, AN BONNET. AGAIN, TEH RUDIMENTS OV TEH MONISTIC IDEA OV TEH PSYCHIC PROPERTIEZ OV ALL MATTR, FORESHADOWD BY EMPEDOCLEZ, R SEEN REVIVD BY MAUPERTUIS AN DIDEROT. TEH DIFFICULTY OV ORIGIN HAS BEEN AVOIDD BY TEH ASSUMPSHUN OV PRIMORDIAL MINIT MASEZ, WHICH WE HAS SEEN DEVELOPD FRUM TEH SOFT GERM  OV ARISTOTLE, 2 TEH VESICLEZ AN FILAMENTS OV BUFFON, ERASMUS DARWIN, LAMARCK, OKEN, AN FINALLY INTO R PRIMORDIAL PROTOPLASM.

2 TEH INQUIRY : WER DID LIFE FURST APPEAR ? WE FIND TEH ANZWR, IN DA SEA, GIVEN BY THALEZ, ANAXIMANDR, AN MAILLET; TWEEN SEA AN LAND, IZ TEH ANZWR OV ANAXIMENEZ, DIOGENEZ, DEMOCRITUS, AN OKEN; FRUM TEH EARTH, IZ TEH SOLITARY REPLY OV LUCRETIUS. NAO WE R 2 WIZE 2 ANZWR IT. 4 DA SUCCESHUN OV LIFE WE HAS FOLLOWD TEH ASCEND- ING SCALE  OV ARISTOTLE, BRUNO, LEIBNITZ, AN OTHERS, TIL BUFFON REALIZD ITZ INADEQUACY, AN LAMARCK SUBSTITUTD TEH SIMILE OV TEH BRANCHIN TREE. OV MAN AS TEH SUMMIT OV TEH SCALE, AN STILL IN PROCES OV BECOMIN MOAR PERFIK IN HIS ENDOWMENTS, WE LERN FRUM EMPEDOCLEZ, ARISTOTLE, ROBINET, DIDEROT, ERASMUS DARWIN, LAMARCK, AN TREVIRANUS....|

TEH SELECSHUNISTS. "....TEH MODERN THEORY OV NACHURAL SELECSHUN WUZ EX- PRESD FURST BY DOCTA. W. C. WELLS, IN 1813, DEN BY ST. HILAIRE TEH ELDR, DEN BY MATTHEW, IN 1831, AN FINALLY, WIF CONSIDERABLY LES CLEARNES, IF AT ALL, BY NAUDIN, IN 1852. DARWIN GIVEZ US REFERENCEZ 2 TEH 2 ENGLISH WRITERS. DAT OV WELLS IZ TEH FURST STATEMENT OV TEH THEORY OV TEH SURVIVAL, NOT SIMPLY OV FITTEST ORGANISMS, AS UNDERSTOOD BY PREVIOUS WRITERS, SUCH AS BUFFON AN TREVIRANUS, BUT OV OR- GANISMS SURVIVIN CUZ OV THEIR POSESSHUN OV FAVOURABLE VARIASHUNS IN SINGLE CHARACTERS. WELLS PAPR, READ BEFORE TEH ROYAL SOCIETY IN 1813, WUZ ENTITLD, " AN AKOWNT OV WITE FEMALE, PART OV WHOSE SKIN RESEMBLEZ DAT OV NEGRO " ; IT WUZ NOT PUBLISHD TIL ISIS. 1 HE HER RECOGNIZEZ TEH PRINCIPLE OV NACHURAL SELECSHUN, AS APPLID 2 TEH RACEZ OV DOODZ, AN 2 TEH EXPLANASHUN OV TEH ORIGIN OV SINGLE CHARACTERS....."

TAutology part
"....DAT OV WELLS IZ TEH FURST STATEMENT OV TEH THEORY OV TEH SURVIVAL, NOT SIMPLY OV FITTEST ORGANISMS, AS UNDERSTOOD BY PREVIOUS WRITERS, SUCH AS BUFFON AN TREVIRANUS, BUT OV ORGANISMS SURVIVIN CUZ OV THEIR POSESSHUN OV FAVOURABLE VARIASHUNS IN SINGLE CHARACTERS....| REFRASE

TEH THEORY OV TEH SURVIVAL, IZ ORGANISMS SURVIVIN CUZ OV FAVORABLE VARIASHUNS. REFRASE

"...DOSE DAT SURVIVD HAD FAVORABLE VARIASHUNS...." OBVIOUSLY OR THEY WUD BE DED. TAUTOLOGICAL EXPRESHUNS AN PROPOSISHUNS

TEH TAUTOLOGICAL EXPRESHUN (AN UNMARRID BACHELOR) CONTAINS REDUNDANT WERD ("UNMARRID"), BUT HAS MEANIN AN CAN BE USD 2 FORM MEANINGFUL PROPOSISHUN, E.G. "JOHN IZ AN UNMARRID BACHELOR". DIS PROPOSISHUN IZ NOT RHETORICAL TAUTOLOGY CUZ TEH INTENT ISNT 2 DECEIV. IT CUD BE CONSIDERD AS UNNECESARILY LANGUAGE VERBOSITY. TEH TAUTOLOGICAL PROPOSISHUN (ALL BACHELORS R UNMARRID) STATD IN CLAS ON FORMAL LOGIC THEORY ON TEH OTHR HAND, GIVEZ US NO INFORMASHUN DAT IZ NOT ALREADY CONTAIND IN DA DEFINISHUN OV TEH WERD "BACHELOR". TEH PRAGMATICS OR CONTEXT WIF UNMARRID BACHELOR BY TEH USR WUD DETERMINE WHETHR IT BE PROPOSISHUN,EXPRESHUN, LOGICAL VALIDITY, OR LANGUAGE VERBOSITY. IN AN ACADEMIC SETTIN SUCH AS JOURNAL PROPOSISHUNS R PUT FWD IN AN ATTEMPT AT DERIVIN AN INDEPENDENT EXPLANASHUN 4 AN OBSERVASHUN. TAUTOLOGIEZ IN SUCH SETTIN WUD BE TAUTOLOGICAL PROPOSISHUN AN UNACCEPTABLE. TAUTOLOGICAL EXPRESHUNS USD IN AN INFORMAL SETTIN SUCH AS SPORTS EVENT WIF ITZ ASSOCIATD COLLOQUIAL SPEECH IZ ACCEPTABLE CUZ OV TEH [[PRAGMATICS] WIF IT. TEH DIVIDIN LINE TWEEN TAUTOLOGICAL PROPOSISHUN AN EXPRESHUN IZ PRAGMATICS. EXAMPLE OV TAUTOLOGICAL PROPOSISHUN

TEH GEOLOGICAL RECORD FEATUREZ EPISODEZ OV HIGH DYIN, DURIN WHICH EXTINCSHUN-PRONE GROUPS R MOAR LIKELY 2 DISAPPEAR, LEAVIN EXTINCSHUN-RESISTANT GROUPS AS LIFEZ LEGACY. S.J. GOULD & N. ELDREDGE, "PUNCTUATD EQUILIBRIUM COMEZ OV AGE", NACHUR (1993) 366:223-7, P. 225.

