TauTology

Sentences have no meaning, they symbolically represent only an idea
The following wikipedia pages are necessary back ground knowledge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy The etymological fallacy holds, erroneously, that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning. This is a linguistic misconception, mistakenly identifying a word's current semantic field with its etymology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysemy A word is judged to be polysemous if it has two senses of the word whose meanings are related. Since the vague concept of relatedness is the test for polysemy, judgments of polysemy can be very difficult to make. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation Equivocation is classified as both a formal and informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonym

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics The sentence "You have a green light" is ambiguous. Without knowing the context, the identity of the speaker, and their intent, it is not possible to infer the meaning with confidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern This article does not cite any references or sources.It is to be noted that the materialists controlling Wikipedia refuse to formulate what they understand with "patternx" because they don't even cite a dictionary in the article2010-09-22. How would one for example differentiate between an actual patternx and something which only has the appearance of a patternx. Dr. Howard Hershey and I debated this topic for over two months on Usenet - Automated_Selection, http://bit.ly/bkDtOd. He views design3 as subset of patternx.

The YEC world view is that everything is in terms of an order/disorder, pattern/design and cause/effect dichotomy sense. Thus HoWard1 world view is that order is subset of disorder, intentionality subset of unintended, light subset of darkness and truth subset of lies. YEC interprets everything in terms of a PatternOrDesign, order/disorder and cause/effect dichotomy sense. The disconnect between the world views is what does either view actually mean with design/order and pattern/disorder. To comprehend what is meant with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/selectionx, the supporting lexicon of pattern/disorder, design/order , random and non-random must be documented using Berry's paradox style subscripts. Especially the debate surrounding the Second law1(metaphor) of Thermodynamics must be resolved in terms of the design/order and pattern/disorder world views.

Whatever is meant with selectionx will be in the context of a patternx and designx.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design This article needs additional citations for verification.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volition_(psychology) Volition or will is the cognitive process by which an individual decides on and commits to a particular course of action.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_(philosophy) In idealist models of reality, the material world is either non-existent or is a secondary artifact of the "true" world of ideas.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-random This article doesn't exist and the Wikipedia Epicureans won't allow its creation. They don't want to define what the materialist belief system understands under the rubric of non-random. Do they consider non-random as a synonym for design, volition and intent?
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection This article does not cite any references or sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness ".....The modern evolutionary synthesis ascribes the observed diversity of life to natural selection, in which some random genetic mutations are retained in the gene pool due to the non-random improved chance for survival and reproduction that those mutated genes confer on individuals who possess them...."

Dawkins speaks of non-random natural selection. There is no non-random article on Wikipedia to document what is meant with it. Non-random is usually used to represent volition,intent as in somebody did the selection or made a decision. Dawkins though isn't representing a volitional concept.


 * Mind or Matter

To resolve the fact that a large part of the entire English lexicon is polysemous, tag the words with subscripts as per the idea from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry%27s_paradox. The words selectionx, fitnessx, designx, patternx, naturalx, artificialx, random and tautologyx are used in the current origins debate in various contexts. In order to document the world views projected with these words Berry's paradox style subscripts must be used. It allows us to avoid much of the ambiguity and crossed lines between the different world views using the same symbol strings.

http://www.alanrhoda.net/blog/2007/04/propositions-and-make-believe.html#links by poster http://iliocentrism.blogspot.com/ There is not one word in any language which intrinsicly means "this" or "that." Rather, all words are symbols representing "this" or "that." Since not a single word actually *means* anything at all, of itself, it follows that no number of them strung together can mean anything. And yet, we use both words and sentences continuously; we cannot communicate very much without them. Even the effective communication of most emotions requires words. Ideas/concepts/ propositions have meaning, certainly; but sentences are not ideas. Rather, sentences, whether spoken or written, are are symbolic representations of ideas, they are signals by which one mind seeks to create an idea in another mind ... or "flesh-out" an idea to one's own self. We (including I) quite often call sentences, or at least a certain sort of sentence, "propositions," but they really aren't themselves propositions.

The closer conscious subjects stick to common words, idioms, phrasings, and topics, the more easily others can surmise their meaning; the further they stray from common expressions and topics, the wider the variations in interpretations. This suggests that sentences don't have meaning intrinsically; there is not a meaning associated with a sentence or word, they can only symbolically represent an idea. - SentencesHaveNoMeaning

http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2008/05/on_ontology_and_metaphysics_su.php wrote: ".....Ideas, whether "simple" or "complex" exist solely as semantic relations between individuals in language communities. They are originated at some time, evolve over time in response to various conditions and influences, and eventually will become extinct or atavistic. They have no ontology other than this. This means that every idea has a history, and only a history......"

The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry%27s_paradox as formulated arises because of systematic ambiguity in the word "definable". In other formulations of the Berry paradox, such as one that instead reads: "...not nameable in less..." the term "nameable" is also one that has this systematic ambiguity. Terms of this kind give rise to vicious circle fallacies. Other terms with this type of ambiguity are: satisfiable, true, false, function, property, class, relation, cardinal, and ordinal.[2] To resolve one of these paradoxes means to pinpoint exactly where our use of language went wrong and to provide restrictions on the use of language which may avoid them. More rigorously, this family of paradoxes can be resolved by incorporating stratifications of meaning in language. Terms with systematic ambiguity may be written with subscripts denoting that one level of meaning is considered a higher priority than another in their interpretation. The number not nameable1 in less than eleven words' may be nameable2 in less than eleven words under this scheme.[4]

Prof. Herrmann at http://www.serve.com/herrmann/omni.htm wrote ".....A language, as we know it, if improperly applied along with classical logic can lead to meaningless statements when meaningful phrases are employed....The fact that there exists millions of meaningless statements in the sense of classical logic is relevant in that it shows that the descriptive power of any human language is limited...".

This same logic should be extended to the word "tautology", name a 'necessary truth', axiom or logical validity Tautology1 as per Naming Conventions. Tautological expression Tautology2. Rhetorical tautology Tautology3 etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics states "...In mathematics with Berry's paradox there arose a systematic ambiguity with the word "definable"...". In English the word "lovex" alone doesn't tell us what type of lovex is implied - [(Agape, Phile or Eros (Eros is never used in the bible)]. By using subscripts we thus simulate the power of the Greek lexicon in English and other languages.

http://evolvingthoughts.net/2010/02/21/the-ontological-fallacy/ ".....The term ontological fallacy has great currency in social philosophy, where it is used to denote the mistake of assuming that because there is a term for something, like a social institution, that the object it denotes really exists. A similar couple of fallacies are Whitehead’s “Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness”, in his Science and the Modern World, which he engaged against a certain kind of scientific realism, and Marcuse’s “Reification Fallacy” in One Dimensional Man...." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction or hypostatization, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

Tautology
URL link to this page - http://bit.ly/ds42t A tautology1,2,3,x is the semantic label for saying the same thing twice. All the different types of tautologies, validity's and pleonasms reside under the rubric of semantic tautology. Under this rubric we have:

necessary truths, axioms or logical validity's - Tautology1. They can't be verified but neither refuted because they are axiomatic logical assertions.

An expression (as opposed to an assertion) is considered tautologicalx if it contains redundant information. For example, "to return back again" is tautological2(pleonasm) because the sense of "back again" is already fully contained within the word "return", and so is redundant but not necessarily fallacious.

Logical validity's should be viewed as "promissory notes", taken by faith a shadowing of Godel's incompleteness theorem Goedels_ontological_proof and - http://www.perrymarshall.com/articles/religion/godels-incompleteness-theorem:"....Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle – something you have to assume but cannot prove..". The syllogism is that Gödel’s incompleteness theorem applies to all logical systems and the universe is logical. Therefore the universe is incomplete. Logic is not a huge set of circular propositions. It’s a progression of inductions that ultimately rest on axioms that are known to be true but are not provable nor refutable.

Ultimately everything we do or say in religion, science, engineering and politics are based on a "promissory note". There is in no such thing as an empirical "scientific" reality only a reality of faith which is the evidence of things not seen, the firm conviction that our existence based on a promise has ultimate meaning.

Our entire system of being, condition of existence hopes and dreams are based on assumptions, promissory notes, than can't be verified but neither refuted. How do we therefore know what the Truth is? Tarski showed with Semantic theory of truth that any attempt at deriving Truth itself from logic leads to a contradiction. 'Empirical reality' is another synonym for truth. More on this from http://raherrmann.com, Prof. Herrmann Ph.D in math US Naval Academy.(He is a YEC who believes that Dembski's ID is Restricted Design theory). What http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Tautology.html refers to as logical tautologies can be more accurately defined as logical validity's, the only evidence for their valid nature is faith. The symbolic mathematical expression of these validity's by themselves aren't fallacies, they are not rhetorical tautologies.

Tautological expressions or what http://maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com refers to as non-tautological propositions - Tautology2 - http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2010/01/when-is-a-tautology-not-a-tautology.html. A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleonasm (Pleonasm) is in reality a tautological2 expression and specifically not a manifestation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric)3.

A Tautological2 expression or Pleonasm2 aids in achieving a specific linguistic effect, be it social, poetic, or literary. In particular, pleonasm sometimes serves the same function as rhetorical repetition — it can be used to reinforce an idea, contention or question, rendering writing clearer and easier to understand. Such Pleonasms can be found in the book of Psalms.

Is the contention that "free gift2" is a tautology1,2 or 3? true? . To assert that such a phrase always says the same thing twice is to miss-frame the particular premise of a user. For example: A man's gift of a dinner and a movie to his date may be a "gift2" but it sometimes comes bundled with expectations. But, if the recipient of the free dinner asks first "if I go with you, are you expecting anything?" and gets the answer "no", then it's accurate to say the invitee got a "free gift" of dinner. It is incorrect that no gift can ever have non-free implications attached to it.

Another example is "suddenly, without warning". If two armies oppose each other in the field and one commander sends the opposition a warning message as follows "I instruct you to retreat or I will attack", any subsequent attack, sudden or otherwise, was warned. "Sudden" means "happening or coming unexpectedly". But students of military history have noted; via effective deception, any attack can be seen as "sudden", even if fair warning was previously given.

A rhetorical tautology3 is a truism, masquerading as a logical validity from which a conclusion is drawn that doesn't follow logically(non-sequitur).

Rhetorical tautologies3 which are fallacious forms of deriving conclusion which are non-sequiturs - Tautology3. To which idea is being referred to must be derived from the context and can't be separated from the Pragmatics of the individual encoding his intent to signal receiver. Conclusions as to what it means to formulate the same concept twice will generally emminate from whomever is arbitrating the proper parsing of the words at issue. An element of interpersonal power-dynamics can infuse itself into definitional debates. The editor can label something a tautology(or not a tautology) so as to better dismiss the opposition's position if it conflicts with his world view. Saying the same thing twice takes on varying nuances either fallacious, logically valid or poetic:

Rhetorical tautologies3 or tautological3 propositions are fallacious. Tautological2 expressions used for its stylistic effect in language verbosity, poetry and language redundancy aren't fallacious. Logical validity such as A or not A. It is a generic tautology not a fallacious rhetorical tautology.

Axioms aren't tautologies but logical validity's. Many attempt to downplay a fallacious rhetorical tautology3 by equivocating between logical validity's and argumentation schemes which are non-sequiturs which might be called the fallacy of Innocence by association. Axioms such as X=X and (A or not-A), are assumed an explanatory logically valid schema for mathematics is valid. "What happens, happens" also says the same thing twice but as part of an explanatory schema is fallacious.

Logically valid but unintended and thus a Logical Tautology(Tautology4) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic). A tautology that arises as an unintended consequence of automated theorem verification. The intention wasn't to be poetic neither deceptive nor to affirm the logical validity or axiomatic, faith or hopeful basis for our existence that (A or not-A) or (1 = 1) implies. It has all to do with Pragmatics.

Repetition of the same idea in different words. (http://tautology.net/) such as Creationism isn't science, where a single word essentially says the same thing twice. The word Science in the context used, the intention was: Creationism isn't materialistic, where the Pragmatics with "science" was the materialist belief system. Creationism is defined as not being materialistic thus the sentence really reduces to: Something which is defined as not being materialistic, isn't materialistic and therefore materialism is the correct world view which says the same thing twice making the conclusion a non-sequitur. Perhaps materialism is the correct world view but not as a result of the argumentation scheme.

In logic, a tautology(Tautology1) is a proposition that is already true by definition, not because of any logical deduction. There isn't really a process of logical deduction than can be used to deduce that 1=1 - we simply believe it to hold in our domain. It might not be true though in another domain, distant past or distant future as shown by Prof. Herrmann (http://www.serve.com/herrmann/main.html) from US naval academy. He referred to extrapolations of nuclear decay rates in our domain to infer that the earth is therefore 5bil years old as "set theoretic error of generalization" or something to that effect. Using the math of Ultra-Logics he proved that the present laws of physics can't be extrapolated to the distant past or future because back then there might have been different laws, which means that all photon impressions on photographic plates of "distant" galaxies are basically pretty pictures. They can't tell you how the universe was made. The public don't know about it because the science popularizers publishing on CNN don't inform them. There are about 300 mathematicians knowledgeable about Ultra-logics and its implications for theories about the origins of the universe and how we should interpret nuclear decay rates.

Use of an extra word in a phrase or sentence which unnecessarily repeats an idea, eg the annual poetry festival is staged every year but if used in a colloquial sense for its stylistic effect is a tautological2 expression or pleonasm and not a fallacy.

An argument is said to be a rhetorical tautology if it cannot be false, such as: "Those that were favorable became common and those not favored become less common". This tautology is usually encoded for with the symbol 'natural selection', an arbitrary choice of words. Note that "natural selection" isn't a tautology, it's not even a sentence. Only the idea it symbolically represented by Darwin could be a tautology. Natural selection itself as a symbol has no meaning, like a hammer has no intent to strike by itself.

Some arguments are disguised tautologies formulated such that it could be called Truthiness-Tautology, it is formulated so that it cannot be disputed, somewhere between a truism and tautology or a blending of a logical necessity, necessary truth, truism and rhetorical tautology - http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2009-11/msg08925.html

Double Tautology: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/5947cbc2f3ae0a31/bbe4039c06b01a69 "... a concept irrefutable under all and any conditions, patterns or designs..."

StrawTology: An attempt to at introducing false observational information relating to a tautological description of a phenomena in order to extract an argument which seemingly explained the observation from tautological implications. (Will update in due time, see this - http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/557a525aebe1bddb# - thread for where it was discussed.)

QuesTology is an unanswerable question: "If the tree was made by God, who made God?" is a "Questology", it is formulated in such a way that it can't be answered making any conclusion from it a non-sequitur: God could either exist or he couldn't. It is a variation of "Could God make a stone so heavy that he can't lift it?" Prof. Herrmann addresses this question at http://www.serve.com/herrmann/omni.htm: ".....A language, as we know it, if improperly applied along with classical logic can lead to meaningless statements when meaningful phrases are employed......". The implication by a user of the sentence who's world view is Atheism is that because the question can't be answered that therefore there is no God. If on the other hand a Theist were to ask the same question with his world view it would imply the existence of God because only he could answer such a question. The question and the fact that his creation(from either world view) could come up with such a question means there must be a supreme intelligence knowing everything and everything there is to know. To answer the question we with our limited knowledge would need to know everything. Imagine seeing a card-house and then concluding it wasn't designed because we don't know who designed the person that designed it and who in turn designed him in an infinite regress. It is tantamount to saying "because we don't know everything, we thus know nothing". "Questologies" are the twin-brother of "Rhetorical Tautologies", used to make an argumentation narrative indisputable making any conclusion from such a non-sequitur. [''Note: I am not exactly sure about the logic in this paragraph, it could be erroneous, this subject needs further research. http://www.serve.com/herrmann/omni.htm would be in a better position to make sense of this issue. Please edit the discussion page with relative links to resolve this issue.'']

A rhetorical tautology is defined as a series of statements that comprise an argument, whereby the statements are constructed in such a way that the truth of the propositions are guaranteed or that the truth of the propositions cannot be disputed by defining a term in terms of another self referentially: It says the same thing twice or repeats the same concept using words or terms in the synonymous sense, even though the words might not be semantically equivalent. Tautologies are a matte of pragmatics, not semantics. [Semantics are agreed upon codes between signal sender and receiver, they in themselves don't convey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics. Only a conscious agent can have pragmatics, intent or an idea. Only ideas have meaning symbols like "natural selection" don't]. The argument is formulated in such a way that it cannot be refuted. A story in the New York Times isn't confirmed by reading it twice and neither is a world view confirmed by expressing it multiple ways.

Consequently the statement conveys no useful information regardless of its length or complexity making it Unfalsifiable. It is formulating a description in a way that masquerades as an explanation when the real reason for the phenomena cannot be independently derived. The statement "If you can't find something (that you lost), you are not looking in the right place" is tautological. It is true and can't be disputed, but conveys no useful information. As a physical example, to play a game of darts where the dart board was full of bulls-eyes could be called a "tautological" game. The player would not lose. Any argument containing a tautology is flawed and must be considered a LogicalFallacy and conclusions or world views derived from such as non-sequiturs. The world view very well might be correct but doesn't follow logically from the argumentation scheme employed. At http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/tree/browse_frm/thread/015c3069fc289984/75454eb066c9952d?rnum=241&_done=%2Fgroup%2Ftalk.origins%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F015c3069fc289984%2Fd799dd5c3d95945e%3F#doc_202839ff82118731 Darwin wrote: ".. and every individual with the slightest blemish or in any degree inferior may be freely rejected..." The statement contains no useful information because being blemished implies that it would be rejected but this doesn't explain why it was blemished, what caused the blemish.

A tautological argument is not an argument; a tautological game is not a game. Mathematical equations, such as E = mc2, are not tautologies. The terms on both sides of the equation are defined elsewhere independently. The equal sign does not mean "is defined by" but rather equal to, establishing an equivalence. It doesn't define one term in term's of another. Acceleration and mass independently don't equal force but their product MA as derived by Newton does, hence the equation F=MA isn't a tautology. The second law relates an external influence, the force, to the acceleration of an object in space and time, it isn't a tautological statement,they are independently measurable.

