Dover Penn ID trial

[DavidJames]

The site is very left wing, I would change conservative to religious, with that change it does still make it's point.Or more accurately, Republican ;)

[catbasket]

Ok, so it turns out that Sternberg (poor little victim of all those nasty scientists) is a Fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design ... along with Behe, Dembski and others whose names you will probably recognise.

Barbara Bradley Hagerty (author of the NPR story) is the NPR's religion correspondent and turns out to be a member of the World Journalism Institute

Have you heard of the "World Journalism Institute"? Probably not. It's an organization of journalists committed to helping members "accurately" report "the work of God in today's world." In other words, they are committed to reporting events from a conservative, evangelical Christian perspective.

<snip>

What was that again about the "liberal media elite" and how the NPR is a bastion of "liberal news coverage" that fails to give adequate consideration to conservatives - especially to conservative religion? One of the members of the WJI is Barbara Bradley Hagerty, NPR's religion correspondent. Curious.Quote taken from -
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/2004_03.htm?iam=dpile_100 (ETA - the post marked 09:00)

Explains a lot methinks.

[Melendwyr]

I think it's time to start writing letters to NPR.

[Eos of the Eons]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9995578/Conservative Christian televangelist Pat Robertson told citizens of a Pennsylvania town that they had rejected God by voting their school board out of office for supporting “intelligent design” and warned them Thursday not to be surprised if disaster struck.

*cough* I thought ID "was science" *cough*

So, here we have IDiots contradicting themselves again. *ID is science* they try to tell us.

Then when they get mad, they forget their little mantra.

Oh, and somehow natural disasters are punishments for us puny mortals by this "loving god".

[delphi_ote]

I think it's time to start writing letters to NPR.

Make sure you read my second link there if you're steamed. It'll put you into the red.

As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper, and as I was best qualified among the editors I chose myself...

[fishbob]

%&#@!

You know, of all of the IDers I think Behe bothers me the most. Unlike alot of them *cough* HOVIND *cough* the man has a real scientific education yet the scientific method is lost on him.

I read somewhere, I think in the Dover trial transcripts, that Behe has sold more than 400,000 copies of his Black Box book. Therefore ID = serious financial gain. The ID leaders all seem to be quite well off.

[Melendwyr]

I had wondered why the NPR stories kept referring to the controversy over "the origins of life". Now I know: NPR's religion correspondent is a member of an organization specifically dedicated to spreading Christian Fundamentalism through the mass media.

Expecting a religion correspondent to lack religious opinions is unreasonable, but a certain amount of dispassionate objectivity is called for. How is actively trying to promulgate the "Christian viewpoint" conducive to that requirement?!

[KingMerv00]

I read somewhere, I think in the Dover trial transcripts, that Behe has sold more than 400,000 copies of his Black Box book. Therefore ID = serious financial gain. The ID leaders all seem to be quite well off.

Are you suggesting that he doesn't believe what he is saying? Behe is in it for the bling?

[Upchurch]

Are you suggesting that he doesn't believe what he is saying? Behe is in it for the bling?
You don't get the bling just teaching at a university...



eta: I'm so white.

[tsg]

Are you suggesting that he doesn't believe what he is saying? Behe is in it for the bling?
If by "bling" you are including "power", yes, absolutely.

The Discovery Institute wants nothing less than a complete theocratic state with themselves as the head.

[delphi_ote]

The Discovery Institute wants nothing less than a complete theocratic state with themselves as the head.

If I hadn't read them saying essentially just that myself, you'd sound like a conspiracy nut.

And just to go back over our recent conversation topics, we've been discussing a journal editor that acted questionably in order to push through a flawed intelligent design article because he sympathized with their cause, and we've also been discussing a journalist who covered the journal editor's story in an biased way because she also sympathizes with the intelligent design cause. Both are members of religious organizations that publicly endorse intelligent design. Both actions were in some way furthered by government actions and political appointments. The organizations these folks belong to are funded by and allied with fundamentalist religious groups. All involved have the same goal: keeping unpleasant scientific facts from a generation of children.

Why do people invent conspiracy theories? I find reality has enough intrigue...

[rjh01]

Will the trial make a good movie?

[Dragon]

Will the trial make a good movie?Working title -"Inhibit the Mind".