* HOW WUZ DIS "EXTINCSHUN-PRONENES" MEASURD, EXCEPT BY NOTIN DAT TEH GROUPS DISAPPEARD? * HOW WUZ THEIR DISAPEARABILITY MEASURD EXCEPT BY NOTIN DAT THEY WUZ "EXTINCSHUN-PRONE"?

GOULD FORMULATD TEH PROPOSISHUN SO DAT IT CANT BE DISPUTD: "..CERTAIN GROUPS WUZ EXTINCSHUN PRONE CUZ THEY DISAPPEARD.." BUT TEH REAL REASON 4 THEIR EXTINCSHUN NEEDZ BE DERIVD INDEPENDENTLY ELSEWHERE. NOTHIN IZ EXPLAIND BY STATIN DAT CUZ THEY WUZ EXTINCSHUN PRONE THEY DID, THEIR DEATH IMPLIEZ DAT THEY WUZ EXTINCSHUN PRONE. EXTINCSHUN AN DISAPPEAR OR DEATH R SYNONYMOUS PULAY WIF WERDZ DAT ALLUDEZ 2 TEH SAME FACT BUT MASQUERADEZ AS AN EXPLANASHUN. IT DERIVD FRUM ARISTOTLE AN EPICURUS FILOSOFY: TEH GUD (ROBOT,GENE RABBIT ETC) LIVD WHILE TEH BAD WAN DID OR IN OTHR WERDZ: WUT HAPPENS HAPPENS. TALK ORIGINS

HTTP://WWW.TALKORIGINS.ORG/FAQS/FAQ-MERITT/EVOLUSHUN.HTML ACCORDIN 2 TEH TALK.ORIGINS ARCHIV, SHARKZ HAVENT CHANGD CUZ THEY "R EXCELLENTLY ADAPTD 2 THEIR PARTICULAR NICHE IN THEIR ENVIRONMENT." DOEZ ANYONE KNOE HOW DIS "AWSUM ADAPTASHUN" WUZ MEASURD (APART FRUM OBSERVIN DAT SHARKZ HAVENT CHANGD, DAT IZ)? IRISH ELK

MAYR, TRYIN 2 EXPLAIN Y THINGS LIEK TEH HOOJ ANTLERS OV TEH "IRISH ELK" AN TEH CANINEZ OV SABR-TOOTHD TIGERS ARENT PROBLEMATIC 4 DARWINISM: QUOTE: "ALL THEES FEATUREZ WUD SEEM, AT FURST SIGHT, 2 BE HIGHLY DELETERIOUS, AN IT WUZ CLAIMD DAT NACHURAL SELECSHUN CUD NOT POSIBLY HAS FAVORD OR EVEN TOLERATD THEIR EVOLUSHUN. HOWEVR, TEH STUDIEZ OV RENSCH, SIMPSON, GOULD, AN VARIOUS OTHR PALEONTOLOGISTS HAS DEMONSTRATD DAT TEH SPECIEZ DAT HAD THEES "EXCESIV" CHARACTERS ALWAYS FLOURISHD 4 CONSIDERABLE PERIODZ OV TIEM WHEN THEES CHARACTERS CLEARLY WUZ OV SELECTIV ADVANTAGE AN DAT THEIR ULTIMATE EXTINCSHUN COINCIDD WIF CLIMATIC OR BROAD FAUNAL CHANGE WHICH SIMULTANEOUSLY LED 2 TEH EXTINCSHUN OV NUMMEROUS OTHR SPECIEZ WITHOUT SUCH `EXCESIV CHARACTERS." E. MAYR, TOWARD NEW FILOSOFY OV BIOLOGY: OBSERVASHUNS OV AN EVOLUSHUNIST, (HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRES, 1988), P. 250. QUEZ:THEES SPECIEZ "FLOURISHD", SO THEIR STRUCTUREZ MUST HAS BEEN FAVORD AFTR ALL? WIKIPEDIA NACHURAL SELECSHUN NOV.2009 REVISHUN

HTTP://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/NATURAL_SELECSHUN "....NACHURAL SELECSHUN IZ TEH PROCES BY WHICH HERITABLE TRAITS DAT MAK IT MOAR LIKELY 4 AN ORGANISM 2 SURVIV AN SUCCESFULLY REPRODUCE BECOME MOAR COMMON IN POPULASHUN OVAR SUCCESIV GENERASHUNS. IT BE KEY MECHANISM OV EVOLUSHUN...."

REFRASE:TEH PROCES BY WHICH.... TRAITS DAT MAK IT MOAR LIKELY 4 AN ORGANISM 2 .... REPRODUCE BECOME MOAR COMMON IN POPULASHUN OVAR SUCCESIV GENERASHUNS. IT BE KEY MECHANISM OV EVOLUSHUN...."

REFRASE:TEH ... TRAITS DAT MAK IT MOAR LIKELY 4 AN ORGANISM 2 .... REPRODUCE BECOME MOAR COMMON IN POPULASHUN OVAR SUCCESIV GENERASHUNS. IT BE KEY MECHANISM OV EVOLUSHUN...."

REFRASE:TEH ... TRAITS DAT .....ENABLEZ .... REPRODUCSHUN BECOME MOAR COMMON IN POPULASHUN................ IT BE KEY MECHANISM OV EVOLUSHUN...."

REFRASE:TEH TRAITS DAT ENABLEZ REPRODUCSHUN, BECOME MOAR COMMON.

"ENABLEZ" AN "MOAR COMMON" R PULAY WIF WERDZ DAT ALLUDEZ 2 TEH SAME FACT: IT SEZ TEH SAME TING TWICE. TEH "TRUTH OV TEH PROPOSISHUN CANT BE DISPUTD"(DARWINS EGSAKT WERDZ), THAR IZ NOWAI 2 FALSIFY OR TEST DIS. HOW CUD IT POSIBLY BE INCORRECT. WE R TOLD DAT CERTAIN TRAITS BECAME MOAR COMMON. BUT Y THEY BECOME MOAR COMMON?

ANZ: CUZ TEH TRAITS WUZ ENABLIN. BUT OBVIOUSLY TEH TRAITS WUZ "ENABLIN" OR THEY WOULDNT HAS BECOME MOAR COMMON NAO WUD THEY? IT TEH SAME TAUTOLOGICAL ESSENCE FORM OOS WER DARWIN EXPLAIND DAT TEH DINOSAURS WENT EXTINCT CUZ THEY WUZ "LES IMPROOVD"- WHICH IZ AN IRREFUTABLE PROPOSISHUN.

OVAR AT HTTP://CREASHUNMUSEUM.ORG/ AIG IZ ADDIN 2 TEH CONFUSIO BY NOT COMPREHENDIN DAT DIS TAUTOLOGY WUZ AD-HOCLY ASSOCIATD WIF "NACHURAL MEANZ OV SELECSHUN" FRUM PATRICKMATTHEWS, AN ARBITRARY CHOICE OV WERDZ. DARWIN, ARISTOTLE, EPICURUS, EMPEDOCLEZ, JAMESHUTTON AN PATRICK MATTHEWS TAUTOLOGY, IF LABELD NINJA TURTLEZ WOULDNT MAK TURTLE PUTTIN ON NINJA SUITE TAUTOLOGY. NO SENTENCE OR TURM HAS SINGLE TRUE MEANIN. ONLY AN ARGUMENT CONTAININ MOTIV FRUM SUM INDIVIDUAL CAN BE TAUTOLOGY, SUCH AN ARGUMENT MITE CONTAIN TEH TURM NATURALSELECSHUN, ROGR RABBIT OR WIZARD OV OZ.