A rhetorical tautology can't be falsified because it is just that a tautology. A logical validity such as "A or not-A" can't be verified but this doesn't equate to a refutation. The idea symbolically represented with the symbol string "A or not-A and therefore monkeys gave birth to humans" is a rhetorical tautology: The conclusion is a non-sequitur. It might be true that monkeys gave birth to humans but not as a logical deduction from a necessary truth. (http://groups.google.com/group/sci.bio.evolution/browse_thread/thread/ea6cb92232f2e69c/e49f197b34b00632?q=aristotle+OR+tautology#e49f197b34b00632)

X=X could be a logical validity,mathematical redundancy or a logical tautology depending on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics or motive behind it. There is no language without a motive. A Truism is true by definition, it is not a tautology but can be reformulated in a tautological manner in order to disguise the truistic nature of the original statement and underlying Premises. The dividing line between a Truism and an observation is Pragmatics. Neither is Begging the question a tautology. A Truism is embedded inside an argument in an attempt to disguise that the conclusion based on the argument's core is a Non_sequitur_(logic) Non sequitur (logic). The sun shines is an observation, it becomes a Truism if used in an argument to influence the hearer to come to a conclusion which doesn't follow logically from the core of the argument.

The truism in such a case should be considered a &amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1 Red herring (logical fallacy) an irrelevant piece of trivia employed as a rhetorical smoke screen. Tautologies, CircularReasoning and Truisms are used together as a rhetorical device in a deceptive attempt to argue for a view if it isn't possible to independently establish the real reason for the viewpoint elsewhere. The seeming complexity of such an argument might comes across as well reasoned but is really just the articulation of a world view that can't be Falsified.

Rhetorical tautologies are a Synonymous play with words that alludes to the same fact but in doing so presents itself as an explanation giving the illusion of uncovering the actual reason for the observation. An example of this would be the following proposition: favorable traits become more common and unfavorable traits become less common. The word favorable and the term more common says the same thing twice, which doesn't tell us the actual reason the traits become more common. This is illustrated with two questions:
 * Other than noting the traits became more common how was their favorability measured?
 * Other than noting the traits were favorable how was their capacity to increase measured?

The argument is formulated in such a way that it cannot be refuted. Furthermore the underlying Premise and word view of the formulator must be questioned because it might contain circularity, FalseDichotomies,RetrospectiveSpecification with the tautology an attempt to disguise these underlying Logical fallacies.

Papers by John S. Wilkins
Wilkins has some things to say about the tautology problem, especially after he realized that the whole ToEx is mired in tautological polemics. But he has to tread carefully and like Popper say one thing but actually mean something else, nobody today in academia can really speak their mind and say what they really believe.

http://philpapers.org/rec/WILDUV "....Few problems in the philosophy of evolutionary biology are more widely disseminated and discussed than the charge of Darwinian evolution being a tautology. The history is long and complex, and the issues are many, and despite the problem routinely being dismissed as an introductory-level issue, based on misunderstandings of evolution, it seems that few agree on what exactly these misunderstandings consist of. In this paper, I will try to comprehensively review the history and the issues. Then, I will try to present the following “solution”, or, one might say, “dissolution”, of the problem, and consider the wider implications of formal, or schematic, explanations in science: yes, the principle of natural selection is a tautology, and so what? It is a promissory note for actual, physical, explanations in particular cases, and is none the worse for that. This is not a new argument, of course, but it does point up the importance of formal schematic models in science...."


 * http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/37e8006cf9a3e9e1?hl=en "One thing that should be noted, is that in logic a tautology is something that is _true by definition_. If natural selection _were_ a tautology, that would mean it had to be true, which is perhaps a conclusion creationists would not want to reach" (John Wilkins, 2009).
 * http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2008/03/can_a_christian_accept_natural.php "I once sat across the table from Alex Rosenberg, a well known philosopher, who argued persuasively that one cannot be both a Christian and accept natural selection. I think Alex intended this as a reductio for Christianity, as natural selection is both true by definition and also observed in the real world (John Wilkins, 2008).
 * http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/16b4ceb7060da56b?hl=en "If Ray wonders why I said NS is true by definition, it is" (John Wilkins, 2009)

Haven't read the paper yet by Wilkins but note the sentence: "...yes, the principle of natural selection is a tautology, and so what?...." [To which type of tautology is Wilkins referring to Tautology1, Tautology2 or Tautology3]

There is a difference between a logical validity, rhetorical tautology, necessary truth, questology, strawtology, logical tautology, double tautology, truthiness-tautology and tautological expression: They all resort under the rubric tautology or "generic tautology". The single word "tautologyx" is the generic semantic label, but it doesn't discern by itself between the types of tautological prose available to the rhetorician, poet, thinker and wit in the same way the word "lovex" alone doesn't tell us what type of lovex is implied - [(Agape, Phile or Eros (Eros is never used in the bible)]

What type of tautology did Wilkins refer to, from the initial passage itself one can't deduce because of the limited lexicon in the English language.


 * http://evolvingthoughts.net/2009/08/25/tautology-3-the-problem-spreads/ ".....Darwinism is false because, errr, well it’s not entirely clear how a principle that, if a tautologyx, is always true can show that the theory it resides in is false, but then we never expected creationists to be coherent on this...."

From the quoted passage he equivocates Etymological_fallacy ,Polysemy, Equivocation between a "necessary truth" - Tautology1 and "rhetorical tautology" - Tautology3 committing the logical fallacy of "innocence by association" by using the generic label "tautology" and by semantic slight of hand seemingly reconciles Darwin's "... the truth of the propositions cannot be disputed..." with the Popperian demand that a proposition had better be disputable or it is a logical fallacy.

A logical validity such as A or non-A is an assertion not a proposition. It is not proposed that 7=7 or "what happens, happens" is true but asserted by faith, neither verifiable nor refutable. Propositions must be falsifiable, some way of disproving it must exist. A logical validity must always be true, John S. Wilkins is equivocating between propositions and assertions. All scientific laws are propositions they are potentially falsifiable, logical assertions or necessary truths can't be falsified nor verified.

Haldane committed the same error of Etymological_fallacy ,Polysemy, Equivocation]:
 * "...The phrase, `survival of the fittest,' is something of a tautology . . There is no harm in stating the same truth in two different ways."—*J.B.S. Haldane, "Darwinism Under Revision," in Rationalist Annual (1935), p. 24.....".

There certainly is no harm to state (A or not-A) as axiom in set theory or 1=1 in elementary mathematics for first graders, they must comprehend its logical valid nature.

He states that the natural selection tautology1 (Wilkins meant type 1 tautology) is a "promissory note". A or not-A is also a tautology1, more specific like "(what happens happens1)" it is a logical necessity or "promissory note" that all of logic is assumes it is true. But "what happens, happens and therefore our ancestor was a flea-scratching baboon on the Savannas" is a rhetorical tautology3, the conclusion is a non-sequitur.

It is still possible though that we evolved(PatternOrDesign sense?) from a monkey fondling his nuts while hanging by his tail, but this is a conclusion that can't be deduced directly from Tautology1 alone. Every single argument in every sphere of human activity will involve involve propositions that can't be verified but neither refuted - Tautology1

Newtons inverse square law pivots on the promissory nature of Tautology1 and can be tested, but can't be derived directly from the nature of Tautology1. An argument which derives it sole force from Tautology1 is in reality Tautology1.

http://evolvingthoughts.net/2009/08/26/tautology-4-what-is-a-tautology/ "....As Maynard Smith once said, in a source I cannot now find, there’s nothing wrong with a bit of tautologyx in a mathematical system; every mathematical model must have them. So why should we now think that a tautologyx is problematic?....."

To what type of tautology would Wilkins refer to here 1 or 3? Tautology1 isn't "problematic", it is the foundation of all we say, do and think our entire existence is earthed in it. The problem comes in with Tautology3 and John S. Wilkins erroneous attempt at equivocating between Tautology1 and Tautology3. Aristotle, Democritus, Empedocles etc. explanatory scheme for their condition of existence involved Tautology3, influencing John Calvin and others.

Calvin's heretical doctrine of predestination - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination (taken to its full logical conclusion makes life meaningless) was really a twisting of Paul's type Tautology2(tautological expression) words.

The "environment"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment) has the sense of a physical location or it could be a condition of existence. Likewise the word "predestined" could be used in multiple senses such as God having revoked free will or it could be used as a poetic expression Tautology2, to state that a person has accepted salvation from Christ and is now destined to go to heaven. In Psalms we find Tautology2 expressions for its poetic effect, they aren't fallacious. Because "predestined" like "quark" and the symbol "Jesus" or "Yeshua" has no meaning. One might call Christ "Jesus" or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua. As long as the users of either symbol are referring to the same concept. Only the concept represented with "Jesus" has meaning, not the symbol itself.

All the thinkers and theologians from Augustine, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_luther came into contact with the works of Aristotle or derivatives of it and most of them attempted to reconcile propositions which cannot be disputed(Darwin's expression) or Tautology3 with their respective world views. The destructive influence of Aristotle's type Tautology3 thinking was foisted on humanity in 1831(Matthews), Darwin(1859) with the semantic gargoyle of Natural selection, influencing today's thinking from the three major world views YEC, ID and Atheism. Either of these world views has to be correct, either God exists or he doesn't but all their major mainstream Apologetic movements such as Ken Ham, Dembski, Berlinski and Dawkins use argumentation narratives that suffer from Aristotelian type Tautology3 thinking and/or attempts at reconciling Aristotle's unfalsifiable propositions as Aquinas did with Christianity.

Aristotelian type Tautology3 thinking let to Skinner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behaviorism displaced by Chomsky (worked with Marcel Schützenberger). Chomsky thinks that "natural selection" is grammatical semantic gargoylian hubris but can't openly state so due to the thought police on Universities, he was thus forced to use 'natural selection' in his publications because he gets his salary from the US federal government, not because he is stupid. The person who pays you to influence society with your ideas, such ideas will ultimately be a reflection of his official views such as the EU and US government who are controlled by Aristotelian and Empedoclian pagans with their "battle for survival" mythology. If only the works of Aristotle had been burnt......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquinas wrote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentaries_on_Aristotle. Elsewhere Wilkins quoted an author of how the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_mass was an attempt to reconcile Aristotelian3 metaphysics. I say Aristotelian3 because the idea Wilkins would have with 'Aristotelian' is different then my usage of it as a proxy for all thoughts Tautology3, which demonstrates that a word like 'Aristotelian' has no meaning, it can only represent an idea in terms of a person Naming Conventions.

Aristotle's influence on Aquinas
Darwin wrote: OoS "...Passing over allusions to the subject in the classical writers (Aristotle, in his "Physicae Auscultationes" (lib.2, cap.8, s.2), after remarking that rain does not fall in order to make the corn grow, any more than it falls to spoil the farmer's corn when threshed out of doors, applies the same argument to organisation; and adds (as translated by Mr. Clair Grece, who first pointed out the passage to me),

So what hinders the different parts (of the body) from having this merely accidental relation in nature? as the teeth, for example, grow by necessity, the front ones sharp, adapted for dividing, and the grinders flat, and serviceable for masticating the food; since they were not made for the sake of this, but it was the result of accident. And in like manner as to other parts in which there appears to exist an adaptation to an end. Wheresoever, therefore, all things together (that is all the parts of one whole) happened like as if they were made for the sake of something, these were preserved, having been appropriately constituted by an internal spontaneity; and whatsoever things were not thus constituted, perished and still perish.

We here see the principle of natural selection shadowed forth, but how little Aristotle fully comprehended the principle, is shown by his remarks on the formation of the teeth.), the first author who in modern times has treated it in a scientific spirit was Buffon. But as his opinions fluctuated greatly at different periods, and as he does not enter on the causes or means of the transformation of species, I need not here enter on details......."

Note what Aristotle wrote: '......but it was the result of accident.......'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquinas had a belief in "spontaneous generation" which he got from the works of Aristotle. The specific passage that must have influenced Aquinas was also cited by Darwin: "...... having been appropriately constituted by an internal spontaneity .....". Elsewhere in this document it is shown that the passage by Aristotle was a type Tautology3 or rhetorical tautology - the conclusion "result of accident" and "spontaneous generation" were non-sequiturs. Darwin saw in the passage the "...for shadowing of natural selection ..." as he put it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelianism#cite_note-sep-thomas-19 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomism

The same mistake Aquinas made is perpetuated today with scholars trying to reconcile Aristotle's tautological3 narratives with modern information theoretic concepts. Philosophers like Dennet have been peddling Epicurian tautological3 thinking under different terms. The ancient ideas of Lucretius are the same today, but under different terms: There is nothing new under the sun. In the Bible it is written: "...... the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord ...." Not a single rhetorical tautology3 can be found in scripture, only pleonasms or tautological2 expressions,used for poetic purposes.

".. All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind...." this is probably the only sensible thing that Aristotle has written. We can see it with university professors who have to say "selection-for" and "selection-about" instead of design and pattern because "selection" has no meaning. They are being paid to have their minds degraded by the Empedoclian pagans in the US federal government.

Popper on natural selection
Popper had a knack for seemingly agreeing with somebody but then really saying the person's theory is unfalsifiable as in his famous "recanting" that natural selection is a tautology3 (Naming Conventions) and metaphysical research program. What he really did was throw the Aristotelians3 a bone to shut-up and leave an old man alone, they couldn't grasp what he was saying, it went over their heads... Popper didn't really "recant". (If an experiment falsifies your position you amend your position - not "recant")

Difference between artificial and natural selection
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2008-03/msg07052.html

Tautologies from Aristotle, Empedocles, James Hutton and Henry F. Osborn
Anaxagoras ...Augustine, Maillet, Buffon, Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck, Treviranus, Oken, and Chambers, revived by Maillet, Robinet, Diderot, and Bonnet, Halloy.

"...the idea of the 'Survival of the Fittest' must actually be traced back to Empedocles, six centuries before Christ....", p.117 'From the Greeks to Darwin'' by HenryFairfieldOsborn. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Reinhold_Treviranus and Buffon'' coined SoF and Spencer lifted it from them. Osborn more or less translated a German scholar and his book written in German from the Greeks to Darwin, he gave the citation for this German work in his book. Wilkins in a criticism of Osborn here http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/557a525aebe1bddb# didn't make it clear whether he was also disagreeing with the German scholar. The attempt at marginalizing Osborn, Darwin and others of that time era is a sort of No True Scotsman fallacy(this needs futher review).


 * Tribal wizard Gandalf, after the flood - (3000BC) "....the gods slayed the sea-monster....and out of this battle we are here today....". It is this mythology that was perpetuated under various guises up till our present era, molding itself to any world view, Atheism, Pantheism, Atomism, Deism, Theism etc. The fight between the Gods and seemonsters became the fight the atoms from the atomists, then between the organisms 'red in tooth and claw' which then became the fight between the alleles or genes as the mythology is extended with each new discovery. A problem though arrived with genes as a cybernetic abstraction and the algorithms in each animal implementing inverted pendulum control(IPC) , it makes no sense to talk of a fight between algorithms.

A lot of peoples unique insights enabled me to finally solve the riddle that has perplexed Jerry Fodor(http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/jerry-fodor/why-pigs-dont-have-wings) on LRB: "...What then is the intented meaning of Natural selection?...." And the answer to that question is that NS has no meaning, only ideas have meaning and the idea Darwin had was the same idea Aristotle had as Darwin wrote after quoting Aristotle "..... we can see here the principle of natural selection shadowed forth ....". Aristotle in turn reformulated Empedocles, Atomists right back to Tribal Wizard Gandalf after the great flood who had to explain the origins of man to the peasants so that he could get free food and drink.

The idea in 1859 wasn't genes but something else:

The reformulation or reintroduction, co−option, embedding of Aristotle, Democritus, Heraclitus and Empedocles tautological ideas which in turn are based on Sumerian and Babilonian pagan religions which had a battle for survival theme between fire and water, Gods and and seamonsters etc..... which today is the battle between the Alleles. The same pagan idea more than 5000 years old was extended as each new discovery was made:

It is this mythology that was perpetuated under various guises up till our present era, molding itself to any world view, Atheism, Pantheism, Atomism, Deism, Theism etc. The fight between the Gods and seemonsters became the fight between the atoms from the atomists, then between the organisms 'red in tooth and claw' which then became the fight between the alleles or genes as the mythology is extended with each new discovery. A problem though arrived with genes as a cybernetic abstraction and the algorithms in each animal implementing inverted pendulum control(IPC), it makes no sense to talk of a fight between algorithms.

Natural selection, evolution, descent with modification, adaptation etc.... were just different symbols to narrate, repackage and dress up this 5000 year old myth for a different audience and the same devious underhand tribal wizard Gandalf is now called Professor Dawkins.

Tautologies through the ages

 * The Prehistoric Traditions. 


 * The lonians.
 * Thales (624-548),
 * Anaximander (611-547),
 * Anaximenes (588-524),
 * Diogenes (440- ).


 * The Pythagoreans. (580-430.)


 * The Eleatics.
 * Xenophanes (576- 480)
 * Parmenides (544- ).


 * Physicists.


 * Heraclitus (535-475)
 * Empedocles-(495-435BC) "...Those animals perished immediately, for they were not fitted to live, and only those random coalitions of elements which were fittest to live survived, and continue to survive today...." http://www.hypatia-lovers.com/AncientGreeks/Section12.html. He also spoke of the love hate relationship between atoms.
 * Anaxagoras, (500-428)
 * ZenofElea(460 B.C) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno_of_Elea
 * LeuCippus(500 B.C) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leucippus, teacher of DemoCritus.
 * Democritus(450 B.C) - "...Those in harmony maintained themselves, while the unfit disappear... "
 * Socrates (470-399)
 * Plato (427- 347), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides_(dialogue).
 * Aristotle(384-322BC) - "....Things appropriately constituted were preserved and things not appropriately constituted perished...." http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.html


 * The Peripatetics, or post-Aristotelian school


 * Theophrastus
 * Preaxagoras
 * Herophilus
 * Erasistratus.


 * The Stoics

EpiCurus (341- 270 B.C.). "...only those capable of life and reproduction have been preserved..." The conclusion that Epicurus came to "chance" was arbitrary, his argumentation scheme was a rhetorical tautology, meaning any conclusion would be a non-sequitur. Such was the deceptive brilliance of the ancient Greek tautological philosphy, which today is perpetuated but with slightly different conclusions by different world views as per Naming Conventions. The apologetics movement from YEC to ID the last 150 years focused largely on the impossibility of genes arising by chance. They missed the point that the argumentation scheme was fallacious. If Epicurus had come to the conclusion that the universe is the result of divine intervention he would be correct from a YEC view point but his argumentation scheme would still be wrong. You could come to the correct conclusion using an incorrect argumentation scheme. Epicurus came to the wrong conclusion from a wrong argumentation scheme, with the main fallacy being his and Aristotle's rhetorical tautological3 reasoning.

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.

It seems that 1874 was the first usage of "Intelligent Design". Note how they combatted its notion: What happens, happens and therefore there is no God. The fit ones persisted, those fit didn't persist is a logical validity in one context, but both a truism and rhetorical tautology in another. The fallacy is that "There is no God" doesn't follow logically from "what happens, happens", it is a non-sequitur.

