Pattern or design

Classification of ideas
All ideas can be broadly classified as reflecting the dichotomy of:
 * cause - effect
 * pattern(pattern without a purpose) - design(pattern with a purpose)

Sentence construction can use dissimilar terms that reflect either side of the dichotomy in a relevant context. By using Berry's paradox style subscripts, authors can clarify what they mean with selection, natural,survival, free-rider(Fodor) and especially the nebulous self-organizing object as per Naming Conventions.

The ambiguity with the English language, makes it difficult to draw strict dictionary type antonym and synonym distinctions with single words, because only ideas can really be antonymous or synonymous, requiring full sentences.

Gene centric
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_selection "..... Moreover, it eases the transition to the evolutionary modeling of other mediums such as the development of new technologies and the changes in Wikipedia pages, because it describes evolution in terms of the evolution of specific features as opposed to just in terms of the features’ vehicles....."

Changes in Wikipedia pages are designs2, they don't happen by themselves. Evolution can be used in the pattern/design or disorder/order sense.

Order/disorder premise
The YEC world view is that houses don't build themselves, everything is in terms of an order/disorder, pattern/design and cause/effect dichotomy sense.

Tornado selecting houses
1) A tornado struck the town selecting the houses on the left for destruction. 2) The man selected the house on the right to buy. 1) is a pattern while 2) is a design.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_specified_information#Calculation_of_specified_complexity "....Other commentators have noted that evolution through selection is frequently used to design certain electronic, aeronautic and automotive systems which are considered problems too complex for human "intelligent designers"[26]....."

Is selection being used in the pattern1 or design2 sense?

Design or chance dichotomy 1874
Darwin's premise was spontaneous generation or Aristotle's "internal spontaneity". In 1874 Darwin used evolution, selection etc. for the 'chance' idea. The only dichotomy back then was Design/chance, Order/disorder, evolution2(design)/evolution1(disorder) or design/pattern.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19192/19192-h/19192-h.htm#Footnote_34_34

p.174 ".....The conclusion of the whole matter is, that the denial of design in nature is virtually the denial of God. Mr. Darwin's theory does deny all design in nature, therefore, his theory is virtually atheistical; his theory, not he himself. He believes in a Creator. But when that Creator, millions on millions of ages ago, did something,—called matter and a living germ into existence,—and then abandoned the universe to itself to be controlled by chance and necessity, without any purpose on his[Pg 174] part as to the result, or any intervention or guidance, then He is virtually consigned, so far as we are concerned, to non-existence....'

Talkorigins weasel
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF011_1.html "....Dawkins's simulation was plainly stated in his book to demonstrate selection, not evolution. It was intended to show the difference between cumulative selection and single-step selection. Attempts to apply Dawkins's simulation to evolution as a whole are a misreading of his book............"

Is cumulative and single-step selection being used in the pattern1 or design2 sense.

Wilkins on rarified, simple, natural design
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000212-p-4.html

You are misusing Wes' and my term here. "Rarified" design is design about which we know nothing, and which the designer is unknowable. Simple design is just noncomplex ordinary design. If a rarified design inference is made, it is not made by analogy with known designers, none of whom are able to make the laws by which they then operate, or are able to precognitively foresee the outcomes of their design. Ordinary designers act by trial and error, and by learning from their mistakes. This is a kind of "darwinismx", and you are perfectly correct that Darwinismx proper is a theory of ordinary designx (although, since ordinary design typically involves intentional agents, I would rather expunge the word "designx" and cognates from biological evolutionary models, which do not involve intentionalityx).

simple, rarified, natural design or apparent intent(http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000212-p-5.html)


 * Main Entry: rar·e·fied
 * Variant(s): also rar·i·fied /'rar-&-"fId, 'rer-/
 * Function: adjective
 * Date: 1941
 * 1 : of, relating to, or interesting to a select group : ESOTERIC
 * 2 : very high

1. According to your analysis, rarefied design -- i.e., postulating an unobserved designer to explain events -- is, in principle, inadmissible as a scientific inference.

2. Thus, the state of the evidence (the effect) is, strictly speaking, irrelevant. Unless we have independent knowledge of the cause -- i.e., the designer -- we may not postulate intelligent design as the cause of any event.

If (1) and (2) accurately represent your position, I'd like to move the discussion on to other issues.

I should like to make a final clarification - I do not think an unobserved designerx is an illicit inference. An unobserved and unobservable designerx - that is, one about whom we have no independent information and are not likely to - is. I can infer that this garden was designed if the output is in keeping with what I know of both ungardened plots and other gardening. But if I have no way to tell the difference between an ungardened plot and a subtly gardened plot, and no information about the designersx who might build such (say, for a movie set), then I cannot reasonably infer a designerx. But if I find that the plot has no "back" to it (i.e., it's a painted set, or the "plants" are made of linen) then I still might be able to infer quite a lot on the basis of prior information about film makers, etc.

Natural selection acts
http://evolvingthoughts.net/2010/03/21/more-on-the-fodor-and-piatelli-palmerini-thing/ "....Here’s what I take to be a free-rider in biology: a free-rider is a trait that could have been acted upon by selection, but in fact, was not....."

Is "acted upon" being used in the pattern1 or design2 sense?

http://evolvingthoughts.net/2010/03/21/more-on-the-fodor-and-piatelli-palmerini-thing/

"...And there’s only one type of thing selection acts on, and that is a fitness differential...."

Is "selection actsx" being used in the pattern or design sense?

http://theobald.brandeis.edu/ wrote at http://evolvingthoughts.net/2010/03/21/more-on-the-fodor-and-piatelli-palmerini-thing/

"....If, on the other hand, you meant to say that the selection pressure had been removed before we could see anything — well then I could make the analogous move and say that a human agent had similarly removed the magnetism of the ore...."

Is Theobald using "selection pressure" in the pattern or design sense?

http://theobald.brandeis.edu/ wrote

".....Hence a precise molecular understanding of macromolecular assemblies ultimately must be informed by evolutionary mechanisms...."

Is Theobald using "evolutionary mechanismsx" in the pattern or design sense?

http://evolvingthoughts.net/2010/03/21/more-on-the-fodor-and-piatelli-palmerini-thing/

"....Watching what the selectors did does not tell you whether they were selecting for tail wagging, or reduced fear response, precisely because they’re correlated!...."

"....selectors did....." pattern or design sense?

Aristotle quotes
http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Aristotle/ "...All human actions have one or more of these seven causes: chance, nature, compulsion, habit, reason, passion, and desire...."

Even Aristotle it seems recognized that all facets of life are divided into chance(pattern) or design(reason).


 * nature p
 * chance p
 * compulsion p or d?
 * habit p or d?
 * reason d or d subset of p
 * passion p or d
 * desire p or d