HTTP://WWW.ANZWERSINGENESIS.ORG/GIT-ANZWERS/TOPIC/ARGUMENTS-WE-DOAN-USE HAS REMOVD TEH SECSHUN DAT "NACHURAL SELECSHUN IZ TAUTOLOGY" SHOULDNT BE USD. I AGREE CUZ GETTIN NATURALD HAS NOTHIN 2 DO WIF ARISTOTLEZ EXPLANASHUN OV EVRYTHIN PAST, PRESENT AN FUCHUR. BUT DEN AGAIN IT ISNT DEFIND WUT KEN HAM MEANZ WIF NACHURAL SELECSHUN.

Wikipedia's natural selection opening paragraph
DEC 2008 2 DEC2007 REVISHUN OV NACHURAL SELECSHUN ON WIKIPEDIA MAIN ARTICLE

HTTP://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/W/INDEX.FP?TITLE=NATURAL_SELECSHUN&OLDID=259585753 "....NACHURAL SELECSHUN IZ TEH PROCES BY WHICH FAVORABLE HERITABLE TRAITS BECOME MOAR COMMON IN SUCCESIV GENERASHUNS OV POPULASHUN OV REPRODUCIN ORGANISMS, AN UNFAVORABLE HERITABLE TRAITS BECOME LES COMMON, DUE 2 DIFFERENTIAL REPRODUCSHUN OV GENOTYPEZ...." BUT NO CITASHUN IZ GIVEN OV ANY MODERN OR ANCIENT WERKZ, NOR DO WE KNOE HOO WUZ TEH AUTHOR AN WUT IZ HIS WURLD VIEW, BAKGROUND KNOWLEDGE OR PRAGMATICS AN HOO HE WUZ INTERPRETIN. IF DARWIN WUZ INTERPRETD HOW DID DARWIN EXPLAIN SOMETHIN HE DIDNT KNOE BOUT: GENEZ? WUT WUZ DIS WIKIPEDIA CONTRIBUTORS VIEW ON TEH QUESHUN OV: WHATISLIFE - HTTP://SEEDMAGAZINE.COM/NEWS/2007/09/THE_MEANING_OF_LIFE.FP?PAEG=ALL TEH MEANIN OV LIFE? 4 ALL WE KNOE KAT CUD HAS WALKD OVAR KEYBORD. WER DID MATTR COME FRUM ?

NEO-ARISTOTELIANZ WUD SAY DAT "EVOLUSHUN" DOESNT DEAL WIF DIS, WHICH IZ AN APPEAL 2 ABSTRACTAUTHORITY: MISTAH.EVOLUTON, MISTAH.SCIENCE AN MISTAH.RELIGION DOAN EXIST, THEY DOAN SAY ANYTHIN NEITHR DO THEY INHABIT SEPARATE DOMAINS MISTAEK GOULD MAKEZ WIF HIS NOMA. ONLY CONSHUS BEAN CAN SAY SOMETHIN OR NOT DEAL WIF SOMETHIN, BE RELIGIOUS OR MATERIALISTIC. TEH NEO-EMPEDOCLIANZ DOAN WISH 2 DEAL WIF TEH QUESHUN CUZ TEH OV TEH NOSHUN DAT THEIR SPIRITUAL LEADR HAD BOUT "ATOMS FIGHTIN EACH OTHR". EMPEDOCLIAN TAUTOLOGICAL THINKIN INFUSD INTO R SCIENCE, CULCHUR RELIGION AN POLITICS. TEH ENTIRE PREMIZE OV R SOCIETY AT LARGE PIVOTS ON BATTLE-4-SURVIVAL MYTH FORMULATD IN SUCH WAI DAT IT CANT BE DISPUTD(DARWINS TURM). TEH MYTHOLOGY WUZ ARBITRARILY ASSOCIATD WIF SELECSHUN, ADAPTASHUN, WERDZ GIVEN TEH ATHEISTIC PREMISEZ OV MOST ISNT AVAILABLE 2 THEM AS PER DERNAVICHINFIDELS

SAYIN TEH SAME TING TWICE

IZ TEH CONTENSHUN DAT "FREE GIFT" IZ TAUTOLOGY TRUE? . 2 ASSERT DAT SUCH FRASE ALWAYS SEZ TEH SAME TING TWICE IZ 2 MISFRAME TEH PARTICULAR PREMIZE OV USR. 4 EXAMPLE: MANZ GIFT OV DINNR AN MOVIE 2 HIS DATE CUD BE "GIFT" BUT IT SOMETIMEZ COMEZ BUNDLD WIF EXPECTASHUNS. BUT, IF TEH RECIPIENT OV TEH FREE DINNR ASKZ FURST "IF I GO WIF U, R U EXPECTIN ANYTHIN?" AN GETS TEH ANZWR "NO", DEN IZ ACCURATE 2 SAY TEH INVITEE GOT "FREE GIFT" OV DINNR. IT INCORRECT DAT NO GIFT CAN EVR HAS NON-FREE IMPLICASHUNS ATTACHD 2 IT.

ANOTHR EXAMPLE IZ "SUDDENLY, WITHOUT WARNIN". IF 2 ARMIEZ OPPOSE EACH OTHR IN DA FIELD AN WAN COMMANDR SENDZ TEH OPPOSISHUN WARNIN MESAGE AS FOLLOWS "I INSTRUCT U 2 RETREAT OR IM GONNA ATTACK", ANY SUBSEQUENT ATTACK, SUDDEN OR OTHERWIZE, WUZ WARND. "SUDDEN" MEANZ "HAPPENIN OR COMIN UNEXPECTEDLY". BUT STUDENTS OV MILITARY HISTORY HAS NOTD; VIA EFFECTIV DECEPSHUN, ANY ATTACK CAN BE SEEN AS "SUDDEN", EVEN IF FAIR WARNIN WUZ PREVIOUSLY GIVEN.

AN EXPRESHUN (AS OPPOSD 2 AN ASSERSHUN) IZ CONSIDERD TAUTOLOGICAL IF IT CONTAINS REDUNDANT INFORMASHUN. 4 EXAMPLE, "2 RETURN BAK AGAIN" IZ TAUTOLOGICAL CUZ TEH SENSE OV "BAK AGAIN" IZ ALREADY FULLY CONTAIND WITHIN TEH WERD "RETURN", AN SO IZ REDUNDANT.