Thank you, I'm here all week.

[tsg]

ETA: I misread your post (I thought you were accusing me of being a conspiracy nut), but I'll leave it anyway since I think it's important for people to know exactly where ID is coming from and so I can back up my own claim.

If I hadn't read them saying essentially just that myself, you'd sound like a conspiracy nut.

[...]

Why do people invent conspiracy theories? I find reality has enough intrigue...
Don't take my word for it. They've said so themselves. Look here (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html) and make up your own mind.

A few choice quotes:

Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.
From their "Five Year Strategic Plan Summary":
The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy.
[...]
Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
From their "Governing Goals":
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. [emphasis mine]
And from their "Twenty Year Goals"
To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life. [emphasis mine]
And this gem from their "Five Year Objectives":
Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences Legal reform movements base legislative proposals on design theory. [emphasis mine]
Pay particular attention to that last one. They want laws to be based on Intelligent Design, a religious view, for which they are the primary source of "research" . That is a theocratic state with them in control. This is no conspiracy theory, these are their own words.

[JamesM]

Ok, so it turns out that Sternberg (poor little victim of all those nasty scientists) is a Fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design ... along with Behe, Dembski and others whose names you will probably recognise.

what is the ISCID? Does it have an avowedly anti-evolutionary or pro-ID agenda?

[Mercutio]

what is the ISCID? Does it have an avowedly anti-evolutionary or pro-ID agenda?Take a look at the website that delphi_ote linked. Fascinating. Very carefully does not mention anything that would allow one to pin them down in such a category...until you look at the Journal. Then it is crystal clear--this is an intelligent-design group. Not only are the usual suspects there, writing the usual things, but lesser players are contributing additional ID materials.

So even though their stated purpose is to provide "a forum for free and uncensored inquiry into complex systems", their de facto purpose is to provide a forum for Intelligent Design.

[JamesM]

look at the Journal. Then it is crystal clear--this is an intelligent-design group.

Wow, you're right. I hadn't looked at the journals.

I just noticed Henry Schaefer's name on the list of ISCID fellows. And he's a fellow of the Discovery Institute, too. He is a very very big noise indeed in quantum chemistry. I hadn't realised he was an IDer.

[delphi_ote]

I hadn't realised he was an IDer.

He's definitely a Jesus freak:
http://leaderu.com/offices/schaefer/docs/scientists.html

And this leaves me wondering...

Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence?
Henry F. Schaefer III
Table of Contents
...

5. Climbing Mount Improbable: Evolutionary Science or Wishful Thinking? .................................77
...

http://apollostrust.com/

[Melendwyr]

So even though their stated purpose is to provide "a forum for free and uncensored inquiry into complex systems", their de facto purpose is to provide a forum for Intelligent Design. And by "free and uncensored", they mean "will tolerate whatever pro-ID arguments are put there and otherwise ignore modern biology".

[Dr Adequate]

Brilliant!

You just need to add the occational Greek in the background yelling "We're Greeks! We're Greeks!" while the lead Greek tries to keep them quiet.I hope the judge has read Pat Robertson (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051111/ap_on_re_us/robertson_evolution)'s remarks on the subject. I should think they'd help him make his mind up.

My little playlet continues...

Act II

Enter Pat Robertson.

PR: We're GREEKS, I tell you, GREEKS! We like retsina, sodomy, and right angled triangles!

[Sings]:

Se gnoriso apo tin kopsi,
Tou spathiou tin tromeri,
Se gnoriso apo tin opsi,
Pou me via metra tin yi.
Ap' ta kokala vialmeni,
Ton Ellinon ta iera,
Ke san prota andriomeni,
Haire, o haire, Eleftheria!

I AM SO F***ING GREEK THAT IF YOU LOOK UNDER "GREEK" IN THE DICTIONARY THEY HAVE A PICTURE OF ME TALKING ABOUT PHILOSOPHY AND BUGGERING A SLAVE BOY! Oh, and Zeus will use his magical powers to smite everyone who rejects our gift of a wooden horse.

[delphi_ote]

I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city. -Pat Robertson

That's okay. They'll know the disaster is coming because of science, they'll know how to react because of science, and they'll know how to recover because of science. They might even be able to prevent the disaster because of science.