MarcusAurelius - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodes_Atticus
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Tyana (70 A.D)


 * The Sceptics


 * B. I. Eclecticism. Galen (131-201 A.D.).


 * Augustine(400AD)

1348, it received distinct expression. ....osborn p.22

17th century orthodox Catholic provost of Digne, Gassendi contemporary and friend of Hobbes and Malmesbury,...p.22. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Gassendi or http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Pierre_Gassendi. His best known intellectual project attempted to reconcile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism (EpiCurus), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomism with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity.

PierreMaupertuis 1759 - "....There is some mechanism out there by which individuals survived, they had an internal FITNESS and those that perished didn't...". Fitness was a different symbol for the Arsitotle concept of "internal sponteinity", the symbols changed but not the concept.

Georges Buffon 1770 - Darwin plagiarised vast sections of his work, Darwin was proficient in French. Darwin reformulated and condensed the ideas of these naturalists, associating it with the term "Natural means of selection" he lifted from Matthews.

JamesHutton 1794- "...Those not adapted will perish, while those adapted for the circumstances, will be best adapted. ..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Reinhold_Treviranus (1830) Coined SoF, Spencer lifted it from him.

DR. W. C. WELLS, in 1813, then by

St. Hilaire the elder

PatrickMatthews 1831- "...Those individuals who possess not the requisite strength, fall without reproducing, their place being occupied by the more perfect of their own kind...."

MalThus 1838 - "...favourable variations would be ...preserved, and unfavourable ones ... destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a theory by which to work" (Charles Darwin, Autobio:120)....".

RobertChambers - 1844 with his VesTiges of the Natural History of Creation: "....Let us suppose that the conditions ....have been favourable for the development .... of the lower sentiments, ....the result will necessarily be a mean type of brain.....". He made heavy use of Dr. Fletcher's Rudiments of Physiology embryos argument. Back then the embryonic argument was the corner stone of transmutationism. But they selectively picked those stages which looked the most similar at each individual different stages of development. At the same stage of development the embryos don't look the same.

Naudin, in 1852.

Herbert Spencer - 1854 "...those out of equilibrium die, while those in equilibrium will survive..." which is Aristotle reformulated.

Tremaux - 1850

Darwin OoS: 1860 - "...This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection...." and "..I have called this principle, by which each slight variation(a), if useful, is preserved, by the term of natural selection..."

HenryFairfieldOsborn(1898) From the Greeks to Darwin... " ... all the faulty ...disappeared, and that those that survived.... had the power of .....perpetuating themselves....."

KarlMarx Did a thesis on EpiCurus and DemoCritus.

RichardDawkins "...The changes that survive are accumulated ..." or to rephrase "...The changes that are selected gets accumulated..." or "...The changes that are preserved gets accumulated.." as per EpiCurus

John Harshman "......But the ones that successfully reproduced best are those with the advantageous traits.......And that's natural selection. ..." from AcloselookAtNaturalSelection and "....the stronger has a better chance of passing their genes on....". Stronger and "better chance" alludes to the same fact.

HoWard1: "...The theory of evolution is ... taking advantage of novel accidents (to pre-existing material) that have some current utility...." 'taking advantage' and 'some current utility' alludes to the same fact, making it a Truthiness-Tautology. It is somewhere between a necessary truth, truism and rhetorical tautology, bordering closer to a rhetorical tautology.

JohnWilkins "...those that worked better were retained, that's selection in biology..." or to rephrase ".......those that worked better were retained, that's survival in biology..." or ".......those that worked better were preserved, that's preservation in biology..." as per EpiCurus. And ".....Natural selection in modern science is a feedback process...." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html. But back in 1863 "modern science" with NS was "...absolute empire of accident..." , we have the same symbol used for different ideas. Which is like imagine we coin a universal term "wooden plate", use it in every essay, news article and journal paper, where one has to deduce form the context whether the term has any relevance(PhilipSkell) and what is the actual idea being represented. Wilkins referred to himself as a "selectionist" in an audio podcast, but the word was also used in 1922 by John Burroughs to symbolically represent the concept of "chance". Back then a "selectionist" was somebody who believed that Evolution1 happened by chance. Read the JohnWilkins entry to get his view on how ".... ordinary language isn't suitable to discuss biology....". He uses the same semantics but what he means differs. The Aristotelians are deceitful, using words such as "selection" knowing full well that what they mean by that isn't the usual meaning from Augustus 2000 years ago with "selectus": To make a decision2. Their usage of semantics must be viewed in terms of their take on Naming Conventions. "Natural Selection" the term was the means of embedding Aristotelian tautological thinking in our culture. "Natural selection" the term isn't a tautology and neither is square circles - only ideas can be tautological.

Tautological thinking in our culture
From Empedocles to JohnWilkins it is the same banality: The good(algorithm, see monster,allele) - (survived,preserved, selected) the bad(algorithm, monster, gene) perished and therefore whatever my world view(theism, atheism, deism, pantheism, whatever it might be) is correct, which is a non-sequitur. PatrickMatthews claimed credit for "inventing the principle of natural selection" and so did Darwin. None of them invented anything, they labeled their reformulated Empedoclian and Aristotelian fallacy "Natural selection" which could be rephrased as "Natural survival" or "Natural Preservation" as per (EpiCurus).

The theists like Blyth, Ken Ham and GilDoDgen posting on http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/jerry-fodor-natural-selection-has-gone-bust/#comment-142129 tend to latch on the negative part of the tautology "...unfavourable ones ... destroyed..." and therefore God still exists. While the atheists latches onto the positive part "..favourable variations would be ...preserved..." form which they deduce that there is no God. Both conclusions from either side derives a world view which is a non-sequitur: Whether God exists or not must be deduced by some other means, the MalThusian argument(derived from DemoCritus and Aristotle) is a tautology, a logical fallacy. Natural selection the term, was but an arbitrary phrase coined to symbolically represent, formulate and narrate observations in the world in a tautological3 black/white dichotomy manner.

Natural selection was the grammatical gargoyle that enabled the re-introduction of Aristotelianism and Empedoclianism into our culture, science, religion and politics. Selection(selectus Latin), adaptation, evolution(EvolVere, unrolling action - Latin), "descent with modification" etc. were all words used in the strong volitional sense by theists for thousands of years. By an act of strategic language deceit Aristotle's concept of "...result of accident...." or chance was associated with these words. It was an exploitation of English, a language that allows for much ambiguity. For example "...the assembly was favored1 by accident...." or ".... he favored2 that particular layout..." , favored like selection and any other word can be used in the PatternOrDesign sense. EvolVere was used to communicate the volitional intent of reaching a goal by unrolling something. See Naming Conventions for favored1(pattern) and favored2(design).


 * (Aristotle, in his "Physicae Auscultationes" (lib.2, cap.8, s.2) OoS:".............So what hinders the different parts (of the body) from having this merely accidental relation in nature? as the teeth, for example, grow by necessity, the front ones sharp, adapted for dividing, and the grinders flat, and serviceable for masticating the food; since they were not made for the sake of this, but it was the result of accident. And in like manner as to other parts in which there appears to exist an adaptation to an end. Wheresoever, therefore, all things together (that is all the parts of one whole) happened like as if they were made for the sake of something, these were preserved, having been appropriately constituted by an internal spontaneity; and whatsoever things were not thus constituted, perished and still perish.........."

(JamesHutton said essentially the same thing but left out the result of accident part due to his Deistic world view, if Aristotle had said that we weren't the result of accident but divine intervention, this conclusion would also be a non-sequitur, a point which Blythe, Ken Ham, GilDoDgen, DavidBerlinski and others in their attempt at accommodating Aristotle's indisputable proposition misses.).

PatrickMatthews in all probability got his tautology3 from Hutton and Darwin lifted "natural means of selection" from Matthew while reading his book on the Beagle which was required reading - (http://probaway.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/darwins-questionable-priority-over-thomas-matthew/)

Aristotle's passage reduces to: Things appropriately constituted were preserved and things not appropriately constituted perished. Or in other words: The good ones lived, the bad ones died, which explains everything. Appropriately constituted and preserved are a synonymous play with words that alludes to the same fact but it doesn't independently derive the actual reason something was preserved. To identify the tautology take any of the synonymous terms and formulate a question:
 * Other than noting it was preserved how was its constitutability measured?
 * Other than noting it wasn't constituted how was its perishability measured?

Wasn't constituted and perishable says the same thing twice, making Aristotle's argument watertight, explaining everything , it cannot be refuted and is thus a LogicalFallacy. His tautology reduces to: The good(atom,idea,gene,allele,phenotype) lived(selected, survived,preserved) while the the bad(animal,atom,gene,idea) one died. It is rooted in ancient mythology, the battle between Gods and Seemonsters, Zeus, Apollo, Mars God of war etc. which became the battle between good and bad atoms from the Atomists(600BC), which today is formulated by Dawkins as: ".....the good (gene,allele,phenotype) survived, the bad (gene,allele,phenotype) died...." in the light of OriginOfSpeciesAsMyth - http://lostborders.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/the-origin-of-species-as-myth. The mythology is extended to anything in existence,matter abstract ideas, and as new discoveries are made through the ages, the myth is retold by the secular priesthood and incorporated by the religious priesthood. Reproductive success, genotype,fitness, and phenotype etc. are semantic and stylistic ruses that enables the myth to be retold by the Neo-Empedoclians within our reference frame of genes as a CyberneticAbstraction. If a cow was meant to produce beer instead of milk would it still be a success? For who is what a success - see DernavichInfidels on this issue.

After quoting Aristotle, Darwin went on to say: "...... we can see here the principle of NaturalSelection shadowed forth....". The question is how did Darwin solve the problem of genes as a CyberneticAbstraction if he couldn't define the problem? This question must be extended back to Aristotle and the answer is that Aristotle explained everything: past, present and future, thus nothing. Furthermore Aristotle's premise that everything was the result of accident means that everything he said ultimately is the result of accident, including the very paragraph itself, why then should we believe a word he said?

Aristotle formulated a rhetorical tautology in order to convince that the apparent design in the universe was a result of accident. He allowed no means for his world view to be Falsifiable, thus his conclusion based on proposition which cannot be refuted was a Non_sequitur_(logic) Non sequitur (logic). The world view might have been correct but not as a result of logical deduction. His tautological formulation is open ended allowing one to come to any conclusion because it reduces to: What happens, happens and therefore atheism,theism,random, non-random or whatever the user of the tautology wishes to be the as the correct world view. This is why the modern day Aristotelians formulates the same tautological core as Darwin but come to a different(evolution doesn't happen by chance) conclusion then the conclusion drawn by CharlesKingsley(1864), JohnBurroughs(1918) of "evolution happens by chance". HenryFairfieldOsborn in 1898 in his book "From the Greeks to Darwin" also interpreted evolution as happening by chance but changed his mind by 1922 after being influenced by Waagen. Note that HenryFairfieldOsborn never defined what exactly he meant with "evolution not happening by chance". Was it "directed" then, we don't know because English isn't like Greek: Any word can be made mean anything by a user in any context. A person for example might say "non-random" but not mean by this that it was "directed", what then is meant can't be deduced because there are only two options: Patterns or designs, volition or non-volition.

These tautologies and battle-between-atoms-and-organisms myth was originally from Empedocles 600B.C, reformulated and expanded through the centuries by Aristotle, Democritus, EpiCurus,....Darwin right up to our modern era by JohnWilkins, Dawkins etc who all basically said the same thing: The good live, the bad die. But from such a banality each propogates different world views, Deism, Atheism, Pantheism and Theism. None of them realized that their world view didn't logically follow from the Empedocles tautology. It was't really Darwin that was responsible for the Hitler and Stalin but Empedocles, it seems.

CharlesKingsley, 1863 in a letter dated 1863 to FrederickMaurice he interpreted Oos as: ".. Darwin is conquering everywhere, and rushing in like a flood, by the mere force of truth and fact. The one or two who hold out against Darwin are forced to try all sorts of subterfuges as to fact or else by invoking the tedium theologium.... The state of the scientific mind; they find that now they have got rid of an interfering God - a master magician as I call it -- they have to choose between the absolute empire of accident and a living, immanent, ever-working God..."

Charles Hodge, 1874, natural selection represented: "...Natural selection1, unguided, submitted to the laws of a pure mechanism, and exclusively determined by accidents, seems to me, under another name, the chance proclaimed by Epicurus, equally barren, equally incomprehensible......". Note how this idea differs from the Dawkins non-random natural selection3 usage. What both Hodge, Blyth, Dawkins, Ken Ham and Dembski seem to miss was that the "result of accident" part was an arbitrary non-sequitur. Divine intervention would also be a non-sequitur. The error that Epicurus, Lucretius, Empedocles and Aristotle made , was in the immortal words of Darwin himself: ".... the truth of the propositions cannot be disputed...." ,they formulated their arguments in such a way that they were unfalsifiable. Since then Blyth, Gill Dodgen and even Berlinski it seems have battled to "refute" their arguments , something which in principle can't be done.

By trying to force some sort of actual meaning into the semantic gargoyle "natural selection" the confusion has deepened. Aquinas was so overwhelmed by Aristotle's tautological3 prose that he tried to reconcile it with Catholic doctrine. (It is especially saddening that Berlinski refuses a head on assault of "natural selection", but if he does so and exposes the tautology3 it is a proxy for, how would he then sell books and what would he mock and make fun off and hold endless conferences, speeches, radio shows ect? The love of money is the root of all evil. Of all the scholars in the ID,YEC movement, Berlinski is one of the few who understand that nothing got naturaled: We are only dealing with Aristotle reformulated and resymboled. )

Hodge didn't know about genes and information theory, modern rebuttals of Darwin focus on information theory, something darwin didn't know about. Instead one must try and rebut darwin using the knowledge of that time era to try and understand what made darwin so convincing in 1870.

JohnBurroughs ,1922 in his book The Last Harvest(1922) interpreted Darwin as: "....Try to think of that wonderful organ, the eye, with all its marvelous powers and adaptations, as the result of what we call chance or Natural Selection. Well may Darwin have said that the eye made him shudder when he tried to account for it by Natural Selection. Why, its adaptations in one respect alone, minor though they be, are enough to stagger any number of selectionists...."

HenryFairfieldOsborn wrote New York Times 1922, 5 Aug. "....Waagen's observations that species do not originate by chance as Darwin had once supposed, but through a continues and well ordered process has since been confirmed, has since been confirmed by an overwhelming volume of testimony, so that we are now able to assemble and place in order line after line of animals in their true evolutionary succession, extending, in the case of what I have called the edition de luxe of the horses , over millions of years. ..... Evolution takes the place with the gravitation law of Newton.." I am not sure, but can't recall Osborn using "natural selection" in the entire NYtimes article probably because of the strong association it had with chance during that time.

Natural selection as oxymoron
NaturalSelection is an OxyMoron(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron) a contradiction in terms. See http://www.partialobserver.com/article.cfm?id=2808 for a particular view on this. JohnBurroughs interpretation of Darwin as chance or Natural Selection meant Burroughs used "Natural" to mean by nature or chance and "selection" means volition, two contradictory concepts in one term with the whole term used by Burroughs to convey his interpretation of Darwin's concept: "chance". But the natural selection oxymoron can be used in reverse to convey a volitional concept.

Today many use NaturalSelection in the volitional sense. The difficulty is that they all used NaturalSelection but what they meant by it differed like day contrasts with night, with the oxymoronic nature of natural selection exacerbating such confusion.

FoxnewsJonathanPragmatics ,FoxnewsJonathanPragmatics, JerryAdler says random natural selection, Dawkins talks of non-random natural selection or directed natural selection. NaturalSelection as an Oxymoron allows itself to be used in either sense volitional,non-random,directed or non-volitional,random,"what happens,happens". Darwin, JohnBurroughs and CharlesKingsley interpreting Darwin, used the "random side" of natural selection - natural, while given the world view or Pragmatics of HenryFairfieldOsborn, he would probably have used it in reverse, the directed side - selection. Further research is needed on the world view of HenryFairfieldOsborn. Darwin used evolution and natural selection interchangeably and it is so widely done today to the extent that there isn't really any difference in the concept a user is projecting: Either volition or non-volition, patterns or designs. Darwin's Theory of evolution formulation is the same concept as his reformulation of Aristotle which he called principle of natural selection.

During the 19th Tremaux (http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00003806/01/Tremaux-on-species.pdf) differed with the belief held then that the mind is an illusion. If a person says: "My mind is an illusion created by the brain" then that very sentence itself is an illusion because it was formulated by his mind. In addition why should one believe a word he says if he thinks everything he says is the result of illusions in his head?

Talk Origins Tautology article
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA500.html "...."Survival of the fittest" is a poor way to think about evolution. Darwin himself did not use the phrase in the first edition of Origin of Species. What Darwin said is that heritable variations lead to differential reproductive success. This is not circular or tautologous. It is a prediction that can be, and has been, experimentally verified (Weiner 1994)....."

Weiner is incorrect, Darwin never said differential reproductive success. It is a term that seemed to have surfaced around 1910 long after Darwin's death. I tracked down the firs usage of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution to 1909 in Botanical gazette, there were a few attempts by the Empedoclian gatekeepers to prevent this information from being included, but in the end they had to relent and report the facts: Micro evolution has no meaning, it was the symbolic representation of a specific idea in Botanical Gazette in 1909. The idea was that one needs to explain how an embryonic egg turns into chicken before we can deduce from a dead bone how a lizard turned into a donkey. Evolutionary biologists insist they they can deduce from a deceased bone how the cow turned into a whale, but they can't explain how a cow embryo turns into a mooing cow, the very thing we can observe.

By saying that Darwin didn't use SoF in the first three editions, they leave out that Darwin referred to Spencer as one of the greatest thinkers in history.

Today the same term is used for "small changes" - how small would that be? Or mixed with "changes at or above the species level". If we would divide this on a scale of 1 to 10 would "at" be measured at 4.5 and "above" at 5.2 or should that be 4.56 instead. Another statement floating around the Internet ether is " .... evolution takes place in populations not individuals..." The first question is who says so? What technical concept does this represent because a population is a collection of individuals.

Identify tautology
Identify the terms in a sentence or passage used in the pragmatics synonymous sense. Take any of these terms or words and reformulate the sentence as a question in terms of the other word. This will show whether the terms or words says the same thing twice. There is a difference between dictionary semantic synonyms and pragmatics synonyms because no word or sentence has a meaning: Only ideas have meaning.