IN DA CONTEXT OV ABOOV AN PARAFRASIN JERRYFODOR: WUT DEN IZ TEH INTENDD MEANIN OV : NACHURAL,SELECSHUN, FITNES, GENOTYPE,FENOTYPE, FITNESLANDSCAPEZ, ECOLOGICALNICHEZ, EVOLUSHUN, EVOLUSHUNARY, DARWINISM,ADAPTASHUN, ALLELE, DARWINIAN, RANDOM NACHURAL SELECSHUN, NON-RANDOM NACHURAL SELECSHUN, RANDOM DESIGN, NON-RANDOM DESIGN ? 2 ANZWR TEH QUESHUN WE MUST BE TOLD HOO IZ TEH INDIVIDUAL USIN TEH TERMS, FRUM WUT TIEM ERA AN KNOWLEDGE. DARWIN ON PROPOSISHUNS WHICH CANT BE DISPUTD

THAR R KEY PASAGEZ WER DARWIN REFORMULATD PATRICKMATTHEWS, JAMESHUTTON, HTTP://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/JEAN_BAPTISTE_JULIEN_D%27OMALIUS_D%27HALLOY, EPICURUS, DEMOCRITUS, SPENCR AN ARISTOTLE LABELIN THEIR CONCEPT NACHURAL SELECSHUN AN MAKEZ HIS ARGUMENT IRREFUTABLE OR UNFALSIFIABLE BY USIN TEH FRASE PROPOSISHUNS WHICH CANT BE DISPUTD. DHALLOYS CONCEPT WIF HTTP://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/DESSENT_WITH_MODIFICASHUN IN 1848 WUZ LABELD NACHURAL SELECSHUN BY DARWIN.

OOS 4 IF EACH PART IZ LIABLE 2 INDIVIDUAL VARIASHUNS AT ALL AGEZ, AN TEH VARIASHUNS TEND 2 BE INHERITD AT CORRESPONDIN OR EARLIR AGE--PROPOSISHUNS WHICH CANT BE DISPUTD--DEN TEH INSTINCTS AN STRUCCHUR OV TEH YOUNG CUD BE SLOWLY MODIFID AS SURELY AS DOSE OV TEH ADULT; AN BOTH CASEZ MUST STAND OR FALL TOGETHR WIF TEH WHOLE THEORY OV NACHURAL SELECSHUN.

OOS".......... DAT LOTZ DA AN SERIOUS OBJECSHUNS CUD BE ADVANCD AGAINST TEH THEORY OV DESSENT WIF MODIFICASHUN THRU VARIASHUN AN NACHURAL SELECSHUN, I NO DENY. I HAS ENDEAVOURD 2 GIV 2 THEM THEIR FULL FORCE. NOTHIN AT FURST CAN APPEAR MOAR DIFFICULT 2 BLEEV THAN DAT TEH MOAR COMPLEX ORGANZ AN INSTINCTS HAS BEEN PERFECTD, NOT BY MEANZ SUPERIOR 2, THOUGH ANALOGOUS WIF, HOOMAN REASON, BUT BY TEH ACCUMULASHUN OV INNUMERABLE SLIGHT VARIASHUNS, EACH GUD 4 DA INDIVIDUAL POSESSOR. NEVERTHELES, DIS DIFFICULTY, THOUGH APPEARIN 2 R IMAGINASHUN INSUPERABLY GREAT, CANT BE CONSIDERD REAL IF WE ADMIT TEH FOLLOWIN PROPOSISHUNS, NAMELY, DAT ALL PARTS OV TEH ORGANISASHUN AN INSTINCTS OFFR, AT LEAST INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCEZ--DAT THAR IZ STRUGGLE 4 EXISTENCE LEADIN 2 TEH PRESERVASHUN OV PROFITABLE DEVIASHUNS OV STRUCCHUR OR INSTINCT--AN, LASTLY, DAT GRADASHUNS IN DA STATE OV PERFECSHUN OV EACH ORGAN CUD HAS EXISTD, EACH GUD OV ITZ KIND. TEH TRUTH OV THEES PROPOSISHUNS CANT, I FINKZ, BE DISPUTD. ........." TEH WERDZ PRESERVASHUN, PROFITABLE, PERFECSHUN, PERFECTD AN GUD R SYNONYMOUS PULAY WIF WERDZ DAT ALLUDEZ 2 SAME FACT AS SHOWN BY REDUCIN TEH PASAGE IT 2 ITZ CORE PROPOSISHUN WHICH CANT BE DISPUTD: SPECIEZ R ENGAGD IN STRUGGLE 4 EXISTENCE LEADIN 2 TEH PRESERVASHUN OV DOSE PROFITABLE STRUCTUREZ DAT ALLOWD THEM 2 SURVIV.

OOS:".........IF UNDR CHANGIN CONDISHUNS OV LIFE ORGANIC BEINGS PRESENT INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCEZ IN ALMOST EVRY PART OV THEIR STRUCCHUR, AN DIS CANT BE DISPUTD; IF THAR BE, OWIN 2 THEIR GEOMETRICAL RATE OV INCREASE, SEVERE STRUGGLE 4 LIFE AT SUM AGE, SEASON, OR YER, AN DIS CERTAINLY CANT BE DISPUTD; DEN, CONSIDERIN TEH INFINITE COMPLEXITY OV TEH RELASHUNS OV ALL ORGANIC BEINGS 2 EACH OTHR AN 2 THEIR CONDISHUNS OV LIFE, CAUSIN AN INFINITE DIVERSITY IN STRUCCHUR, CONSTITUSHUN, AN HABITS, 2 BE ADVANTAGEOUS 2 THEM, IT WUD BE MOST EXTRAORDINARY FACT IF NO VARIASHUNS HAD EVR OCCURRD USEFUL 2 EACH BEAN’S OWN WELFARE, IN DA SAME MANNR AS SO LOTZ DA VARIASHUNS HAS OCCURRD USEFUL 2 MAN. BUT IF VARIASHUNS USEFUL 2 ANY ORGANIC BEAN EVR DO OCCUR, ASSUREDLY INDIVIDUALS THUS CHARACTERISD WILL HAS TEH BEST CHANCE OV BEAN PRESERVD IN DA STRUGGLE 4 LIFE; AN FRUM TEH STRONG PRINCIPLE OV INHERITANCE, THEES WILL TEND 2 PRODUCE OFFSPRIN SIMILARLY CHARACTERISD. DIS PRINCIPLE OV PRESERVASHUN, OR TEH [SURVIVAL OV TEH FITTEST], I HAS CALLD NACHURAL SELECSHUN. IT LEADZ 2 TEH IMPROOVEMENT OV EACH CREACHUR IN RELASHUN 2 ITZ ORGANIC AN INORGANIC CONDISHUNS OV LIFE, AN CONSEQUENTLY, IN MOST CASEZ, 2 WUT MUST BE REGARDD AS AN ADVANCE IN ORGANISASHUN....."

* QUESHUN: OTHR THAN NOTIN TEH OFFSPRIN SURVIVD HOW WUZ THEIR FITNES OR SUITABILITY(SPENCERS WERD) MEASURD?

DARWIN DEFIND NACHURAL SELECSHUN ONLY ONCE

"...I HAS CALLD DIS PRINCIPLE, BY WHICH EACH SLIGHT VARIASHUN, IF USEFUL, IZ PRESERVD, BY TEH TURM NACHURAL SELECSHUN, IN ORDR 2 MARK ITZ RELASHUN 2 MANZ POWR OV SELECSHUN. BUT TEH EXPRESHUN OFTEN USD BY MISTAH. HERBERT SPENCR, OV TEH SURVIVAL OV TEH FITTEST, IZ MOAR ACCURATE ...."

* HOW DID DARWIN MEASURE TEH VARIASHUNS USEFULNES OTHR THAN NOTIN THEY WUZ PRESERVD? * HOW DID DARWIN MEASURE TEH VARIASHUNS PRESERVABILITY OTHR THAN NOTIN THEY WUZ USEFUL?

DARWIN ON TEH PRESERVASHUN OV INDIVIDUALS

"....ALL THEES RESULTS, AS WE SHALL MOAR FULLY C IN DA NEXT CHAPTR, FOLLOW FRUM TEH STRUGGLE 4 LIFE. OWIN 2 DIS STRUGGLE, VARIASHUNS, HOWEVR SLIGHT AN FRUM WHATEVR CAUSE PROCEEDIN, IF THEY BE IN ANY DEGREE PROFITABLE 2 TEH INDIVIDUALS OV SPECIEZ, IN THEIR INFINITELY COMPLEX RELASHUNS 2 OTHR ORGANIC BEINGS AN 2 THEIR FYSICAL CONDISHUNS OV LIFE, WILL TEND 2 TEH PRESERVASHUN OV SUCH INDIVIDUALS, AN WILL GENERALLY BE INHERITD BY TEH OFFSPRIN..."

WHICH REDUCEZ 2: VARIASHUNS DAT R PROFITABLE WILL RESULT IN DA PRESERVASHUN OV SUCH INDIVIDUALS. "PROFITABLE" AN "PRESERVASHUN" ALLUDEZ 2 TEH SAME FACT GUARANTEEIN TEH TRUTH OV TEH PROPOSISHUN. IT REFLECTS ARISTOTLE AN EPICURUS, DEMOCRITUS UNDERLYIN FILOSOFY : WUT HAPPENS, HAPPENS. NACHURAL SELECSHUN

HTTP://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/TALK:NATURAL_SELECSHUN/ARCHIVE_8 NACHURAL SELECSHUN IZ TEH PROCES BY WHICH INDIVIDUAL ORGANISMS WIF FAVORABLE TRAITS R MOAR LIKELY 2 SURVIV AN REPRODUCE THAN DOSE WIF UNFAVORABLE TRAITS.

QUESHUN: OTHR THAN NOTIN DAT TEH TRAITS SURVIVD HOW WUZ THEIR FAVORABILITY MEASURD? MOAR LIKELY AN FAVORABLE ALLUDEZ 2 TEH SAME FACT GUARANTEEIN TEH TRUTH OV TEH PROPOSISHUN AN IZ THUS FALLASHUS. TEH TAUTOLOGY ALSO ASSUMEZ TEH UNDERLYIN PREMIZE, THUS BEGGIN TEH QUESHUN: IT ASSUMD DAT ALL SPECIEZ TODAI R DESCENDANT FRUM OTHR SPECIEZ, DIS AR TEH TEH VRY ISSUE DAT MUST BE PROVEN. C DIS THREAD 4 FURTHR CLARITY BY AUTHOR NOSHELLSWILL ON GOOGLE GROUPS - HTTP://GROUPS.GOOGLE.COM/GROUP/TALK.ORIGINS/BROWSE_THREAD/THREAD/A9582738EB994B2B/1AC2FC0C52C491D9#1AC2FC0C52C491D9

TEH TURM NACHURAL SELECSHUN DARWIN LIFTD FRUM PATRICKMATTHEW NACHURAL MEANZ OV SELECSHUN. TEH CONCEPT WIF NS THOUGH WUZ FRUM JAMESHUTTON IN 1794 AN CAN BE TRACD BAK ALL TEH WAI 2 ARISTOTLE AN EPICURUS. NO WERD OR SENTENCE HAS SINGLE TRUE MEANIN OR CONCEPT. SOF 4 EXAMPLE IZ EITHR TAUTOLOGICAL PROPOSISHUN OR EXPRESHUN DEPENDIN ON HOO SEZ SOF, JUS LIEK "BER IZ BER" HAS AN INTENSHUN, EITHR FALLASHUS OR POETIC DEPENDIN ON HOO UTTERD TEH FRASE, AS DIS HTTP://MAVERICKFILOSOFR.POWERBLOGS.COM/POSTS/1114725461.SHTML. SOF AN BER-IZ-BER ETC. DOESNT HAS SINGLE TRUE MEANIN. JAMESHUTTON(1794), PATRICKMATTHEWS, WALLACE,HERBERTSPENCR, DARWIN AN OTHERS REFORMULATD ARISTOTLE AN EPICURUS ORIGINAL TAUTOLOGY IN LOTZ DA DIFFERENT WAYS. TEH GRAMMATICAL GARGOYLE NACHURAL SELECSHUNWAS TEH TURM COIND 2 ASSOCIATD DIS TAUTOLOGY WIF BY DARWIN.

TALK ARCHIV REVISHUN OV NACHURAL SELECSHUN

HTTP://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/TALK:NATURAL_SELECSHUN/ARCHIVE_8 NACHURAL SELECSHUN IZ TEH PROCES BY WHICH INDIVIDUAL ORGANISMS WIF FAVORABLE TRAITS R MOAR LIKELY 2 SURVIV AN REPRODUCE THAN DOSE WIF UNFAVORABLE TRAITS.

DEC 2008 2 DEC2007 REVISHUN OV NACHURAL SELECSHUN ON WIKIPEDIA MAIN ARTICLE

HTTP://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/W/INDEX.FP?TITLE=NATURAL_SELECSHUN&OLDID=259585753 "....NACHURAL SELECSHUN IZ TEH PROCES BY WHICH FAVORABLE HERITABLE TRAITS BECOME MOAR COMMON IN SUCCESIV GENERASHUNS OV POPULASHUN OV REPRODUCIN ORGANISMS, AN UNFAVORABLE HERITABLE TRAITS BECOME LES COMMON, DUE 2 DIFFERENTIAL REPRODUCSHUN OV GENOTYPEZ...."

SEPT 2009 REVISHUN

HTTP://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/NATURAL_SELECSHUN SEPT 2009 "...NACHURAL SELECSHUN IZ TEH PROCES BY WHICH HERITABLE TRAITS DAT MAK IT MOAR LIKELY 4 AN ORGANISM 2 SURVIV AN SUCCESFULLY REPRODUCE BECOME MOAR COMMON IN POPULASHUN OVAR SUCCESIV GENERASHUNS. IT BE KEY MECHANISM OV EVOLUSHUN...." NEITHR OV THEES REVISHUNS CITE ANY PAGEZ IN DARWINS OOS, HOO WROTE THEES PARAGRAFS ? TEH 2008 WAN HAD "GENEZ", WHICH DARWIN AN ARISTOTLE DIDNT KNOE BOUT. Y WUZ GENEZ REMOVD IN DA 2009 REVISHUN, IT LIEK IMAGINE SOMEBODY REMOVEZ TEH WERD "NEWTON" IN REVISHUN OV TEH GRAVITY ARTICLE.