Circular reasoning isn't a tautology
Begging the question assumes the premise in the conclusion, such as Tiktaalik. How does one know whether he had kids or not, if he had no offspring, how could he be the ancestor of anybody? Circular reasoning isn't saying the same thing twice. Gould's PunkEek confuses the issue, it deals with a perception of scale but doesn't escape the circularity of the argument. A fossil of a Great Dane on Australia and a poodle in the USA are of the same species. Many fossils found on different continents are classified as separate species after tossing a coin, from the bones themselves it can't be deduced. Their theory don't allow for the same species to be discovered on different continents and thus arbitrarily classify fossils which might be the same species as different. The way the word "adaptation" as used by the Neo-Aristotelians also begs the question, their premise with it is that species did in fact transform into others, but this is the very issue that needs to be demonstrated. Something which will remain impossible to do because we don't know whether a single fossil anywhere is the ancestor of anybody.

Lets presume that every single fossil ever found died as a result of a flood, then the notion of different species descending from such fossils would be impossible. It might be that species transformed into others with no ancestor fossils left behind, but there would be no way to falsify such a notion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Reinhold_Treviranus (Transmutation) used transmutation, today common descent is used which is a game with words: It depends what is meant with the terms. Vernacular for simian,ape, Bonobo is "monkey". http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/logical-fallacies-circular-reasoning-aka-the-tautology/ is incorrect - a tautology isn't circular reasoning. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html

Creation.com and tautology
http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use "..... ‘Natural selection as tautology.’ Natural selection is in one sense a tautology (i.e., Who are the fittest? Those who survive/leave the most offspring. Who survive/leave the most offspring? The fittest.). But a lot of this is semantic word-play, and depends on how the matter is defined, and for what purpose the definition is raised. There are many areas of life in which circularity and truth go hand in hand (e.g. What is electric charge? That quality of matter on which an electric field acts. What is an electric field? A region in space that exerts a force on electric charge. But no one would claim that the theory of electricity is thereby invalid and can’t explain how motors work.) — it is only that circularity cannot be used as independent proof of something....."

Circular reasoning is assuming the premise in the conclusion it isn't a tautology. I know this because Wilkins had to explain the difference to me.

".......To harp on the issue of tautology can become misleading, if the impression is given that something tautological therefore doesn’t happen...."

Confuses a logical validity - Tautology1 with a rhetorical tautology3. "What happens, happens" is a logical validity, our entire existence is based on assuming it is true, it can't be refuted but neither verified. But "what happens, happens and therefore my mommy had long teeth and a tail" is a rhetorical tautology,the conclusion is a non-sequitur. You say that ".....To harp on the issue of tautology can become misleading...", this could be seen as self-serving. AIG has a $22mil dinosaur adventure land, conferences, discussions etc... that just never ends. This whole "refuting evolution" business has become a money making cottage industry from the the YEC, ID and Atheist side. For all we know the leading authors could all be getting together and have a good laugh at their YEC, ID and atheist readers: The only God they worship is mammon. Not recognizing a fatal flaw like a rhetorical tautology in an argument, means the person could be kept busy for eternity trying to make sense of the argument. Which if one is holding conferences and selling books around the controversy generated by it, to make money, wouldn't be a fact such authors would want to have known.

"...(e.g. What is electric charge? That quality of matter on which an electric field acts. What is an electric field? A region in space that exerts a force on electric charge. But no one would claim that the theory of electricity is thereby invalid and can’t explain how motors work.)....."

Fallacy of innocence by association, not comprehending the difference between the diffferent types of tautologies.

".....Of course the environment can ‘select’, just as human breeders select....."

Pattern or design? I might as well be reading http://www.evolvingthoughts.net/. If the creationists start sounding like atheists then our society is in really big trouble, our mental health is under attack.

".... Of course demonstrating this doesn’t mean that fish could turn into philosophers by this means — the real issue is the nature of the variation, the information problem....."

Incorrect, Aristotle's original Tautology3 which darwin reformulated had nothing to do with cybernetic abstractions per se, it was a generalized tautology crafted in such a manner that it could explain everything, past present and future as in the ".... the good algorithm outwitted the bad one......" We can see this in patent filings today where natural selection is dragged into the outline.

".... Arguments about tautology distract attention from the real weakness of neo-Darwinism — the source of the new information required...."

I would beg to differ, any argument that contains a rhetorical tautology is logically flawed, the conclusion might be correct but doesn't follow logically from the argument. We are dealing primarily with the logical fallacious way Aristotle managed to explain the past, present and future(genes) and how his rhetorical tautological narrative was reformulated by Darwin and expressed using the symbol natural selection. Once we understand where our thinking went wrong we can interpret new information or whatever latest invention in its propper context. The perceived brilliance of Aristotle and Aquinas attempt at reconciling his indisputable propositions with Christianity is the same mistake the modern day mainstream ID and YEC such as Dembski, Ken Ham are making. Obviously it is impossible that new information could happen by chance, but this isn't where the main problem lies. It lies with ".... the truth of these propositions cannot be disputed...." the unfalsifiable way in which Darwin formulated his views from which any conclusion (divine intervention or chance, space aliens etc.) would be a non-sequitur. The same tautological argumentation scheme is used today by Aristotelians with many of them insisting that Darwin was wrong, species didn't happen by chance, commiting the No true Scotsman fallacy" in the process as well - Naming Conventions.

".... Given an appropriate source of variation (for example, an abundance of created genetic information with the capacity for Mendelian recombination), replicating populations of organisms would be expected to be capable of some adaptation to a given environment, and this has been demonstrated amply in practice...."

You are not adapted to your environment as explained at length on my wiki at scratchpad.

Tautology1(logical validity) is a logical form. 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. Gilson From Aristotle to Darwin

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.

Darwin's 'Theory of Evolution' - what theory?

 * "..We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;' but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists....." - Smith, Wolfgang (1988) Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books & Publishers Inc., p.2..

The idea Darwin symbolically represented with Theory of evolution was a reformulation of MalThus:


 * "....This difficulty, as in the case of unconscious selection by man, is avoided on the theory of gradual evolution, through the preservation of a large number of individuals, which varied more or less in any favourable direction, and of the destruction of a large number which varied in an opposite manner. That many species have been evolved in an extremely gradual manner, there can hardly be a doubt...."

rephrase: "...the preservation of ... of individuals, which varied .... in any favourable direction, and of the destruction of those which varied in an opposite manner.....". 'preservation' and 'favourable direction' alludes to the same fact, it says the same thing twice, but it doesn't explain why something was preserved. From this rhetorical tautology now follows Darwin's non-sequitur - "...That many species have been evolved in an extremely gradual manner, there can hardly be a doubt...."

Theories which aren't in doubt aren't falsifiable, a scientific theory is always in doubt. Because Darwin's proposition can't be disputed it lead the Victorian reader to think that his conclusion was therefore ironclad. Popper pointed out that theories which are ironclad aren't really theories but logical fallacies, they masquerade as explanations.

Species might have descended from a CommonAncestor but not because of the argumentation scheme used by Darwin. Darwin plagiarized Malthus idea and labeled it Theory of gradual evolution. Note that Gould also spoke of the Theory of Evolution, he didn't have the 'gradual' idea but the Punk-eek idea. Same term different concepts. The idea is that we descended from a CommonAncestor but an actual theory as to how this could have happened doesn't exist. Using the term Theory of Evolution doesn't mean one has an actual theory. Calling yourself superman doesn't mean you are superman.

Did the pink Unicorn on Proxima Centauri reveal his inner thetan to Roger Rabbit - True or False? The question is a false dichotomy, there is no pink unicorn on Proxima Centauri. What http://www.icr.org, http://www.uncommondescent.com and http://www.talkorigins.org are doing is the same thing: Setting up a false dichotomy with either rebutting or defending the Theory of Evolution. Did it ever occur to them there might not even exist such a thing?. [Note that Dembski probably wasn't referring to the specific passage by Darwin with his idea with the symbol string ToE. We don't know which individual Dembski is interpreting. ToE means nothing it was a symbol representing an idea ,which a reader in 1865 interpreted in terms of Vestiges and Fletcher's rudiments of physiology, books that today nobody even bothers with. They contained fanciful notions about spiders spontaneously forming on battery terminals. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution are the arbitrary ideas of arbitrary authors not a historical accurate analysis of the context of the word and the ideas associated with it.]

Darwin used the symbol ToE, but on closer inspection it is a rhetorical tautological reformulation of MalThus, the same tautology he associated with the term Theory of natural selection. ToE and ToNS are different symbols for the same Sumerian and Babillonian Paganism, Malthusian, Empedoclian, Aristotelian rhetorical tautology: The good(atom,allele,Zeus, Thor, seemonster) lived, the bad(seemonster, allele, dinosaur) died and therefore we are result of accident or there is no God or there is a God: Whatever the conclusion it would be a non-sequitur, which doesn't mean the conclusion is false, just that the argumentation scheme is fallacious. The conclusion Aristotle wanted to come to was "result of accident" or as CharlesKingsley put it "...absolute empire of accident...".

In the book publishing business the book has to sell and the public is under the impression that there is such a thing as a ToE, thus the book has to rally the base by refuting the non-existent ToE. In the same way that a book couldn't tell them pink unicorns don't exist if they had believed in such. Selling a book, it is easier to appeal to the biases, stupidity, prejudices and assumptions of the readers, rather than trying to convince them that they are hopelessly deceived to such an extent that like many Scientologists they won't recover their mental equilibrium.

The concept Darwin symbolically represented with ToE and ToNS was Aristotle's rhetorical tautology, something which in principle can't be falsified, all attempts at disproving it are doomed. A theory is something which can be tested or falsified. One can call any concept anything one wishes such as ToE or ToNS, but this doesn't mean there is an actual theory. Darwin arbitrarily used the symbol ToE. The idea he had with this was influenced by Dr.Fletcher's rudiments of physiology and Vestiges where an experiment to create small insect life from the terminals of a battery was reported(Either of the two books,can't remember which one exactly now). This was the idea understood with OoS in 1865.

Dembski, Ken Ham, JohnWilkins and RichardDawkins never define what exactly the idea or concept is that the term Theory of Evolution is supposed to be a proxy for. Are they referring to Darwin and the only passages where he symbolically represented a specific idea with the symbol ToE ? Like "quark" the symbol ToE has no meaning, it can only symbolically represent an idea.

One of the greatest evidences there is no such thing as a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Evolution is that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Evolution redirects to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution. Neither will the Wikipedia Aristotelians allows the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwins_theory_of_evolution ,so that Darwin's ideas that he symbolically represented with the term ToE can documented within his context, reference frame and background knowledge.

From Darwin onwards we have many different ideas as new knowledge and insight surfaced, the authors such as Fisher then arbitrarily associated their new idea with the terms natural selection. But the idea Darwin had differed from the idea Fisher had, since Darwin couldn't do math. How could Darwin have solved a problem he couldn't define. We aren't dealing with some single universal ToE or ToNS but thousands of different ideas all trying to herd themselves under the rubric or "natural selection".

JerryFodor asked on LRB: "....What then is the intended meaning of natural selection..?..." And the answer is whatever the user of the symbol NS intends it to intend by intending it within his reference frame and possible tautological induced thinking from Aristotle, Empedocles and Democritus. Natural selection like the word "quark" has no meaning, it can only be used to symbolically represent an idea: What idea and by whom, with what mathematical background and metaphysical assumptions such as the multi-universe theory?

On the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation page it lists over ten different theories of gravity such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_theory_of_gravity and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehead%27s_theory_of_gravitation where Aristotle and Whitehead had different ideas within their reference frames and background knowledge. The idea Darwin symbolically represented with the symbol ToE was yet another reformulation of Aristotle, Democritus and Empedocles tautological banality: What happens, happens.

Darwin's idea that he represented with NS was the same idea that Aristotle had, just reformulated in different symbols: Evolution, selection, natural etc. As Darwin stated after quoting Aristotle: "..... we can see here the principle of natural selection shadowed forth ...."

Darwin had an idea, Whitehead and Aristotle had an idea. To which idea is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution referring to, what is the theory and who formulated this theory in terms of the question of What is Life? The gatekeepers of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Selection are infusing their ideas and concepts that they symbolically represent with natural selection such as non-random natural selection into the articles creating a sort of Dummies guide to the universe, instead of documenting the historical context and reference frame, with the ideas that was symbolically represented by ToE and natural selection in the time era of 1859 and how these ideas were interpreted by CharlesKingsley, JohnBurroughs , JohnTyndall, Waagen , Osborn etc. Osborn for example differed from Darwin that Evolution happened by chance, being influenced by Waagen, but he seems to have only came to this conclusion after writing his book "From the Greeks to Darwin" 1898.(this needs further research and citations). He therefore seemed to have avoided the term NaturalSelection in his New York times article 1922 5Aug because of the idea of 'chance' being associated with it by JohnBurroughs who used 'natural selection' as a synonym for chance in his interpretation of Darwin and had a wide influence on the culture of that time, having written many articles in The Atlantic for example. The Atlantic also seems to be censoring JohnBurroughs criticism of the idea with NaturalSelection because they refuse to provide a full index of his articles, only selectively listing them. Had it not been for the Nytimes article 1922, 5Aug we might never have known about JohnBurroughs unhappyness with the 'chance' idea Darwin used to symbolically represent with NaturalSelection.

In short they are engaging in history revisionism. A history of Napoleon should be exactly that a history, not a running commentry on how wrong he was and what he should have done or should have written, to such an extent that the history writer completely misrepresents what Napoleon actually intended with his words. For example the Wikpedia Aristotelians are very unhappy that Darwin wrote "...survival of the fittest is a better expression than natural selection..." - it doesn't exactly jell with clarity of thought because the idea with SoF was an outright rhetorical tautology. The term was widely used by John Tyndall, Osborn and others as a formidable example of intellectual acumen.

Today it is recognized as an example of supreme stupidity by atheists, YEC and ID, thus the attempt to massage the idea the authors had with SoF in the time era and context of 1870/80 out of Wikipedia by telling us for example that ".... Dawkins avoided the term completely in his latest work etc....." Which is just irrelevant as telling as that Dawkins avoided invading Egypt like Napoleon and shooting at the sphinx with his canon. Dawkins has his ideas and Darwin, John Tyndall had theirs. What Napoleon did is history, what he should have done is an arbitrary view, why are the arbitrary views of Dawkins being infused into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution? Rather create the following entries:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwins_idea_with_Evolution
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkins_idea_with_Evolution
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawkins_idea_with_Evolution
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_before_genetic_discovery
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_after_genetic_discovery

There seems to be the view that Darwin could only finally have been falsified after the discovery of the complex interactions in the cell. Darwin reformulated Aristotle's tautology and a tautology can by definition not be falsified in past, present or future(information theory).

Aristotle's tautology:"....the good live ,the bad die...." can't be falsified. How did the abstract algorithm map polypeptide space into frog space? Using Aristotles logic the good or constituted algorithm was preserved and bad or non-constituted algorithm perished. The good forex trader profited on the EURUSD(http://www.stocktwits.com/stephanusR), the bad one didn't. The good idea flourished, the bad idea didn't, which doesn't explain why the Forex trader actually generated profits, it just says the same thing twice. Aristotle and Democritus fallacious reasoning runs like a fissure through our collective thought, culture, journals, patents, religions and politics, wrecking havoc with societies ability to evaluate complex ideas.

Buffon in a time machine to present age
Osborn on Buffon and Darwin in "... Letter to Semper, Life and Letters, Vol. III., p. 160. " .... I have read Buffon : whole pages are laughably like mine. It is surprising how candid it makes one to see one's views in another man's words. . . . Nevertheless, there is a fundamental distinction between Buffon's views and mine. He does not sup- pose that each cell or atom of tissue throws off a little bud. ..."
 * Life and Letters, Vol. III., p. 44.

"...Among Darwin's last words upon the factors of Evolution are those in the sixth edition of the Origin of Species (1880, p. 424). In the modification of species he refers as causes, successively to his own, to Lamarck's, and to Buffon's factor in the following clear language: "This has been effected chiefly through the natural selection of numerous, successive, slight, favourable variations; aided in an important manner by the inherited effects of the use and disuse of parts ; and in an un- important manner that is, in relation to adaptive structures, whether past or present by the direct action of external conditions, and by variations which seem to us in our ignorance to arise spontaneously."

Bring Buffon in a time machine to a museum of mainframes, IBM, PC, ZX Specturm and Commodore computers with the small computers stacked at the bottom (ZX Spectrum) and larger ones on top. Buffon then starts cataloging the wires,keypads and stuff trying to find correlations between how the ZX spectrum "evolved" into a modern PC, based on his assumption of progression being stacked in layers and assuming that larger means more complex. (The dinosaurs are closer to the surface as they were sorted that way in the Great Flood). He would be missing the point, the computer are symbolic representations an idea that existed in somebodies mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine

The same way Aristotelians are making a mistake with creatures implementing PID loops in carbon instead of copper. They symbolically represent an idea in somebodies mind, the algorithm existed before the animal existed. The Schrodinger equation existed before atoms existed(nobody know whether the atomic particles are actual objects). Osborn for example derived "Horse sequences" which today are discarded, in the same way Buffon would find capacitors in the ZX spectrum and in the IBM mainframe assuming the mainframe "evolved" form the ZX. So we have paleontologist cataloging dead bones trying to deduce how one creature evolved into another, begging the question: We don't know whether a single fossil is the ancestor of anybody. Buffon wouldn't know whether a single capacitor "evolved" into a range of better capacitors in the computers higher up the rack, he would merely assume his premise in his conclusion.

From Commodore to a PC we have the implementation of an idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine. The idea came first then its symbolic representation. With frogs, horses, chickens , humans in whom is the breath of life" we have the symbolic representation of an idea:  Life itself.

Buffon would then catalog the soft rubber keys of the ZX spectrum and finding the IBM mainframe stacked meters above with hard keys infer that through a battle for survival between the keyboards the IBM keyboard "evolved" from the soft keys. Just like biologists today he would be missing the point that animal movement and appendages are the symbolic manifestation of the underlying PID and IPC(Inverted pendulum control) algorithm. One animal didn't evolve from another, they are but different representations of the same universal underlying algorithms, ideas, Life, Truth and Language. This Language transcends space time and matter, knows everything and everything there is to know as he spoke the universe into existence 6000 years ago.

Tigers, elephants and humans in whom is the breath of life, symbolically represent an abstract idea that can't be reduced to matter: Life itself. The question is What is Life? How would we visualize Life as an abstract transcendent idea in the same way that the Turing machine idea isn't a physical location. The concept of a Turing machine transcend the universe itself, the concept isn't bound by space and time.