Is survival of the fittest a tautology ?
SPENCR GOT SURVIVALOFTHEFITTEST FRUM HTTP://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/GOTTFRIED_REINHOLD_TREVIRANUS, BUFFON. DEPENDZ ON HOO SEZ SOF AN IN WUT CONTEXT WIF WUT BAKGROUND KNOWLEDGE AN PRAGMATICS SINCE TURM ONLY MEANZ WUT AN INDIVIDUAL INTENDZ IT 2 MEEN. TRY AN CONTACT HERBERT SPENCR AN ASK HIM 2 QUESHUNS:

* OTHR THAN NOTIN TEH SPECIEZ SURVIVD HOW WUZ THEIR FITNES OR SUITABILITY MEASURD? * OTHR THAN NOTIN THEY WUZ SUITABLE HOW WUZ THEIR SURVIVABILITY MEASURD?

SPENCR SOLD OVAR MILLION BOOKZ, OOS WUZ READ BY PERSON IN 1860 WIF SPENCERS IDEAS, TODAI SPENCR IZ HARDLY EVR MENSHUND. FRUM HIS WRITIN WIF FITNES HE MEANT SUITABLE, HE WUZ WIDELY SIETD DURIN TEH 19TH SENTURY. AS DARWIN WROTE:"..NACHURAL SELECSHUN OR SURVIVAL OV TEH FITTEST WHICH IZ BETTR EXPRESHUN....." WHICH 2 READ BAK DEN MEANT: "....SURVIVAL OV TEH MOST SUITABLE IZ BETTR EXPRESHUN....." TODAI NOBODY KNOWS WUT IZ MEANT WIF TEH WERD "FITNES", WUT CONCEPT IZ BEAN CONVEYD ISNT CLEAR. "FITNES" ISNT CONCEPT, BUT MEANZ 4 SIGNAL SENDR 2 ENCODE HIS PARTICULAR CONCEPT WITHIN IN HIS REFERENCE FRAME 150 YEERS AFTR SPENCR. SELECSHUN OV ROCKZ

SELECSHUN, MODIFICASHUN, RANDOM, "SELECSHUN AT RANDOM", RANDOM SELECSHUN, PROBABILITY SAMPLE, DIRECTD SELECSHUN, NON-RANDOM SELECSHUN R ALL SYMBOL STRINGS, THEY R NOT CONCEPTS. ONLY CONSHUS BEAN CAN HAS CONCEPT AN USEZ THEES SYMBOL STRINGS 2 ENCODE HIS CONCEPT.

* 1) WUT HAPPENS HAPPENS.: THAR WUZ SELECSHUN OV ROCKZ ON TEH MOUNTAIN AFTR TEH EARTHQUAEK. TEH EARTHQUAEK HAD NO INTENT 2 ASSEMBLE AN ASSORTMENT OR SELECSHUN OV ROCKZ, TEH SYMBOL STRIN SELECSHUN IN DIS CASE ISNT ASSOCIATD WIF CONSCIOUSNES.  * 2) TEH MOUNTAINEERS ASSEMBLD SELECSHUN OV ROCKZ 2 FORM CAMP. SELECSHUN HER CONVEYS TEH CONCEPT OV CONSCIOUSNES. * 3) OUTSIDE THAR LIEZ SELECSHUN OV ROCKZ. WUT DIS MEANZ DEPENDZ ON HOO SEZ SO PRAGMATICS. 4 EXAMPLE PETR CUD HAS PLACD SELECSHUN OV ROCKZ OUTSIDE(DESIGN) OR STORM CUD HAS DISLODGD SELECSHUN OV ROCKZ(PATTERN) FRUM MOUNTAIN. TEH SENTENCE WUD BE JUS AS MEANINGLES AS "U HAS GREEN LIGHT" IF IT ISNT KNOWN HOO SED SO AS PER TEH PRAGMATICS ARTICLE ON WIKIPEDIA.  * 3) RANDOM SELECSHUN OR SELECSHUN AT RANDOM - WUT IZ TEH DIFFERENCE? C HTTP://BIT.LY/19LJRY

C HTTP://NEWSGROUPS.DERKEILR.COM/ARCHIV/TALK/TALK.ORIGINS/2007-12/MSG04506.HTML 4 DA CONCEPT JOHN HARSHMAN HAS WIF "SELECSHUN". JH WROTE: "......SELECSHUN DOEZ NOT IMPLICITLY DENOTE INTELLEGENCE....." WHICH IZ CORRECT IN DA SAME WAI DAT "RANDOM" ISNT ALWAYS USD IN "WUT HAPPENS HAPPENS" SENSE AS PER HTTP://BIT.LY/19LJRY. TEH EXAMPLEZ JH GAEV R IN DA SENSE OV 1) - WUT WILL BE, WILL BE. TEH PROBLEM IZ DAT IT ISNT ALWAYS CLEAR IN WUT CONTEXT "SELECSHUN" IZ BEAN USD OR Y IT BEAN USD AT ALL CUZ IN 99% OV CASEZ "SELECTUS OR SELECSHUN" IZ USD 2 CONVEY TEH CONCEPT OV VOLISHUN. HOO DID TEH SELECTIN? - NOBODY DEN Y R TRANZMUTASHUNISTS USIN SELECSHUN.

SAM WROTE: "...GIT JAR OV PEANUTS. CLOSE UR EYEZ AN REACH INTO TEH JAR, SELECTIN PEANUT. U HAS NAO RANDOMLY SELECTD PEANUT! DOAN THEY HAS BINGO WER U LIV? OR TEH LOTTERY?..." WHICH WUZ ADDRESD HER HTTP://BIT.LY/19LJRY ACCUMULASHUN

HTTP://WWW.RICHARDDAWKINS.NET/FORUM/VIEWTOPIC.FP?F=4&T=51836&P=1171619#P1171619 LOGOSCALAMUS WROTE:".....I USE TEH WERD "ACCUMULASHUN" IN PREFERENCE 2 "SELECSHUN". ACCUMULASHUN DOEZ NOT IMPLY INTELLIGENT CHOICE. SELECSHUN IZ GUD WERD 2 USE IF U BLEEV CEILIN CAT DID IT, OR IF THAR EXIST MATHEMATICAL PATERN. THAR R SCIENTISTS, EVOLUSHUNARY HUMANISTS AN EVO-PSYCHOLOGISTS HOO DEBATE TEH USEFULNES OV "SELECSHUN"....."

IT DEPENDZ WUT IZ UR INTENT WIF "ACCUMULASHUN".

* A) THAR WUZ AN ACCUMULASHUN OV SAND OVAR TIEM ON TEH MOUNTAIN  * B) THAR WUZ AN ACCUMULASHUN OV FISH BY TEH FISHERMEN. * C) C HTTP://WWW.PERRYMARSHALLSPEAKZ.COM AN HTTP://WWW.COSMICFINGERPRINTS.COM/ 4 DA PATTERN - DESIGN DISTINCSHUN. A- IZ PATTERN AN B- IZ DESIGN. U EITHR HAS PATTERNS OR DESIGNS. THAR IZ NO INTENT BEHIND PATTERN BUT DESIGN ALWAYS HAS AN INTENT. "SELECSHUN" IMPLIEZ CHOICE 99% OV TEH TIEM AS PER TEH "SELECSHUN OV ROCKZ" EXAMPLE.

principle of divergence
2 ANZWR TEH QUESHUN: WUT IZ TEH PRINCIPLE OV DIVERGENCE OR MOAR SPECIFIC TEH DIFFERENCE TWEEN TEH CONCEPT DARWIN HAD WIF IT AN TEH CONCEPT HE HAD WIF THEORY OV EVOLUSHUN? NONE: TONS, TOE, SELECSHUN, DIVERGENCE, SURVIVAL OV TEH MOST SUITABLE (SPENCR)...., ETC..... WUZ ALL DIFFERENT WERD FILLERS 4 DA SAME TAUTOLOGICAL ESSENCE FRUM PATRICKMATTHEWS: DOSE DAT DIDNT REPRODUCE WUZ LES PERFIK WHILE DOSE DAT DID REPRODUCE WUZ MOAR PERFIK OR WUT IZ ADAPTD IZ ADAPTD FRUM JAMESHUTTON, WHICH DARWIN RESTATD AS "....TEH PRESERVASHUN OV INDIVIDUALS, WHICH WUZ FAVORABLE, AN TEH DESTRUCSHUN OV DOSE WHICH WUZ NOT FAVORABLE......" , LABELIN IT TOE WHICH HE ALSO CALLD THEORY OV NACHURAL SELECSHUN 36 TIEMS, WHICH WUZ DAT TEH DINOSAURS DID CUZ THAR WUZ LES IMPROOVD.

WIF TEH ERROR CONTINUIN HER AT HARVARD HTTP://NEWS.HARVARD.EDU/GAZETTE/STORY/2009/06/WRANGHAM-WE-R-WUT-WE-EAT-AN-WUT-WE-COOK/ ",,,WRANGHAM SEZ. “WE R BIOLOGICALLY ADAPTD 2 COOK FUD. IT’S PART OV HOO WE R AN AFFECTS US IN EVRY WAI U CAN IMAGINE: BIOLOGICALLY, ANATOMICALLY, SOCIALLY...” HOW DID WRANGHAM DEDUCE DAT WUZ R ADAPTD 2 COOK FUD OTHR THAN NOTIN WE DO COOK FUD? HE MITE AS WELL HAS SED RAWK IZ ADAPTD AT BEAN RAWK. WUT IZ TEH THEORY OV EVOLUSHUN?

WUT IZ TEH DIFFERENCE TWEEN TEH CONCEPTS ENCODD WIF TEH WERD "EVOLUSHUN" OR "EVOLVERE"(LATIN) AN TEH TURM "THEORY OV EVOLUSHUN" AN HOO IZ ENCODIN 4 SUCH CONCEPT FRUM WUT KNOWLEDGE BASE? ON WIKIPEDIA "THEORY OV EVOLUSHUN" REDIRECTS 2 TEH PAEG MARKD EVOLUSHUN: Y? HOO IZ TEH PERSON DAT DECIDD DAT TEH CONCEPT DARWIN ENCODD 4 WIF TEH WERD COUPLET "THEORY OV EVOLUSHUN", USD ONLY TWICE IN OOS CANT HAS SEPARATE PAEG NOR BE ALLOWD 2 BE QUOTD IN DA MAIN ARTICLE OV HTTP://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/EVOLUSHUN. THAR R MULTIPLE CONCEPTS FRUM LOTZ DA AUTHORS (PUNK-EEK, GRADUALISM) HOO R ENCODIN 4 DIFFERENT IDEAS WIF TEH WERD "EVOLUSHUN". Y ISNT THAR SEPARATE ENTRY DEALIN WIF TEH CONCEPT DARWIN HAD WIF TEH TURM "THEORY OV GRADUAL EVOLUSHUN" OR "THEORY OV EVOLUSHUN". GOULDZ PUNKEEK CONCEPT WIF "THEORY OV EVOLUSHUN" DIFFERS FRUM DARWINS CONCEPT WIF "THEORY OV GRADUAL EVOLUSHUN", USD ONLY ONCE. DARWIN OBJECTD 2 "EVOLUSHUN" TEH WERD CUZ BAK DEN IT MEANT CEILIN CAT WUZ INVOLVD, "EVOLUSHUN" APPEARS ONLY FEW TIEMS IN DA BOOK.

HTTP://WWW.HARUNYAHYA.COM/BOOKZ/DARWINISM/ATLAS_CREASHUN/ATLAS_CREASHUN_01.FP DOESNT SAY WUT EGSAKTLY IZ TEH TOE, WUT HE IZ REFUTIN ISNT CLEAR.

NACHURAL SELECSHUN AS SUCCESFUL ALGORITHM FRUM PATENT FILINGS

HTTP://WWW.FREEPATENTSONLINE.COM/6266654.HTML - PATENT5824312SELECSHUN


 * "....NACHURAL SELECSHUN IZ TEH MOST SUCCESFUL ALGORITHM KNOWN 4 DA GENERASHUN OV SOLUSHUNS 2 PROBLEMS. SUM FILOSOFERS OV SCIENCE CHARACTERIZE TEH ALGORITHM IN QUITE GENERAL TERMS--TEH DIFFERENTIAL REPRODUCSHUN OV RANDOMLY GENERATD SUCCESFUL VARIASHUNS--AN ASSERT DAT IT TEH ONLY SOLUSHUN-GENERATIN ALGORITHM THAR CAN BE....."

"...TEH DIFFERENTIAL REPRODUCSHUN OV RANDOMLY GENERATD SUCCESFUL VARIASHUNS-...". WHICH REFRASD REDUCEZ 2: SUCCESFUL VARIASHUNS REPLICATE. "REPLICATE" AN "SUCCESFUL" ALLUDEZ 2 TEH SAME FACT, IT SEZ TEH SAME TING TWICE. NACHURAL SELECSHUN, DIFFERENTIAL, RANDOMLY R WERD FILLERS OBSCURIN TEH UNDERLYIN ARISTOTELIAN TAUTOLOGICAL FALLACY. IF NACHURAL SELECSHUN IZ BLIND, Y ISNT IT STOOPID?

KENNETHMILLR SED IN HIS YOUTUBE VIDEO CONCERNIN IC DAT :"..... NACHURAL SELECSHUN IZ BLIND......" BUT IF NATURALSELECSHUN IZ BLIND DEN Y ISNT IT STOOPID? ONLY CONSHUS BEAN CAN BE BLIND AN STOOPID, TEH OXYMORON NATURALSELECSHUN ALLOWS DUEL MEANIN 2 BE INTENDD BY USR. IF NATURALSELECSHUN IZ CONSHUS DEN WUT IZ NATURALSELECSHUN? IZ BEAN, MONSTR WIF TAIL AN LONG TEETH ON WHICH IZ WRITTEN NATURALSELECSHUN, WUT PRECISELY IZ KENNETHMILLR TRYIN 2 SPEEK. DID HE USE "BLIND" AS METAFOR AN IF SO Y R METAFORS EVEN BEAN USD CUZ THEY R MEANZ 2 CLOUD CONCEPT IF TEH USR DOESNT KNOE WUT HE IZ TRYIN 2 SAY. MILLR IZ WIELDIN TEH TURM NACHURAL SELECSHUN AS SUM SORT OV UNIVERSAL MECHANISM WHICH WUD MAK IT JUS AS IMPLAUSIBLE AS SINGLE DIFFERENTIAL EQUASHUN EXPLAININ ALL OV FYSICS, DEPENDIN THOUGH ON WUT HE DEFINEZ AS NACHURAL SELECSHUN.