Nobody has ever seen an electron they are described in term of dense language of partial differential equations. The electron isn't a physical object but a language like abstraction, that exists, expresses and is held together by Language itself: The language of math. View an Atom as a Partial differential language equation and then view a metal table consisting of iron atoms as the symbolic representation in physical space of this invisible, unseen Language space.

Natural selection and Phlogiston theory
JohnWilkins says that ".... NS is now more accurately defined ..." which is just as erroneous as saying the round rock Darwin had on his porch in 1859 itself is now more accurately defined as population genetic math equation. "NS" like a round rock has no meaning, it is merely a symbol which represents only its own shape a series of zig-zags(N) and a snake shape(S). The idea Darwin represented with NS and his synonym SoF can be no more "accurately defined" then the historical fact of Napoleon shooting the sphinx with his canon be made undone. The idea Darwin had is history and how his idea with NS were interpreted as SoF by Osborn, Burroughs, Kingsley ,JohnTyndall etc. can't be wished away. One can't redefine their idea in terms of the knowledge of today. By using Darwin's symbols confusion is created as to what idea is being referred to in terms of our present knowledge.

The symbol "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory" represented an idea. The idea has been discarded, now imagine that every theory in physics includes Phlogiston, where you have to deduce from the context that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger_equation etc. is meant. We have this exact same madness in biology: NS is inserted everywhere but has no bearing on understanding the mechanism or gene relationships as per PhilipSkell rap. A modern day Empedoclian (not evolutionist, YEC are evolutionists we believe in progress towards our higher destiny) would for example say: By the process of natural selectionx we evolved from a CommonAncestor. Would this person refer to the idea of SoF that JohnTyndall had in his interpretation of Darwin - who is being interpreted?

Wikipedia's Fitness article uses John Tyndall's interpetation of Democritus
Prof. Herrmann at http://www.serve.com/herrmann/omni.htm wrote ".....A language, as we know it, if improperly applied along with classical logic can lead to meaningless statements when meaningful phrases are employed....The fact that there exists millions of meaningless statements in the sense of classical logic is relevant in that it shows that the descriptive power of any human language is limited...".

This section is an attempt at showing why "You are adapted to your environment or condition of existence", "....measuring fitness ....." , "....differences in individual genotypes affect fitness.....", "....fitnesses of individuals depend on the environment in which the individuals live......" , "....fitness is the height of the landscape....." , "....fitness measures the quantity genes in the next generation...." is really just as meaningless as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously.

"You are adapted to your environment" is another example of where our use of language went wrong - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry%27s_paradox. A rock,human and penguin isn't adapted to their condition of existence, their state is already defined by their attributes. In the same way that a lump of copper can' be "better adapted" can a human or penguin be "better adapted" to their state.

DavidBerlinski wrote Black Mischief first edition ".... if pigs had wheels mounted on ball bearings instead of trotters, on what scale of porcine fitness would they be..?" In other words Berlinski is saying that "fitnessx" can't be measured.

DemocritusFitnessPost

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest uses JohnTyndall]'s interpretation of [[DemoCritus: "....That great enigma, 'the exquisite adaptation of one part of an organism to another part, and to the conditions of life, more especially the construction of the human body, Democritus made no attempt to solve....."

Which was reformulated as "... Darwin meant it is a metaphor for "better adapted for immediate, local environment", not the common inference of "in the best physical shape....." on Wikipedia. Darwin meant no such thing, he meant "suitable" with fitness the meaning intended by Spencer. [Note: not so sure about this paragraph, it must be reviewed]

JohnTyndall in 1870 interpreted Darwin in terms of Spencer, who Darwin referred to as one of the greatest thinkers in the history of mankind. Always remember that Darwin was read in terms of Spencer in 1870, back then Spencer's writings were like Gould's today.

JohnTyndall's "...The exquisite adaptation of one part of an organism to another part, and to the conditions of life..." reduces to "....the adaptation of ... an organism .... to its environment...." Fitness, like quark and natural selection have no meaning. There are two senses to the word environment: 'Conditions of life' and 'geographical location' sense. Wikipedia's Fitness article used it in the geographic location sense and is thus erroneous. A "local environment" is a geographic location. Your condition of existence isn't a geographical location.

"better adapted for immediate, local environment" is somewhere between a TauTologyx and Tautology5(Naming_Conventions). Where else could a penguin possibly be other then the "immediate" geographical location and condition of existence sense? A penguin, rock and human can only experience a state in the present.

The concept back then was "suitability". There is an attempt at history revisionism by downplaying the effect Spencer had (sold over a million books) on Victorian society back then and how his ideas influenced them. The wikipedia Aristotelians stress that Spencer's SoF was only entered in the 5th edition. What they don't mention is that Darwin referred to Spencer as ".... one of the greatest thinkers in history...." Spencer's writings aren't cited today by the Aristotelians for PC reasons due to the strong racialist overtones by Spencer. No matter how insightful (not everything Spencer wrote could have been erroneous or correct) or advantageous to the materialist cause he might have been, he can't be cited for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politically_correct reasons. His entire works can be found on Gutenberg press.

Darwin was interpreted in terms of Spencer as JohnTyndall usage of SoF shows. The understanding back then was that whites were more suitable, fit or better fitted then blacks, such a suitability metric isn't a "local geographic location" but an abstract "condition of existence", an arbitrary social cultural subjective contrivance. Today different ideas are represented under the rubric of "fitness". Because the symbol "fitness" doesn't mean anything it is used to convey "physical strength" in one context and "better suited for marriage" in a another context. A reader in 1870 such as JohnTyndall used "fitness" in the "better suited for marriage" sense. Such suitability isn't a "local geographic location". The Aristotelians rewriting history on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest are infusing their arbitrary ideas into the article instead of providing a historical narrative of ideas that were symbolically represented with the word the last 300 years from Buffon, Treviranus etc. English is a crippled language and it doesn't allow complex ideas to be expressed using single words so easily.

The conditions of life or conditions of existence an organism experiences is not a geographical location but is defined in terms of its attributes. A description of such an environment is rendered in terms of the attributes of the creature in the same way that the SQL computer code environment is described in terms of its attributes. SQL code exists only as a description in terms of its attributes, it inhabits an abstract "condition of existence" by virtue of an attribution description, which like the number 7 is neither here nor there: It exists only as an abstract concept in somebodies mind. The algorithm it implements is done in some physical space, but the physical space doesn't define its condition of existence. In the same way a complex organism real existence isn't physical space but in somebodies mind. The only reason it or anything else in the universe exists is because somebody knows about it. This is from the premise that Mind came before matter. A metal table is in a condition of existence, it symbolically represents not hard indivisible atoms but pure Language at the atomic level where there is no matter, just pure consciousness: Jesus Christ who as God in the flesh is the quantum mechanical force that holds every "lepton", "quark" and "electron" (electrons as particles don't actually exist) together. He is separate from matter, space and time itself because he created space, time and matter 6000 years ago, he made everything and nothing that was made wasn't done without him. Everything that exists, exists only because He knows about it. Consciousness is the greatest force in the universe.

Because scientists know that "survival of the fittest" is a tautology (they are not stupid you know) they came up with a new formulation of the phrase that gave us an independent criterion of fitness - the environment. Success in survival is now tick-boxed as: "better adapted for the immediate, local environment".

[NOTE: Fitness as a symbol has no criteria or meaning. The modern idea(whatever that might be) has an criteria. Some modern day Aristotelian is representing his idea and criteria that survival is now tick-boxed as: "better adapted for ...... the environment". The idea a reader of Darwin and Spencer had in 1860 with "fitness" was suitability. As in whites being more suitable than blacks. Osborn noted how DR. W. C. WELLS, in 1813 first promulgated the theory of natural selection by noting the skin of white female that had negro characteristics. The idea that was represented with natural selection had strong racialist overtones. On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection there is little if none racialist overtones as the editors infuse their particular ideas under the symbol natural selection. Same term but different concepts. Democritus battle between good and bad atoms became the battle of survival between good whites and bad blacks with the term natural selection in the social context of 1863, today it is different.]

But this is a tautology too. An environment, like a destination, isn't a geographical place. A description of an environment is cast in terms of a creature's attributes. As my environment is already described by my attributes I can't be adapted TO my environment. And even less can I be "better adapted" to my environment. What am I saying then? "Survival of the fittest" There is only one thing being considered here. "Survival" describes the "fittest" as the scientists know. Adaption/environment There is STILL only one thing on offer here, as adaption describes an environment, as the scientists have failed to notice.

Fitness isn't a measurable quality. A creature is, by being an existing creature, fit. The creature doesn't "have" fit parts or alleles. If parts and alleles constitute the creature, then they don't also require a property called "fitness" that helps it exist.

http://omgili.com/newsgroups/alt/atheism/h32j297jh1newseternal-septemberorg.html don't see the significance of saying that evolution is about populations. Like the term "fit" can't apply to individuals, the term "evolve" can't apply to populations. There aren't properties and processes (fit, evolve,) above and beyond the individual and the population. An environment is, at the same time, logically entails, a description of a set of attributes.

At a superficial level a rock is adapted to its environment or a rock is adapted at being a rock. Anything that exists is thus adapted to its condition of existence, which says the same thing twice - a tautology. Thus it is syntactically meaningless to say an organism is adapted to its environment, it sounds as though a meaningful statement is being made, it has a pleasing grammatical nuance to it, but in reality is just as meaningless as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously.

Such an environment or condition of existence, like the destination of an IP packet on the Internet isn't a physical location. There are two senses to the word environment: 'Conditions of life' and 'geographical location' sense. Note that the word "random" can also be used in two senses, the "probability sampling"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_sampling#Quota_sampling) or "non-random" sense and in the devoid of all intent sense.

As the organism's environment is already described by its attributes it can't be adapted TO its environment. To a greater extent it can't be "better adapted" to its environment. SQL code can't be adapted to its environment, neither can it be better adapted. With an organism we are dealing with a more advanced code than SQL a mechatronic AI algorithmic processing device that also flips switches, just like SQL code flips transistors on and off: It makes no sense to talk of SQL being adapted to its environment, it exists purely because of its descriptive attributes, which had to exist in somebodies mind, likewise it makes no sense talk of organisms being adapted to their environment. An organism, rock or any other living and non-living thing expresses only a condition of existence due to its descriptive attributes existing in somebodies mind (that would be the Lord Jesus Christ from the YEC view).

An environment logically entails a description of a set of attributes. With the "Adaption/environment" clause we are only referring to one thing, as adaption describes an environment or conditions of life, melting pot or set of social and cultural conditions affecting a community. Fitness isn't a measurable quality. A creature is, by being an existing creature, fit. The creature doesn't "have" fit parts or genes. If genes constitute the creature, then they don't also require a property called "fitness" that helps it exist. I don't see the significance of saying that evolution is about populations. Like the term "fit" can't apply to individuals, the term "evolve" can't apply to populations. There aren't properties and processes (fit, evolve,) above and beyond the individual and the population.

SQL is the coda or semantics that conveys the idea of a master/slave database relationship or dictionary key:value pairs in Python. By saying SQL, signal sender and signal receiver understand a set of algorithms that achieves key:value iteration or database mapping. That's the concept, saying that "..SQL is intended to be independent of its condition of existence...." is just as meaningless as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously and "...SQL is adapted to its condition of existence..." Your sentence is grammatically correct though.

SQL isn't separate, independent or adapted to anything. You can't be adapted or independent from your condition of existence because your "existence" is who you are. Cheese isn't "adapted" to being cheese, cheese condition of existence or environment is defined by its attributes (soft, tasty, yellow etc.)

http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B14117_01/appdev.101/b10807/13_ele... "...A cursor variable declared in a PL/SQL host environment and passed to PL/SQL as a bind variable. The datatype of the host cursor variable is compatible with the return type of any PL/SQL cursor variable. Host variables must be prefixed with a colon......"

Explain how saying "....SQL is either adapted, independent,separate, linked or in love with its condition of existence......" relates to the Pragmatics of the above SQL tutorial. ?

On a scale of adaptability 1-10, how would I measure your adaptation to your condition of existence ? Magnetic flux is measured using Gauss, and current is measured in a standardized way. In order to measure something we agree apon a standardized metric so that 3amps has some sort conceptual meaning universally understood as the ratio between voltage and resistance. What standardized metric other than being in existence was agreed apon to measure the fitness of an elephant and how would such a measurement differ from a gazelle? If a pig had wheels mounted on ball bearings instead of trotters, on what scale of porcine fitness would it be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Survival_of_the_fittest#Reproductiv... "....Such misunderstandings have been normal rather than the exception ever since 1900. This page unfortunately seems to have misunderstood the meaning the word "fit" had in the 1800s, and it should be radically revised. "Fit" meant suitable or appropriate. For example, women of the middle class could often be considered "not a fit wife for her excellent son"(Anne Bronte's novel "Agnes Grey"). The modern and usual meaning of the word is a product ot the 1900s, and Darwin and Spencer had no concept of physical fitness -- a modern luxury. The old concept "fit" represents in itself a relative quality, relative to something,, just like the verb "to fit", as a lid fits on its box. Darwin wanted such a relative concept, so he adopted Spencer's expression. It expressed "suited or adapted to its environment", which is exactly his basis for natural selection. It follows that he could have written "survival of the fit", it expresses almost the same idea. But "fittest" makes the idea of selection of only the best suited characteristics clearer. Mondin (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC) ...."

One person's view of marriage suitability is dependent on the cultural context and is subjective. A reader of Darwin understood "fitness" to be "suitable" the word meaning intended by Spencer. Spencer sold over a million books and Darwin was interpreted within the Spencer reference frame with Spencer's terminology and world view. Current is measured in amps, would "fitness" or "suitability" then be measured in "naturals"? The measurement of a women's "suitability" is an emotionally charged subjective assesment, not something that can be measured as current is measured, which is emotion free. There is no scale of suitablity 1-10 like there is with amps 1-10, suitablity and its modern synonym fitness can't be measured, they aren't measurable qualities but emotion laden subjective comparisons by people in the Spencerian/Darwinian cultural context. She didn't take a Gauss meter and measure "suitability flux" on a scale of 1-10 with the women coming in at 7,2 naturls but the cut-off point for "fitness" or suitability being 8 naturals. What was understood in the 1800s context by a reader of Darwin and Spencer's usage of "suitable" or "fitter" was that the white people were more "Fit" or "better fitted" or "suitable" to dominate the world then black people.

If fitness is a measurable quantity then on what scale of "fitness" would black and white people be in the socio-cultural context of the 1800's? On what scale would they be in the context of a politically correct driven social studies class at Harvard. Obviously at Harvard in 2010 they would be at exactly the same point, mentally, culturally etc.. Which thus demonstrates the point: Fitness(suitability) can't be measured. But the word "fitness" is widely used in the Neo-Empedoclian community(not evolutionary or Darwinian) in reference to human beings. Thus the usage of of "fitness" in a narration that is supposed to provide a well reasoned description of what we observe(not science, nobody knows that that word means) is just as sense destroying as trying to include "Julio cranks his wooden cheese" - it makes no sense.

Natura non facit saltum, nature makes no sudden leaps. In the context used "nature" is a synonym for "environment" which is used in the "the condition of existence" sense. To rephrase the sentence it means: "Your condition of existence makes no sudden leaps". By definition your condition of existence can't speed up or slow down, at the pragmatics level the sentence is a Truthiness-Tautology. Always bear in mind that words such as Nature, selection, decision, random etc have no meaning, they can only symbolically represent an idea in a specific context which allows one to use synonyms where one wouldn't ordinarly do so.

Everything that is in a condition of existence plays out in a linear time trajectory, such a time can't "jump" into the future speed up or slowdown. I am part of nature in the sense that my nature is in a condition of existence in the here and now, my existence isn't slowing down or speeding up. In the condition of existence sense nature is a synonym for environment. Try and measure "nature" on a scale of 1-10 and point out where the demarcation is between sudden and slow in the same way one would demarcate between a weak and strong magnetic field in Gauss units. What would be the units of measurement, "naturals" perhaps?

In other words the term "Natura non facit saltum" is just as meaningless as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously. By saying that the condition of existence makes no sudden leaps it invokes an image of increasing or decreasing slopes, such as those "fitness landscapes" abstractions. Whatever the graphs are supposed to represent, they can't represent a "fitness landscape" or "suitability landscape" - there is no such thing that can be measured or calibrated on scale of -10 to +120 in the same sense an A/D converter Span and Zero would be calibrated to digitally represent a physical measurement.. If a "fitness landscape" can be measured how would one then calibrate its Zero and Span ?

Note that no matter in what context "Natura non facit saltum" is used with whatever intent(Darwin had a specific intent) it remains just as invalid as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously in any context.

The same logic applies to "NS acts". A selection is a decision, decisions aren't "natural" but could be contemplated or hasty etc., decisions don't act on anything because only a being can make a decision or act on something. Darwin used the term "natural selection acts" but the idea he had was in the pattern and not design sense. Even though he used "acts" he didn't mean there was a conscious entity "acting". Which is why he shouldn't have written the book and kept silent, instead out of anger towards God for the death of his daughter he has induced Aristotelian mental illness from YEC to Atheist. Neither YEC, ID and atheist comprehends that words such as "natural selection acts" don't mean anything, only ideas have meaning.

Neither can one "add in selection" as a Discovery institute bacterial resistance video narrated by Stephen Myer claimed. You can't "add in selection" to the bacteria but could make decisions influencing the outcome of bacteria interacting. (Which is why the ID and Ken Ham YEC side are doing more damage than Dawkins because they use the same terminology, the Neo-Aristotelians get to define the rules of the game and the game with words is rigged if you play by their rules, you can't win the argument because you can't win an argument against a mentally ill person thinking that decisions can be natural. YEC is correct view though because that is what Christ implied) What is a natural decision or a natural preservation(Darwin meant preservation with selection)? What is a colorless green idea.....

“Natural Selection acts on genes, not individuals or groups of individuals.” True or false? could just as well have been http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously. True or false? The question is a false dichotomy, both answers are wrong because the sentence is grammatically correct but meaningless. The Neo-Empedoclians are using grammatically correct but meaningless sentences formulated in a tautological way to induce one to accept their world view. Using grammatically correct by meaningless sentences is just as mentally damaging as believing a traffic light can be green and red at the same time. We are dealing with an insidious assault on our language, that not a single YEC dinosaur adventure land will solve. In the Bible it is forbidden to make images of things in heaven, because one then focuses on the images instead of the words, engaging in visualizations instead of trust by faith in the words of God alone. Job engaged in a whole dialogue where the words carried forth power. Jesus Christ asked Job:"....Who darkeneth council by words without wisdom ?...." AIG, Dembski, http://www.icr.org are using words without wisdom (natural selection, differential reproductive success, adapted to its environment) which darkeneth council. The language guile and deceit of the Neo-Aristotelians won't be solved by museums stuffed with dinosaur bones.