Notes on Darwin

 * HE SED CHANCE WUZ AN "...INCORRECT EXPRESHUN....".   * RM SURFACD IN DA JOURNALS AROUND 1910, AFTR DARWIN DID.    * HE WUZ TEH BEAGLEZ GENTLEMANLY COMPANION, TEH DOCTA WUZ TEH NATURALIST, OOS IZ WRONG ON DIS AKOWNT.    * IN LETTR 2 ASA GRAY HE NOTD HOW HE DEDUCD TEH PRINCIPLE OV "DESSENT WIF MODIFICASHUN" TWEEN 1840 AN 1850, BUT IT WUZ PAPR BY HTTP://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/JEAN_BAPTISTE_JULIEN_D%27OMALIUS_D%27HALLOY IN 1848 FORM WHICH HE GOT TEH TURM. TEH TURM DWM DARWIN LABELD NACHURAL SELECSHUN.    * Y DOEZ HTTP://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/DESSENT_WITH_MODIFICASHUN REDIRECT 2 HTTP://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/EVOLUSHUN ?    * READ HTTP://SEEDMAGAZINE.COM/NEWS/2007/09/THE_MEANING_OF_LIFE.FP?PAEG=ALL          O DARWIN NEVR SED "REPRODUCTIV SUCCES" NOR "RANDOM MUTASHUNS".      TEH MEANIN OV LIFE W3FHHTTP://GROUPS.GOOGLE.COM/GROUP/TALK.ORIGINS/MSG/C69E53509969C6B2 ATHEIST BOB AN SCIENTIST BY TRADE: "...TEH CONCEPT OV VOLISHUN IZ ABSENT IN SCIENCE. AGAIN U PROOV MAH POINT. U INSIST ON ANALYZIN 21ST SENTURY SCIENCE WIF LANGUAGE FRUM HUNDREDZ, IF NOT THOUSANDZ OV YEERS AGO. SCIENCE DID NOT EXIST DEN. TEH CONCEPTS WE FINKZ OV IN SCIENCE STARTD 2 BE STRUCTURD IN DA 16TH AN 17TH SENTURY. CREASHUNISM IZ ROOTD IN TIEM BEFORE DIS AN SO CAN NOT UNDERSTAND, NOR EXPRES, THEES IDEAS. THAZ Y UR COMMENTS R USELES EXCEPT 4, PERHAPS, ARCHIVAL PURPOSEZ. U YOURSELF R, IN SENSE, TRANZISHUNAL...A LIVIN LINGUISTIC FOSIL CAUGHT IN AMBR...."BOB IZ CREATIN HIS OWN LANGUAGE REALITY BASD ON TEH BELIEF DAT HIS MIND CONSISTS OV ILLUSHUNS, CREATD BY TEH ATOMS BANGIN TOGETHR IN HIS HEAD. IF ALL CONSCIOUSNES, ALL THOT AN LANGUAGE IZ ULTIMATELY TEH RESULT OV ATOMS SPINNIN IN R HEADZ DEN WE CANT BLEEV WERD WE SAY OR FINKZ CUZ IF TEH ATOMS SPIN IN DIFFERENT DIRECSHUN, BOB MITE ARGUE DAT HE IZ BOILD EGG. PROVIDIN WELL REASOND DESCRIPSHUN(NOT SCIENCE, SCIENCE ISNT DEFIND) OV FENOMENA MEANZ IT AT LEAST CAN BE SOMEWHAT DEFIND, BUT LIFE ITSELF WITHIN TEH MATERIALIST WURLD VIEW ISNT DEFIND AS CLELAND(HTTP://SEEDMAGAZINE.COM/NEWS/2007/09/THE_MEANING_OF_LIFE.FP?PAEG=ALL). TEH VRY TING DAT ATHEISTS R: ALIV, THEY CANT DEFINE, ALL THEIR TALK BOUT EMPIRICISM , "SCIENTIFIC" R HYPERBOLE USD 4 ITZ RHETORICAL EFFECT IN AFFIRMIN THEIR WURLD VIEW. TEH VRY WERD "BIOLOGY" MEANIN EITHR STUDY OV LIFE(WUT IZ LIFE?) OR JUS LIFE DEPENDIN ON TEH CONTEXT ISNT AVAILABLE 2 THEM. AN NEITHR SHUD "SELECSHUN(HOO DID TEH SELECTIN?)", "EVOLUSHUN(WUT MADE PROGRES?)", "DESSENT WIF MODIFICASHUN(HOO DID TEH MODIFYIN?)".KEN HAM AN TEH EU "BLEEV" IN NACHURAL SELECSHUNBOTH KEN HAM AN TEH EU BLEEV IN NACHURAL SELECSHUN. R THEY TALKIN BOUT TEH SAME TING?OPENINGS DEFINISIEAFRTAUTOLOGY HTTP://AF.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/BESPREKIN:NATUURLIKE_SELEKSIE".....NATUURLIKE SELEKSIE IZ N VERSKYNSEL IN DYE NATUUR WAAR SEKERE VOORDELIGE EVOLUSHUNêRE KENMERKE AAN ORGANISMEZ DEUR MIDDEL VAN VOORTPLANTIN Bó DYE KENMERKE VAN ANDR ORGANISMEZ GEKEUR WERD, EN DUS METTERTYD N GROTERWORDENDE PROMINENTHEID HANDHAAF....."BUITEN DYE FEIT DAT DYE ORGANISMEZ MER PROMINENT GEWORD HET, HOE WUZ HULLE VOORDELIGHEID ONAFHANKLIG GEMEET?DYE ENIGSTE MAATSTAF IZ OM TE KYK WATTR SKEPSELS DIT GEMAAK HET EN WATTR NIE. DYE INLEIDIN IZ WEL N BIETJIE LOMP, MAAR EK KAN NIE NOU AAN N BETR BEWOORDIN DINK NIE. ANRIE (KONTAK) 19:43, 5 OKTOBR 2009 (UTC)DUS DYE WAT DIT MAAK IZ VOORDELIG EN DYE WAT DIT NIE MAAK NIE IZ SLEG? DIT KLINK NA N HERFORMULERIN VAN ARISTOTLE , SIEN HTTP://SCRATCHPAD.WIKIA.COM/WIKI/TAUTOLOGY VIR MAH NOTAS IN VERBAND HIERMEE.BUITEN DYE FEIT DAT HULLE VOORDELIG WUZ, HOE WUZ HULLE PROMINENTHEID GEMEET? KAN JY SIEN DAT "PROMINENT" END "VOORDELIG" DIESELFDE DING TWEE KER SE, WAT DUS DYE OPENINGS PARAGRAAF ONBETWISBAAR MAAK, DIT IZ 100% WATERDIG. GEEN ARGUMENT KAN DIT WEERLE NIE WAT DIT N LOGISIE FALSHEID MAAK. DIT IZ SOOS DARWIN GEES HET:".... TEH TRUTH OV TEH PROPOSISHUN CANT BE DISPUTD...". MAAR DIT IZ OMDAT DARWIN SY KONSEP SO GEFORMULER HET DAT DIT NIE WEERLE KAN WERD NIE.LINKZARISTOTLETAUTOLOGICAL