What does Fitness mean?
The problem with the huge language confusion we have in 2010 is that virtually everybody before 1858 believed Mind came before matter and their language reflected this innate volition. As JohnWilkins wrote:"..... lets face it, ordinary language with its volition isn't suitable for discussing concepts in biology...."

Today the same symbols are used by those who believe that matter came before Mind. 2000 years ago Selectus was used to express the concept of making a decision. Today the Neo-Aristotelians tell us that "selection" doesn't mean that anymore. They are incorrect, 'selection' like 'quark' has no meaning, they symbolically represented specific concepts (decision, will volition). By invoking the HumptyDumpty principle the Neo-Empedoclians represent arbitrary ideas with selection - which they certainly can do, but like Alice protested nobody knows what they are trying to say. They have invented a sort of Falun-Gong secret language. In China the Falun-Gong cult have resulted in children inventing their own dialect of Chinese so that even their own parents can't understand them. The language confusion extends from 'group selection', 'kin selection', 'selection-for', 'selection-about', 'memes to 'fitness landscape' to 'differential reproductive success'.

The Aristotelians run the public education system and they are just as destructive as a mother pointing to the color red with her baby on her lap and saying "Green". We find ourselves in a sort of a mad-hatters language mad house where "selection" no longer represents making decisions. The IEEE society have defined ATM protocol as using fixed byte widths of 57. What the Aristotelians like Pinker and Dawkins are doing is imagine that by government decree ATM packet width because anything any engineer wishes it to be, our telecoms system will jam and the Internet won't work. In the same way our language isn't working anymore as means to consistently convey specific concepts. It is an assault on our collective mental health a situation worsened by http://www.icr.org, Ken Ham and Dembski who have capitulated to the Inquisition like mental torture of having the Neo-Empedoclians continually use "selection" but then not mean "decision". It is like imagine every driver decides to invent his own reality and drive when the robot is red instead of green. The symbol selection represents and arbitrary idea in either the pattern or design sense, a red robot represents an arbitrary idea. Look beyond the symbol and ask what is the idea. Decisions(selection) can be no more natural or artificial then green can be colorless and circles square.

The debates between YEC, materialists and ID are doomed because of this. Steven Pinker as the professorial overlord intimidates his students to think like him, speak like him and invent their own language reality as they invoke the HumptyDumpty principle.

Especially the ID movement Dembski etc. have worsened the situation and are being sucked into the Aristotelian language madness. YEC apologetics movement is no longer defending the Word of God, they can't because their brains have been scrambled by the sheer force of mass media, Pinker, Dawkins , the attack of mass media as they went straight for the jugular: Language, semantics, words and the meaning they used to symbolically represent the last 5000 years before language became undefined in 1859.

The Aristotelians are caught in a tautological feedback loop that sucks in ever more words and terms. Especially 'differential reproductive success' is an interesting term because Darwin never uttered the phrase and nobody can explain what sort of technical significance it is supposed to have, see DarwinNeverSaidDifferentialReproduction. 'Differential reproductive success' has no meaning it can only represent an idea - which idea by whom? For who is what a success. A success is some predetermined goal that has been reached, who had this goal. If the frog is a 'successful' frog then why isn't it a happy frog. If natural selection is blind, why isn't it stupid.

Where Dembski, Ken Ham and http://www.irc.org have lost the whole argument form the word go, is that you can't win an argument against multi-universe theorists inventing their own real-time reality in HumptyDumpty space as the atoms in their head collides. The molecules in PZMyers head for example have undergone a sort of quantum flux making him animated for the purpose of proving that he is purposeless. If the atomic spin in his head is correct and there is no God ,the YEC will die with their delusions and the atheist will die never knowing he actually was correct and thus so what? Why the frantic animation from the atheists, if they actually believed that there really was no God they would be tolerant towards the YEC and give them an indifferent shrug. Instead they are very concerned about what the "truth" is not knowing how self-defeating their own position really is because if there is no God and they die, they will never find out.

By forcing through ridicule, dismissal, economic sanction they have intimidated even Atheists to say selection doesn't represent decision in the usual sense of the word. A selection is a decision, there is no such thing as natural or artificial decision, this is by arbitrary decree in the same way that we have arbitrarily defined ATM as being fixed and Ethernet variable frame rates.

Imagine the reaction we would get from IEEE engineers if Pinker and Dawkins decrees that ATM is no linger fixed packet widths but variable like Ethernet. But this is the exact same mess we know have with the term "natural selection": What naturaled (VerbingNouns) and who did the selecting? The IEEE would protest such lunacy, but http://www.icr.org, Ken Ham and Dembski aren't even raising the issue. As Ken Ham said: ".... I believe in Natural Selection...". A YEC saying NS in any context other than to ask "what naturaled and who did the selecting" is imperiling his soul whether he realizes it or not. The early Xtians could worship Christ, they just had to say:"...Caeser is Lord..." but they refused and were tortured to death. And the same with Natural Selection: Dawkins, Wilkins and the US/EU funded Aristotelian tautological inducing mind control institutions expect Xtians to have one set of beliefs on Sunday and another on Monday. It makes a mockery of the Xtian faith and will not be tolerated by Jesus Christ who is Truth incarnate.

Pinker and Dawkins can't kill you for refusing to say "natural, natural I am going to get all naturaled" but they can refuse that degree and thus a job. Xtianity involves persecution and today it is becoming ever more impossible to be a Xtian. Expecting a Xtian to say "natural selection" is expecting him to say "Aristotle is Lord".


 * At http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2009-10/msg08585.html poster iain_inkster@DOMAIN.HIDDEN wrote: "...Each time somebody here uses the phrase 'natural selection', your quibble is that ' "selection" implies intent'. It does not. In whatever respect you say " 'selection' implies intent ", you are wrong......"

My reply to iain_inkster is that they symbol Selection like the symbol Fitness has no criteria nor can it imply anything since it means nothing. Only a conscious being can imply something and used the symbol 'selectus' 2000 years ago to do such implying. What "selectus" was used to symbolically represent or imply the last 2000 years was the the concept of intent or making a decision. Such decisions by Augustus were neither "natural" nor "artificial", in the same way that square circle can't exist. Note that JohnWilkins wrote elsewhere that "natural selection" and "artificial selection" should really just be "selection". What that means within in his premise we don't know. What Dawkins and Pinker have done is like imagine Harvard University forces all their students to drive from now on as though a red robot means go and green means stop. Any protestations from the students would result in immediate dismissal from the university. The third time you ask Pinker "What naturaled and who did the selecting" you will be kicked out of Harvard.

University students are the mercy of their Empedoclian professorial overlords, they are induced into the cult of Aristotelian, Empedoclian and Democritean tautological thinking because that is the official belief of the US federal government and EU. The symbol string natural selection is a sort of means to bind societies collective mind into a common purpose, to make everybody think the same. It has been so successful that even Ken Ham says".... I believe in Natural selection....." , he is a sever danger to the mental health of society. God expects you to be in your sane mind when you reason with him. Decisions aren't natural and green isn't colorless. Ken Ham is correct on YEC but his argumentation scheme is wrong.

We have Ken Ham supposedly representing the YEC view and Pinker representing the atheist view. One is forced to choose between the two sides, what about the option that Ken Ham, Pinker, Dawkins and Dembski could all be wrong? Ken Ham is obviously correct that the earth was made 6000 years ago, but that is what Genesis says, but his argumentation scheme suffers from an Aristotelian logical fallacy as does Dembski and Dawkins. You could be correct but for the wrong reasons.

Because they all use the grammatical gargoyle natural selection in a meaningful sense. Which means they are just as mentally ill as trying to use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously in a meaningful sense. The only option nobody is willing to consider is that we are in an abyss of language undefinedness, where YEC, atheists and ID are having endless debates not realizing that their arguments are doomed because neither of them comprehend what they mean with the symbol "selection". Who did the selecting? Nobody, well then why is a word that symbolically represented exactly that meaning then being used!?

If you tell the driver:"The robot is red!" , you are telling him to stop. We have arbitrarily by some decree if you wish decided that "red" represents stop. Now we could have used "green" is we wished but didn't. With "selectus"(Latin) 2000 years ago and "Selection" 200 years ago the intended meaning was plain: Making of a decision. It the last 150 years where the confusion over this has come in.

By government decree "red" is being used to mean stop. The same US government have also decreed to Pinker that "selection" no longer means "decision". The question: Who did the selecting? is forbidden. Xtian students studying Biology are given litmus tests where they have to answer multiple choice questions concerning 'natural selection'. The only answer they can give: "What naturaled and who did the Selecting" isn't on the question sheet. It amounts to imagine forcing Paul to answer the question with either Zeus or Apollo: " ...Which God made the universe, Zeus or Apollo...?" We are thus presented with a false dichotomy.

Thus wehave a huge language mess on on our hands where the the ruling elite from our universities are arbitrarily decreeing that "red" no longer means "stop" so speak, that "selection" no longer means "decision". The last 150 year we have witnessed a process that amounts to making people believe they can all invent their own language reality where "non-random" no longer is the synonym for "directed". We witness the same phenomena in China where the spiritual void left by atheism is filled with the Falun Gong cult, the spiritual void in atheist society is dealt with by making language itself undefined really.

What does Common Ancestor mean?
Spiders belong to the class Arachnida, insects to the class Insecta - http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/spidermyth/myths/notinsects.html. The vernacular for spider though is insect. A child at the zoo tells how he saw a "big monkey" and a "little monkey" he is using the vernacular for Gorilla and ape.

The common ancestor between a brother and sister is their mother. If man and ape descended from a "common ancestor", what would this CA have looked like to an observer back then? Both JohnWilkins and John Harshman stated that it would have looked like a "monkey", "ape", "simian', "flea scratching baboon" or any other vernacular that one would wish to use. John Harshman insists that our CA was a monkey hanging by its tail in the trees a few million years ago. Wilkins stated that using "ape like ancestor" instead of "monkey" for the CA merely replaces one vernacular for another.

In one context a "common ancestor" is a human being, in another it represents symbolically a monkey(vernacular usage, use simian if it makes you feel less stupid). RichardDawkins stated that the ancestor between fish and land dwelling creatures wasn't a fish but a "common ancestor". But to an observer back then wouldn't this CA have looked like a fishy thingy? If the neo-Empedoclians are this confused as to what they mean with CA then imagine the confusion we have with 'natural selection'. JohnWilkins in his audio podcast that he linked from on scienceblogs.com stated that if you read RichardDawkins books you are guaranteed to get it wrong.

PZ Myers on 'precursor populations: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/12/ray_comfort_gets_it_half_right.php#comment-1236746 PZ wrote: "......We evolved from precursor populations containing both males and females........"

These precursors, did they look like monkeys,simians, bonobos or did they look like a "precursor"? What would the precursor of this precursor have looked like, a common ancestor. What does a *precursor* between you and your sister look like. Precursors, common ancestors, Arachnida, Insecta, monkey and baboon have no meaning they can only symbolically represent an idea. There is no rule that says one isn't allowed to refer to a spider as an insect in the vernacular sense. In the same way there is no rule which says that "selection" always must be used in the decision making sense. Neither is there a rule that forbids referring to your mother as your "precursor" or her "precursor" as a "common ancestor" hanging by its tail in the trees 10mil years ago.

Lets presume this "precursor" gave birth to another "precursor" at what point would this "precursor" say: Mommy why are your teeth so long!? Did monkeys give birth to talking monkeys. The reply to this question is what did the first speaker of French mother speak, which is a false analogy because his mother's morphological features would have been exactly the same. For the monkey man transition morphological changes would have had to taken place. How many such changes for example was there in the cow whale transition, a billion, 100 million.

Nature selects - pattern or design ?
"Nature selects" means just like quark, fitness and reproductive success nothing, it has no meaning. This insight into sentences as symbols allows one to use the symbol string "nature selects" to convey any idea in the pattern or design sense. One person would indeed mean that the Gaia selection cosmic force selects or makes a decision while the wikipedia Aristotelians disagree.

Many neo-Aristotelians(calling themselves evolutionists) insist that "nature selects" doesn't mean a conscious being making selections. But since "nature selects" doesn't mean anything what they intend is that they are not representing the idea of a conscious being making decisions. They are invoking the HumptyDumpty principle which is just as mentally ill as invoking the HumptyDumpty principle to redefine Ethernet as fixed packet widths: Why are they doing this? Since you can do with a symbol anything you want, invent any protocol you desire, they are free to invoke the HumptyDumpty principle but at the risk of mental illness. A hammer itself has no intention to strike, it can be used to drive a nail but can also be used as a paper weight, likewise "natural selection" itself has no intention, it can only be used to convey an idea.

Entering HumptyDumpty space won't be allowed on the IEEE standards committee for Ethernet and neither should it be allowed when making formal definitions in biology space. [The idea represented with Biology leads to even more ambiguity than with selection]


 * http://www.tutorvista.com/content/biology/biology-iii/organic-evolution/organic-evolution-theories.php "...Darwin believed that nature selects only those individuals, which have favourable variations and thereby have competitive advantage over others. This process is known as natural selection...."

The idea behind the sentence is a rhetorical tautology, favourable implies they will have an advantage but doesn't explain why it is so. The premise behind it is the false dichotomy from Democritus with the good and bad atoms fighting one another to dominate atomic space. The idea Darwin had though with "nature selects" was in the pattern and not design sense. The issue is what did Darwin actually believe, he said "nature selects" but by this didn't mean some entity selecting, which is why he should never have used selection. In a letter he wrote he stated that he should have used "preservation". Preservation like accumulation and selection can be used in the pattern or design sense. The words isn't the issue but the idea.

Is a tautology true by definition?
* http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/4828cd8302a35bfa/d5d1bc415669f3d8 * http://www.evolutiondebate.info/ThoughtsonNS.pdf

Quote:This is an amazing argument, but I have seen it in more than one place (including an indirect nod by Howard Hershey in the last section below) so it must be making the rounds. Apparently Patella believes that in order for there to be tautology problem natural selection must argue that the fitter ³always² survive."

Wilkins wrote: Well yes. That's rather what "tautology" means - it can never not be true. If it can be false at any point then it is simply not a tautology, no matter what one might think of the claim as a statistical likelihood.

Both Wilkins and Patella didn't discern between a tautological expression, proposition and logical validity. "A or not-A" can't every be false, it is a logical validity. But the sentenc "A or not-A and therefore a monkey gave birth to a human" is a rhetorical tautology, the conclusion is a non-sequitur.

Survival of the fittest in certain context is a type Tautology1 or logical validity. They way Spencer and Darwin used it, it became a rhetorical Tautology3 because their premise descent from a CommonAncestor was a non-sequitur. In a sports match expressing SoF to impress on the fact that the athlete won the race is a Tautology2 expression and not fallacious. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics with SoF is the issue, because SoF has no meaning itself.

Is a tautology defined as something which is true by definition or something which is a necessary truth? This depends what is meant with "tautology", no word has a single true meaning as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics. There are a range of concepts for which one word will not suffice particularly in the English language, Greek in contrast has single words with a single meaning such as Agape. A rhetorical tautology involves a deceitful attempt at persuasion by coming to a conclusion which is a non-sequitur. Tautological expressions are used in poetry and informal speech. The logical validity A or Not-A could also be a rhetorical tautology or tautological proposition if used in a different context such as:A or Not-A and therefore a monkey gave birth to a human(Non_sequitur_(logic)).

It depends on the context in which terms and words are used by signal sender and how signal receiver decodes it. In computer generated theorem verification the idea is to avoid logical tautologies such as X=X since this is not the result to be obtained. The result would be logically valid but unintended and thus a Logical Tautology( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)) If X=X is generated it is assumed that the set theorist wasn't trying to deceitfully convince others of his world view, hence logical tautology and not rhetorical tautology. Obviously A or Not-A but when tutoring entry level set theory A or Not-A might not be so obvious and the logical validity of A or Not-A needs to be grasped as a low level concept. A or Not-A in one context says the same thing twice in order to convince of a world view which is a Non_sequitur. In another context affirms it as a logical validity for its pedagogical use and in another context is a logical validity but not intended(logical tautology).

JohnWilkins confuses these subtleties by defining a tautology:".... something which is defined as being true by definition..." due to his particular world view and his realization that SurvivalOfTheFittest by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Reinhold_Treviranus, Buffon and Spencer was a tautological proposition. See JohnWilkins for his post on this issue. There are threads by Wilkins on Usenet talk.origins dealing with the http://www.talkorigins.org tautology article that he wrote where he stated that the article is out of date, and needs to be rewritten. Quantum physics, mathematics etc. or what is considered as the hard sciences are formulated in such a way that the Empedoclian world view is embraced.

A or Not-A and what happens, happens are true by definition but what is the context in which it is used or the Pragmatics? The issue isn't the semantic definition of a word but the multiple concepts that can be communicated with words such as for example "random,selection, accumulation etc.", which elsewhere in this document is shown to be able to be used in both the volitional and non-volitional sense. There are five Greek words for love: Agape, Phile, Eros. Agape is used in the New Testament to describe God's love for man.

In English the context or Pragmatics with the word "love" determines what is meant by signal sender to signal receiver. The Neo-Aristotelians, -Neo-Empedoclians (not Evolutionists, a word coined by Darwin in OoS) are exploiting the English language to hide what they mean by words such as selection(who did the selecting?), modification(who did the modifying) accumulation, evolution etc: What will be , will be. Their Premise is the RetrospectiveSpecification fallacy: A widely held premise is the multi-universe theory,out of billions of possible universes we were the one that happened to be in existence, but the sample space is actually two: Either we exist or we don't.


 * A or Not-A, and therefore a monkey gave birth to a human(Non_sequitur) - Rhetorical tautology' or fallacious. 
 * A or Not-A, in an entry level class on algebra stated for its pedagogical use - Logical validity and not fallacious.
 * X=X, in computer theorem verification, but unintended result - Logical tautology and not fallacious.
 * X=X, Jokingly said by one set theorist to another - Tautological expression and not fallacious.
 * (A or Not-A), Random paper picked up in the street what does it mean? It depends on who said X = X - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics. And the same goes for natural selection which like You have a green light has no single true meaning.
 * 4=3, random paper picked up in the street means what? Without knowing who wrote it isn't even wrong.
 * Hidden tautology or Truthiness-tautology - Fallacious.

Wikipedia's Neo-Empedoclians
The subtleties and nuances of what it means to say the same thing twice can't be separated from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics, the context, time era, background knowledge and assumptions of the user. The editors of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(rhetoric) don't incorporate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics with it due to their Aristotelian, Empedoclian and Epicurian world view. This world view of atoms fighting on another with the best atom surviving have been retold for modern man as the battle between organisms, resulting in an unfalsisfiable tale because if the dingbat won instead of the wombat we would be told the same story.

Original the tale was the battle between the Gods and see-monsters, narrated by the tribal wizard 5000 years ago to village peasants, in return he got free food and didn't have to do back break work. The myth was modified by Empedocles, Aristotle, Atomists, Democritus and Lucretius etc.. as the battle between the atoms to explain the origin of the universe due to their atheistic world view. If atoms became established because the "good" atom outwitted the "bad" atom then the story can't be falsified because if it was the other way around we would be told the same thing. The fact that atoms do exist means thus that one of the atoms had to "win the fight" so to speak but this doesn't allow for a third option and presents a FalseDichotomy. JamesHutton(1794), Darwin, Wells(1813), PatrickMatthews(1836) extended the Lucretius myth by having the "good" animal outwit the bad, not knowing about genes. Our modern day secular priests extended the myth by having the "good" Allele or gene outwit the "bad" allele, as can be seen with the book "The Selfish Gene" by dawkins, which is incorrect because genes are a CyberneticAbstraction. It really is bringing a cowboys-and-indians fight for survival fantasy world into science, where imagine that the existence of cowboys is explained by telling a tale of how they killed all the Indians, which raises the question where did the Indians and Cowboys come from in the first place.

Genotype, phenotype,allele,evolution,selection,group selection,punk-eek,gradualism and specifically the terms fitness and reproductive success with its battle for survival overtones are the word terms that enables the narration of the underlying mythology, it doesn't explain the transition matrix that maps polypeptide space into frog space for example: There is no math because these terms aren't meant to provide a mechanistic description but as a means for the Neo-Aristotelians to perpetuate the Lucretius world view in their universities and science. They are intermixed with mathematical equations but are superfluous to the actual descriptions. For example the term "fitness landscape" might just as well have been called "Conan banana landscape" or fitness coefficient mathematical variables was arbitrarily called that in population genetics but has no bearing on comprehending the actual differential equations explaining inheritance.

natural selection as used by the neo-Empedoclians when narrating an exciting story about the fight for survival between the "alleles" should be seen at the same level as "expialidocis" from Mary-Poppins and "kwabanga-dude!" by Donatello from the Ninja Turtles: As a stylistic device to spice up the story, not an actual attempt to explain anything. For this reason "allele", "genotype" and "phenotype" has no specific meaning whatsoever, nobody can point to the exact definition of what an "allele" is nor who defined it. For example Howard wrote:"...not all phenotypes are the result of genotypes..." which is a sentence crafted not actually to explain anything but as just one more addition of a rhetorical weapon in the arsenal of the modern day Gandalfs to spice up their argumentation scheme in the narration of their Empedoclian world view.

Which version of natural selection with what concept?
Selection was the synonym for "survival" and Darwin's writings was interpreted as such by Osborn in 1898 - EpiCurus. Wilkins wrote: "...The core of the criticism against natural selection is that it is a logical tautology, which amounts to it being an a priori truth (which most philosophers now consider a problematic notion at best, anyway)...."

The problem with this sentence is Wilkins never defines to which concept exactly he is referring to as used by which person. Only a person can have a concept, PatrickMatthews the originator of the term "natural means of selection" had a very specific concept. The term "natural selection" like the term "Ninja Turtles" isn't a concept but a the semantic means of encoding the Pragmatics that a specific user has. A Ninja turtle could be a ninja putting on a turtle suite or a turtle putting on a ninja suite,it all depends on who uses the semantics. We are for example told that evolution "happens in populations but not individuals", the only thing we are not told is who established it and whether it is established at all. All scientific theories are always formally established.

From the Greeks to Darwin by Henry Osborn
p.246 "...The idea of Evolution, rooted in the cosmic evo- lution and ' movement ' of Heraclitus and Aristotle, has passed to the progressive development and succession of life seen in Empedocles, Aristotle, Bruno, Descartes, Goethe, and in the more concrete mutability of species ' of Bacon, Leibnitz, Buffon, Lamarck, and St. Hilaire.

The direct transition from the inorganic to the organic is seen to have had a host of friends, nearly to the present time, including, besides all the Greeks, Lucretius, Augustine, Maillet, Buffon, Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck, Treviranus, Oken, and Chambers- Then we have seen the difficulty of ' origin ' removed one step back by the ' pre-existent germs ' of Anaxa- goras, revived by Maillet, Robinet, Diderot, and Bonnet. Again, the rudiments of the monistic idea of the psychic properties of all matter, foreshadowed by Empedocles, are seen revived by Maupertuis and Diderot. The difficulty of origin has been avoided by the assumption of primordial minute masses, which we have seen developed from the ' soft germ ' of Aristotle, to the 'vesicles' and 'filaments' of Buffon, Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck, Oken, and finally into our primordial protoplasm.

To the inquiry : Where did life first appear ? we find the answer, ' in the sea,' given by Thales, Anaximander, and Maillet; 'between sea and land,' is the answer of Anaximenes, Diogenes, Democritus, and Oken; 'from the earth,' is the solitary reply of Lucretius. Now we are too wise to answer it. For the succession of life we have followed the ' ascend- ing scale ' of Aristotle, Bruno, Leibnitz, and others, until Buffon realized its inadequacy, and Lamarck substituted the simile of the branching tree. Of man as the summit of the scale, and still in process of becoming more perfect in his endowments, we learn from Empedocles, Aristotle, Robinet, Diderot, Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck, and Treviranus....|

'''THE SELECTIONISTS. '''

"....The modern theory of Natural Selection was ex- pressed first by DR. W. C. WELLS, in 1813, then by St. Hilaire the elder, then by Matthew, in 1831, and finally, with considerably less clearness, if at all, by Naudin, in 1852. Darwin gives us references to the two English writers. That of Wells is the first statement of the theory of the survival, not simply of fittest organisms, as understood by previous writers, such as Buffon and Treviranus, but of or- ganisms surviving because of their possession of favourable variations in single characters. Wells' paper, read before the Royal Society in 1813, was entitled, " An Account of a White Female, part of whose Skin resembles that of a Negro " ; it was not published until iSiS. 1 He here recognizes the principle of Natural Selection, as applied to the races of men, and to the explanation of the origin of single characters....."

TAutology part
"....That of Wells is the first statement of the theory of the survival, not simply of fittest organisms, as understood by previous writers, such as Buffon and Treviranus, but of organisms surviving because of their possession of favourable variations in single characters....|

rephrase
The theory of the survival, is organisms surviving because of favorable variations.

rephrase
"...Those that survived had favorable variations...." Obviously or they would be dead.

Tautological expressions and propositions
The tautological expression (an unmarried bachelor) contains a redundant word ("unmarried"), but has meaning and can be used to form a meaningful proposition, e.g. "John is an unmarried bachelor". This proposition is not a rhetorical tautology because the intent isn't to deceive. It could be considered as unnecessarily language verbosity. The tautological proposition (all bachelors are unmarried) stated in a class on formal logic theory on the other hand, gives us no information that is not already contained in the definition of the word "bachelor". The Pragmatics or context with 'unmarried bachelor' by the user would determine whether it is a proposition,expression, logical validity, or language verbosity. In an academic setting such as a journal propositions are put forward in an attempt at deriving an independent explanation for an observation. Tautologies in such a setting would be a tautological proposition and unacceptable. Tautological expressions used in an informal setting such as a sports event with its associated colloquial speech is acceptable because of the Pragmatics] with it. The dividing line between a tautological proposition and expression is [[Pragmatics.

Example of a tautological proposition

 * The geological record features episodes of high dying, during which extinction-prone groups are more likely to disappear, leaving extinction-resistant groups as life's legacy. S.J. Gould &amp; N. Eldredge, "Punctuated equilibrium comes of age", Nature (1993) 366:223-7, p. 225.

Gould formulated the proposition so that it cannot be disputed: "..certain groups were extinction prone because they disappeared.." But the real reason for their extinction needs be derived independently elsewhere. Nothing is explained by stating that because they were extinction prone they died, their death implies that they were extinction prone. Extinction and disappear or death are a synonymous play with words that alludes to the same fact but masquerades as an explanation. It is derived from Aristotle and EpiCurus philosophy: The good (robot,gene rabbit etc) lived while the bad one died or in other words: What happens happens.
 * How was this "extinction-proneness" measured, except by noting that the groups disappeared?
 * How was their disapearability measured except by noting that they were "extinction-prone"?

Talk origins
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/evolution.html According to the Talk.Origins Archive, sharks haven't changed because they "are excellently adapted to their particular niche in their environment." Does anyone know how this "excellent adaptation" was measured (apart from observing that sharks haven't changed, that is)?

Irish Elk
Mayr, trying to explain why things like the giant antlers of the "Irish Elk" and the canines of saber-toothed tigers aren't problematic for Darwinism: quote: "All these features would seem, at first sight, to be highly deleterious, and it was claimed that natural selection could not possibly have favored or even tolerated their evolution. However, the studies of Rensch, Simpson, Gould, and various other paleontologists have demonstrated that the species that had these "excessive" characters always flourished for considerable periods of time when these characters clearly were of selective advantage and that their ultimate extinction coincided with a climatic or broad faunal change which simultaneously led to the extinction of nummerous other species without such `excessive' characters." E. Mayr, Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist, (Harvard University Press, 1988), p. 250. Ques:These species "flourished", so their structures must have been favored after all?

Wikipedia natural selection Nov.2009 revision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection "....Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution...."
 * rephrase:The process by which.... traits that make it more likely for an organism to .... reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution...."
 * rephrase:The ... traits that make it more likely for an organism to .... reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution...."
 * rephrase:The ... traits that .....enables .... reproduction become more common in a population................ It is a key mechanism of evolution...."
 * rephrase:The traits that enables reproduction, become more common.

"Enables" and "more common" are a play with words that alludes to the same fact: It says the same thing twice. The "truth of the proposition cannot be disputed"(Darwin's exact words), there is no way to falsify or test this. How could it possibly be incorrect. We are told that certain traits became more common. But why did they become more common?
 * Ans: Because the traits were enabling. But obviously the traits were "enabling" or they wouldn't have become more common now would they? It is the same tautological essence form OoS where Darwin explained that the dinosaurs went extinct because they were "less improved"- which is an irrefutable proposition.

http://creationmuseum.org/ AIG is adding to the confusion by not comprehending that this tautology was ad-hocly associated with "natural means of selection" from PatrickMatthews, an arbitrary choice of words. Darwin, Aristotle, EpiCurus, EmpeDocles, JamesHutton and Patrick Matthews tautology, if labeled Ninja Turtles wouldn't make a turtle putting on a ninja suite a tautology. No sentence or term has a single true meaning. Only an argument containing a motive from some individual can be a tautology, such an argument might contain the term NaturalSelection, Roger rabbit or Wizard of Oz. http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use have removed the section that "natural selection is a tautology" shouldn't be used. Many in the academic world from JerryFodor to others realize that there is serious issues with this term and the concepts associated with it.

Wikipedia's natural selection opening paragraph

 * Dec 2008 to Dec2007 revision of natural selection on Wikipedia main article

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural_selection&oldid=259585753 "....Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes...." But no citation is given of any modern or ancient works, nor do we know who was the author and what is his world view, background knowledge or Pragmatics and who he was interpreting. If Darwin was interpreted how did Darwin explain something he didn't know about: Genes? What was this Wikipedia contributor's view on the question of: WhatIsLife - http://seedmagazine.com/news/2007/09/the_meaning_of_life.php?page=all The meaning of Life? For all we know a cat could have walked over a keyboard.

Where did matter come from ?
Neo-Aristotelians would say that "evolution" doesn't deal with this, which is an appeal to AbstractAuthority: Mr.Evoluton, Mr.Science and Mr.Religion don't exist, they don't say anything neither do they inhabit separate domains a mistake Gould makes with his NOMA(concept lifted from the writings of KarlMarx). Only a conscious being can say something or not deal with something, be religious or materialistic. The Neo-Empedoclians don't wish to deal with the question because the of the notion that their spiritual leader had about "atoms fighting each other". Empedoclian tautological thinking infused into our science, culture religion and politics. The entire premise of our society at large pivots on a battle-for-survival myth formulated in such a way that it cannot be disputed(Darwin's term). The mythology was arbitrarily associated with selection, adaptation, words given the atheistic premises of most isn't available to them as per DernavichInfidels

Saying the same thing twice
- merged with opening section

Darwin on propositions which cannot be disputed
http://www.omgili.com/newsgroups/alt/talk/creationism/955c938b-640c-4383-a32c-b6b9398fb7e1o40g2000prngooglegroupscom.html There are key passages where Darwin reformulated PatrickMatthews, JamesHutton, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baptiste_Julien_d%27Omalius_d%27Halloy, EpiCurus, Democritus, Spencer and Aristotle labeling their concept natural selection and makes his argument irrefutable or Unfalsifiable by using the phrase propositions which cannot be disputed. d'Halloy's concept with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_with_modification in 1848 was labeled natural selection by Darwin.


 * OoS For if each part is liable to individual variations at all ages, and the variations tend to be inherited at a corresponding or earlier age--propositions which cannot be disputed--then the instincts and structure of the young could be slowly modified as surely as those of the adult; and both cases must stand or fall together with the whole theory of natural selection.


 * OoS".......... That many and serious objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification through variation and natural selection, I do not deny. I have endeavoured to give to them their full force. Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex organs and instincts have been perfected, not by means superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good for the individual possessor. Nevertheless, this difficulty, though appearing to our imagination insuperably great, cannot be considered real if we admit the following propositions, namely, that all parts of the organisation and instincts offer, at least individual differences--that there is a struggle for existence leading to the preservation of profitable deviations of structure or instinct--and, lastly, that gradations in the state of perfection of each organ may have existed, each good of its kind.  The truth of these propositions cannot, I think, be disputed. ........."

The words preservation, profitable, perfection, perfected and good are a synonymous play with words that alludes to same fact as shown by reducing the passage it to its core proposition which cannot be disputed: Species are engaged in a struggle for existence leading to the preservation of those profitable structures that allowed them to survive.


 * OoS:".........IF under changing conditions of life organic beings present individual differences in almost every part of their structure, and this cannot be disputed; if there be, owing to their geometrical rate of increase, a severe struggle for life at some age, season, or year, and this certainly cannot be disputed; then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of life, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variations had ever occurred useful to each being’s own welfare, in the same manner as so many variations have occurred useful to man. But if variations useful to any organic being ever do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterised will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance, these will tend to produce offspring similarly characterised. This principle of preservation, or the [survival of the fittest], I have called Natural Selection. It leads to the improvement of each creature in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life, and consequently, in most cases, to what must be regarded as an advance in organisation....."


 * Question: Other than noting the offspring survived how was their fitness or suitability(Spencer's word) measured?

Darwin's definitions of Natural Selection
His usage of natural selection or natural preservation(his preferred term) must be viewed in the light of Fitness and its meaning in 1800's. "...I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate ...."

"...This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection...."

"...favourable variations would be ...preserved, and unfavourable ones ... destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here, then, I had at last got a theory by which to work" (Charles Darwin, Autobio:120)...., interpreting MalThus".


 * How did Darwin measure the variations usefulness other than noting they were preserved?
 * How did Darwin measure the variations preservability other than noting they were useful?
 * The idea symbolically represented with "preservebility" and "usefullness" is the same at the Pragmatics level. They aren't semantic dictionary synonyms but the ideas they represent self-referentially refers to one another, it says the same thing twice. It alludes to the same concept, making the concept the sentence symbolically represents a tautology. Natural selection for example isn't a tautology, it isn't even a sentence but a cluster of two symbols that like a round and square rock means nothing.

Darwin on the preservation of individuals
"....All these results, as we shall more fully see in the next chapter, follow from the struggle for life. Owing to this struggle, variations, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if they be in any degree profitable to the individuals of a species, in their infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to their physical conditions of life, will tend to the preservation of such individuals, and will generally be inherited by the offspring..."

Which reduces to: Variations that are profitable will result in the preservation of such individuals. "profitable" and "preservation" alludes to the same fact guaranteeing the truth of the proposition. It reflects Aristotle and EpiCurus, Democritus underlying philosophy : What happens, happens.

Natural selection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natural_selection/Archive_8 Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with unfavorable traits.

Question: Other than noting that the traits survived how was their favorability measured? more likely and favorable alludes to the same fact guaranteeing the truth of the proposition and is thus fallacious. The tautology also assumes the underlying premise, thus begging the question: It is assumed that all species today are descendant from other species, this is the very issue that must be proven. See this thread for further clarity by author NoShellSwill on Google groups - http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/ac52c73b1fc53deb/8a86863346c98d5d?#8a86863346c98d5d

The term natural selection Darwin lifted from PatrickMatthew natural means of selection. The concept with NS though was from JamesHutton in 1794 and can be traced back all the way to Aristotle and EpiCurus. No word or sentence has a single true meaning or concept. SoF for example is either a tautological proposition or expression depending on who says SoF, just like "Beer is Beer" has an intention, either fallacious or poetic depending on who uttered the phrase, as this http://maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com/posts/1114725461.shtml. SoF and Beer-is-Beer etc. doesn't have a single true meaning. JamesHutton(1794), PatrickMatthews, Wallace,HerbertSpencer, Darwin and others reformulated Aristotle and EpiCurus original tautology in many different ways. The grammatical gargoyle natural selectionwas the term coined to associated this tautology with by Darwin.


 * talk archive revision of Natural selection

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natural_selection/Archive_8 Natural selection is the process by which individual organisms with favorable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce than those with unfavorable traits.


 * Dec 2008 to Dec2007 revision of natural selection on Wikipedia main article

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural_selection&oldid=259585753 "....Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes...."


 * Sept 2009 revision

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection Sept 2009 "...Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution...."

Neither of these revisions cite any pages in Darwin's OoS, who wrote these paragraphs ? The 2008 one had "Genes", which Darwin and Aristotle didn't know about. Why was genes removed in the 2009 revision, it is like imagine somebody removes the word "Newton" in a revision of the gravity article.

Lucretius
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=A12&pageseq=1 "...p.7,8 Lucretius" The mechanical shock of the atoms being in his view the all-sufficient cause of things, he combats the notion that the constitution of nature has been in any way 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. Not after sage deliberation did the atoms station themselves in their right places, nor..."

"...p.22 During the Middle Ages the doctrine of atoms had to all appearance vanished from discussion. In all probability it held its ground among sober-minded and thoughtful men, though neither the church nor the world was prepared to hear of it with tolerance. Once, in the year 1348, it received distinct expression. But retraction by compulsion immediately followed, and, thus discouraged, it slumbered till the seventeenth century, when it was revived by a contemporary and friend of Hobbes and Malmesbury, the orthodox Catholic provost of Digne, Gassendi. But before stating his relation to the Epicurean doctrine, it will be well to say a few words on the effect..."

Right up to our present day with "alleles" fighting it out amongst themselves: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/deac2432776866c6/b7fce5490e4d08d6#b7fce5490e4d08d6 WilliamMorse wrote 2 July 2009: "....Let me try to illustrate my thinking. The importance of a rate of increase would be if we had two alleles competing to become fixed in a population. Both of them are superior to the current predominant allele, and the one with the greatest rate of increase is the one that will become the new predominant allele. I don't think this describes any common real world scenario...."

Democritus
From JohnTyndall - http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=A12&pageseq=1 He is said to have discovered and educated ProtaGoras the sophist, being struck as much by the manner in which he, being a hewer of wood, tied up his faggots as by the sagacity of his conversation. DemoCritus returned poor from his travels, was supported by his brother, and at length wrote his great work entitled DiaKosmos which he read publicly before the people of his native town. He was honoured by his countrymen in various ways, and died serenely at a great age.

The principles enunciated by Democritus reveal his uncompromising antagonism to those who deduced the phenomena of nature from the caprices of the gods. They are briefly these:


 * . From nothing comes nothing. Nothing that existscan be destroyed. All changes are due to the combination and separation of molecules.


 * . Nothing happens by chance. Every occurrence has its cause from which it follows by necessity.


 * . The only existing things are the atoms and empty space; all else is mere opinion.


 * . The atoms are infinite in number and infinitely various in form; they strike together, and the lateral motions and whirlings which thus arise are the beginnings of worlds.


 * . The varieties of all things depend upon the varieties of their atoms, in number, size, and aggregation.


 * . The soul consists of fine, smooth, round atoms, like those of fire. These are the most mobile of all. They interpenetrate the whole body, and in their motions the phenomena of life arise.

The first five propositions are a fair general statement of the atomic philosophy, as now held. As regards the sixth, Democritus made his fine smooth atoms do duty for the nervous system, whose functions were then unknown. The atoms of Democritus are individually without sensation; they combine in obedience to mechanical laws; and not only organic forms, but the phenomena of sensation and thought are the result of their combination.

That great enigma, 'the exquisite adaptation of one part of an organism to another part, and to the conditions of life, more especially the construction of the human body, Democritus made no attempt to solve.

Empedocles, a man of more fiery and poetic nature, introduced the notion of love and hate among the atoms to account for, their combination and separation. Noticing this gap in the doctrine of Democritus, he struck in with the penetrating thought, linked, however, with some wild speculation, that it lay in the very nature of those combinations which were suited to their ends (in other words, in harmony with their environment) to maintain themselves, while unfit combinations, having no proper habitat, must rapidly disappear. Thus more than 2,000 years ago the doctrine of the 'survival of the fittest,' which in our day, not on the basis of vague conjecture, but of positive knowledge, has been raised to such extraordinary significance, had received at all events partial enunciation.3..."


 * rephrase "...Democritus struck with the penetrating thought ..... that it lay in the very nature of those combinations which were ...... in harmony with their environment... to maintain themselves, while unfit combinations disappear. Thus more than 2,000 years ago the doctrine of the 'survival of the fittest,'......... has been raised to significance...."


 * rephrase "...Democritus struck with the penetrating thought ..... that those in harmony with their environment maintained themselves, while the unfit combinations disappear. Thus more than 2,000 years ago the doctrine of the 'survival of the fittest was has been raised to significance.

...."


 * rephrase for tautological essence "...Those in harmony maintained themselves, while the unfit disappear.  This proposition cannot be disputed hence is a logical fallacy. It reflects Aristotle philosophy : What happens, happens. See Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity - http://www.amazon.com/Creationism-Critics-Antiquity-Classical-Lectures/dp/0520260066/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228971065&sr=1-1...."

Is survival of the fittest a tautology ?
Spencer got SurvivalOfTheFittest from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Reinhold_Treviranus, Buffon. Depends on who says SoF and in what context with what background knowledge and Pragmatics since a term only means what an individual intends it to mean. Try and contact Herbert Spencer and ask him two questions:
 * Other than noting the species survived how was their fitness or suitability measured?
 * Other than noting they were suitable how was their survivability measured? 

Spencer sold over a million books, OoS was read by a person in 1860 with Spencer's ideas, today Spencer is hardly ever mentioned. From his writing with fitness he meant suitable, he was widely sited during the 19th century. As Darwin wrote:"..natural selection or survival of the fittest which is a better expression....." which to a read back then meant: "....survival of the most suitable is a better expression....." Today nobody knows what is meant with the word "fitness", what concept is being conveyed isn't clear. "Fitness" isn't a concept, but a means for signal sender to encode his particular concept within in his reference frame a 150 years after Spencer.

Natural Selection or Natural Preservation ?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/tree/browse_frm/thread/557a525aebe1bddb/65e7f5e644080d89?rnum=91&_done=%2Fgroup%2Ftalk.origins%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F557a525aebe1bddb%3F#doc_14e8bfadb9bedff0

Howard when you say "...planetary attraction follows an inverse square law..." you aren't formulating a new theory but interpreting an existing theory. In every single established theory following a process where the formulator provided a description that at very least was well reasoned(not science - nobody knows what that word means), we know who this person was - without exception.

What many do today such as Wilkins is inventing their own theories, whole new conceptualizations but are to modest to announce that they have brand new idea because of the possible peer pressure or non-favorable reception, especially by those who would decide on tenure positions. Wilkins said of Dawkins "....if you read his books you are guaranteed to get it wrong...." which didn't go down very well with Myers, leading to Wilkins leaving Scienceblogs. Both Dawkins and Wilkins says "selection", but as a single word it is a proxy for conflicting viewpoints when used by either user: They are not neccessarily talking about the same thing. All language, sentences, phrases and words either conveys the concept of a patter or a design and a clear cut distinction between these two. The sentence "Outside was formed a selection of rocks" means what? Without knowing who says so we can't infer whether "selection" is used in the pattern or design sense. If a tornado hit a mountain it would be a "pattern", but if John selected the rocks it would be a "design". Not being able to distinguish between patterns or designs indicates a mental illness. Elsewhere you wrote: "... design is subset of pattern...." , you specifically left the "a" out. is a different way of saying order is subset of disorder.

What one needs to get clarity about what you are writing Howard, are you interpreting various authors or are you actually formulating your own theory? Lets presume you are interpreting Darwin who wrote to Wallace that he made a mistake with his choice of "selection" because it anthromorphosizes nature and he should have used "preservation" to formulate the concepts surrounding the Malthusian struggle for existence. (The struggle for existence is a False Dichotomy and unfalsifiable, it doesn't explain how complex chemical reactions results in control algorithms or whether the algorithms are even dependent of the chemical processes or the transition matrix that maps polypeptide space into frog-space.)

Thus lets replace every instance of "selection" by "preservation" because that was the intent of Darwin. Perhaps you would say that you are not dealing with Darwin, but who then? No conclusion can then be inferred because we wouldn't know to what concept you would be referring to. It could for example be a brand new theory that you personally crafted but haven't shared yet. A reader reading Dawkins on how Darwin was the greatest scientist that ever lived, who has deeply immersed himself in Dawkins view might then come to an erroneous conclusion when reading your post.

The insistance on knowing whose concept with "selection" we are referring to isn't unreasonable or meant to be disingenious, but rooted in a Biblical world view where who said what when and where defines the force of the sentence. Note that I said "sentence" not "word", with "selection,preservation,survival,random" we are dealing with a word, a tool or device , a mechanism or means for communicating whatever concept the wielder of the tool wishes it to be: No single true pattern or design can be associated with it. Even the word "random" when used in a sentence can actually be used by the user to communicate design or intent. For example when you do a probability sample by "selecting at random" any marble from either of ten bags filled with marbles, there was an intentional decision being made at random not a completely "random" occurence. Which is why the English language is such huge fun, it can be used to say one thing but mean something completely different. "By the process of selection this organism evolved" - Selection what? Or as one professor wrote on his bio:"....I study selection...." - What selection? Wilkins says he is in the "Selectionist camp", but if we read Darwin this should be "I am in the Preservationist camp"..... depends though if Wilkins is interpreting himself or another person or Darwin we can't come to any conclusion as to his work: It isn't even wrong.

Elsewhere Wilkins wrote that the distinction between AS and NS is incorrect it should just be selection(whatever this is supposed to mean). Lets combine this view with what some unknown author on Wikipedia with his yet to be defined concept with NS between 2007 and 2008 wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural_selection&oldid=259585753 "....Natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes...." wrote with what Darwin wrote that he meant "natural preservation" and replace "natural selection" with just "preservation":

rephrased wikipedia quote: '''Preservation is the process by which favorable.... traits become more common .... and unfavorable ....traits become less common....'''

rephrase again: '''Preservation is the process by which favorable.... traits become more preserved .... and unfavorable ....traits become less preserved....'''

How must we interpret this in terms of Darwin, Wilkins and some unknown author. Was "preservation" used in the pattern or design sense and what would this mean in terms of Howards "....design is subset of pattern....", which is another way of saying order is subset of disorder.

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&amp;t=51836&amp;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.

principle of divergence
To answer the question: What is the principle of Divergence or more specific the difference between the concept Darwin had with it and the concept he had with Theory of Evolution? None: ToNS, ToE, selection, divergence, Survival of the most suitable (Spencer)...., etc..... were all different word fillers for the same tautological essence from PatrickMatthews: Those that didn't reproduce were less perfect while those that did reproduce were more perfect or what is adapted is adapted from JamesHutton, Which Darwin restated as "....The preservation of individuals, which were favorable, and the destruction of those which weren't favorable......" , labeling it ToE which he also called Theory of Natural selection 36 times, which was that the dinosaurs died because there were less improved.

With the error continuing here at Harvard http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/06/wrangham-we-are-what-we-eat-and-what-we-cook/ ",,,Wrangham says. “We are biologically adapted to cook food. It’s part of who we are and affects us in every way you can imagine: biologically, anatomically, socially...” How did Wrangham deduce that were are adapted to cook food other than noting we do cook food? He might as well have said a rock is adapted at being a rock.

What is the theory of evolution?
What is the difference between the concepts encoded with the word "evolution" or "evolvere"(Latin) and the term "Theory of evolution" and who is encoding for such a concept from what knowledge base? On Wikipedia "Theory of evolution" redirects to the page marked Evolution: Why? Who is the person that decided that the concept Darwin encoded for with the word couplet "Theory of evolution", used only twice in OoS can't have a separate page nor be allowed to be quoted in the main article of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution. There are multiple concepts from many authors (punk-eek, gradualism) who are encoding for different ideas with the word "evolution". Why isn't there a separate entry dealing with the concept Darwin had with the term "Theory of gradual evolution" or "Theory of evolution". Gould's PunkEek concept with "theory of evolution" differs from Darwin's concept with "Theory of gradual evolution", used only once. Darwin objected to "evolution" the word because back then it meant God was involved, "evolution" appears only a few times in the book.

http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/atlas_creation/atlas_creation_01.php doesn't say what exactly is the ToE, what he is refuting isn't clear.

Natural selection as successful algorithm from patent filings
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6266654.html - Patent5824312Selection
 * "....Natural selection is the most successful algorithm known for the generation of solutions to problems. Some philosophers of science characterize the algorithm in quite general terms--the differential reproduction of randomly generated successful variations--and assert that it is the only solution-generating algorithm there can be....."

"...the differential reproduction of randomly generated successful variations-...". Which rephrased reduces to: Successful variations replicate. "replicate" and "successful" alludes to the same fact, it says the same thing twice. Natural selection, differential, randomly are word fillers obscuring the underlying Aristotelian tautological fallacy.

If natural selection is blind, why isn't it stupid?
KennethMiller said in his Youtube video concerning IC that :"..... natural selection is blind......" But if NaturalSelection is blind then why isn't it stupid? Only a conscious being can be blind and stupid, the OxyMoron NaturalSelection allows a duel meaning to be intended by a user. If NaturalSelection is conscious then what is a NaturalSelection? Is it a being, a monster with a tail and long teeth on which is written NaturalSelection, what precisely is KennethMiller trying to communicate. Did he use "blind" as a metaphor and if so why are metaphors even being used because they are a means to cloud a concept if the user doesn't know what he is trying to say. Miller is wielding the term Natural Selection as some sort of universal mechanism which would make it just as implausible as a single differential equation explaining all of physics, depending though on what he defines as a Natural selection.

Notes on Darwin
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=dawkins_29_2 Dawkins wrote "...Less obnoxious but still intellectually unhelpful is the loose and uncritical way in which amateur biologists apply selection at inappropriate levels in the hierarchy of life. “Survival of the fittest species, extinction of poorly adapted species” sounds superficially like true natural selection, but the apparent resemblance is positively misleading. As Darwin himself was at pains to point out, natural selection is all about differential survival within species, not between them....."
 * Darwin never said "reproductive success", "random mutations", "differential survival" or "differential reproduction.


 * He said chance was an "...incorrect expression...." after using "chance" throughout his book to mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness as interpreted by CharlesKingsley, Osborn and Burroughs.
 * RM surfaced in the journals around 1910, after Darwin died.
 * He was the Beagle's gentlemanly companion, the doctor was the naturalist, OoS is wrong on this account.
 * In a letter to Asa Gray he noted how he deduced the principle of "Descent with modification" between 1840 and 1850, but it was a paper by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baptiste_Julien_d%27Omalius_d%27Halloy in 1848 form which he got the term. The term DWM darwin labeled Natural Selection. Halloy was a catholic theist.
 * Why does http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_with_modification redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ?
 * Read http://seedmagazine.com/news/2007/09/the_meaning_of_life.php?page=all The meaning of Life

Ken Ham and the EU "believe" in natural selection
Both Ken Ham and the EU believe in natural selection. Are they talking about the same thing?

Openings definisie
AfrTautology http://af.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bespreking:Natuurlike_seleksie

".....Natuurlike seleksie is 'n verskynsel in die natuur waar sekere voordelige evolusionêre kenmerke aan organismes deur middel van voortplanting bó die kenmerke van ander organismes gekeur word, en dus mettertyd 'n groterwordende prominentheid handhaaf....."

Buiten die feit dat die organismes meer prominent geword het, hoe was hulle voordeligheid onafhanklig gemeet?
 * Die enigste maatstaf is om te kyk watter skepsels dit gemaak het en watter nie. Die inleiding is wel 'n bietjie lomp, maar ek kan nie nou aan 'n beter bewoording dink nie. Anrie (kontak) 19:43, 5 Oktober 2009 (UTC)
 * Dus die wat dit maak is voordelig en die wat dit nie maak nie is sleg? Dit klink na n herformulering van Aristotle, sien http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology vir my notas in verband hiermee.


 * Buiten die feit dat hulle voordelig was, hoe was hulle prominentheid gemeet? Kan jy sien dat "prominent" end "voordelig" dieselfde ding twee keer se, wat dus die openings paragraaf onbetwisbaar maak, dit is 100% waterdig. Geen argument kan dit weerle nie wat dit n a logisie falsheid maak. Dit is soos Darwin gese het:".... the truth of the proposition cannot be disputed...". Maar dit is omdat Darwin sy konsep so geformuleer het dat dit nie weerle kan word nie.

Links

 * AristotleTautological, Tautology Journals , Tautology Usenet
 * Paul Janet Professor back in 1870
 * Popper
 * Maverick Philosopher
 * Aristotle Metaphysics
 * Milton Wain collection of pre Darwin authors
 * Wikipedia Selection article
 * Naming Conventions Back to the future or forward to the past.
 * David Skjaerlund Traces back Evolutionx to ancient Egyptian, Babylonian or Sumerian religions.
 * http://www.wireclub.com/Forums/ViewTopic.aspx?ParentId=834264&ForumId=647371 Democritus and materialism
 * http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2010/01/it-is-what-it-is.html
 * http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_frm/thread/3ad8e23dc2d07d34/03e43d55c1ec3faa#03e43d55c1ec3faa
 * http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/
 * http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/09nsel06.htm Notes on tautology and circular reasoning.
 * http://rightwingnews.com/2010/02/the-best-quotes-from-jonah-goldbergs-liberal-fascism/ The meanings and concepts with liberal were different a 100 years ago then today
 * http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/functional-hierarchy Will comment on the natural selection usage later
 * Charles Hodge 1874 What is Darwinism?
 * Automated Selection
 * Peppered Moth Pattern or Design Detection and selection can be used in either pattern or design sense
 * http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Natural_selection

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/ce69aa80b40c883d/b9305c130c6383c3?q=#b9305c130c6383c3 Tautologification of society. At university students are forced to provide a rhetorical tautological narrative of the world. Refusal to do so will lead to dismissal and failed grades. It allows the MIT, Harvard Epicureans to mold and shape their students world view, forcing them to come to conclusions which might be true but are non-sequiturs. There are no YEC at Harvard, a true Xtian will be expelled and one that graduates there will have his name removed from the book of Life by the Lord Jesus. We are in the same situation with the Epicureans 2000 years ago, they don't mind us going to church as long as we also engage in rhetorical tautological and truism thinking on Monday.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe04hist.html Epicurus

http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof92.htm Creationism and its critics in Antiquity

http://www.hanrott.com/epicureanism/epicureanhistory.php Epicureanism after Epicurus

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1932236473/ref=cm_cr_asin_lnk

http://tomkow.typepad.com/tomkowcom/2010/04/darwin-and-his-defenders.html Analogy with presidential elections

Talk origins tautology section
http://www.talkorigins.org/sandbox/kwork/Ver4_tautology.html

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/1bd8a311d0211e87/9a2ecf1859da52dd?#9a2ecf1859da52dd

http://www.archive.org/stream/defenceofsincere00fulk/defenceofsincere00fulk_djvu.txt Vain repetition, tautology 1582 A.D. Cambridge press or

http://www.archive.org/details/defenceofsincere00fulk

Notes on Natural selection as used by authors

 * WhatIsTheTheoryOfNaturalSelection
 * Steven E. Jones Extensive notes on circular reasoning, natural selection etc.
 * AristotlePragmatics, AcPragmatics , BushMen, AntonioLima , AltenBerg16
 * ArunRajPragmatics, AnaxiMander , AlexanderVargas , AnswersGenesis
 * AndrewArensburger, DagYoPragmatics, ChristopherDenneyPragmatics , CharlesBirch , CoryAlbrecht
 * BecauseOfConvention, BeeSource , BenkeShet , BabylonDictionary ,BaronBodissey