When a disaster is in your area, turn to rational thought. It's much more productive than bloviating about your angry imaginary friend.

[Ed]

bloviating

:)

[HeyLeroy]

I SO wish I still had a copy of National Lampoon magazine from about twenty years ago. They published a cartoon that depicted a circle of what appeared to be lizards, standing in a tight huddle on a beach. One of the lizards was glaring suspiciously over his shoulders into the treeline. The caption was "The Conspiracy Theory of Evolution".

Grr, I wish I still had it!

[delphi_ote]

If you guys aren't regular Panda's Thumb readers, you're missing the laugh of a lifetime:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/dembski_finds_t.html

Demsbski making a complete fool of himself. It's a riot!

[CFLarsen]

He may be advocating "Intelligent Design", but he could use a bit of "smart" himself....

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Great link! Thanks, Delphi.

~~ Paul

[BillHoyt]

If you guys aren't regular Panda's Thumb readers, you're missing the laugh of a lifetime:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/dembski_finds_t.html

Demsbski making a complete fool of himself. It's a riot!
That is sooooooooooooooo utterly sad. Only the fact that so many are falling for his tripe makes its sadness pale in comparison.

[drkitten]

The final sessions transcripts are now available at aclupa.blogspot (see OP for details of web address). These include the closing argument for the defense.

It's every bit as shallow and stupid as one might have hoped/feared. Classic use of the "evolution is a mere theory, not a fact" lie, lots of "well, the board members did this, but you can't infer the the board's intentions from what the individual members did," "documents are irrelevant because actions speak louder than words," and the classic quote

"How can adding books to the school library be a bad thing? It is not."

as though that were the only issue in the case.

[Diamond]

....and the classic quote

"How can adding books to the school library be a bad thing? It is not."

as though that were the only issue in the case.

OK, I'll add:

The Koran
Justine
Ulysses
Mein Kampf
The Woman's Guide to Anal Sex

How can this possibly be a bad thing?

[Dr Adequate]

Mein Kampf"There are two theories about the existence of a Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy, and teaching both will improve students' critical thinking abilities and make the study of history more interesting for them. HEIL HITLER! SIEG HEIL! SIEG HEIL! DEUTSCHLAND DEUTSCHLAND UBER A-ALLES... oops, I just 'mispoke'. Obviously despite these few words quoted out of context, the Big Evil Jewish Conspiracy Theory is in no way Nazi or anti-semitic... whew... I think I got away with that one."

[delphi_ote]

How can this possibly be a bad thing?

As long as you make sure to explicitly endorse the material contained in these books in class I see no problem with your idea.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'm suing the Adequate County School Board just so I can hear Dr. Adequate testify about the scientific nature of the Intelligent Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy Theory.

~~ Paul

[Dr Adequate]

Oops. Did I say "Jews"? How last year of me. I misspoke again. I should have said "Intelligent Cosmopolitans". This theory of course has nothing to do with Jews whatsoever.

It may be my personal belief that the Intelligent Cosmopolitans behind history, economics, and culture are Jews, but my strictly scientific hypothesis is that these things all have a designer IT'S THE JEWS, MEIN FUEHRER, DIE JUDEN, JA! JA! ... excuse me... [wrenches right arm down in a Dr Strangelove kind of way] but this scientific hypothesis of the "Intelligent Cosmopolitans" does not mention any particular race. It could even be space aliens I'M TAKING ABOUT JEWS DAMMIT... ooos, misspoke again. Yes, aliens! Evil, miscengenating HOOK-NOSED ALIENS... oops, I'm off again.
___________________________________

(Note: "Cosmopolitans" is an anti-Semitic codeword for "Jews" when they want their intended audience, but not the casual observer, to know that they're being anti-semitic.)

[rjh01]

I see no problems with putting the ID book in the fiction section of the library.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I note that the acronym for Intelligent Cosmopolitans is IC. Veeeerrry interesting.

~~ Paul

[Melendwyr]

(Note: "Cosmopolitans" is an anti-Semitic codeword for "Jews" when they want their intended audience, but not the casual observer, to know that they're being anti-semitic.) Ironic, considering that 'cosmopolitan' means "one whose allegiance is not given to any particular city-state, but is a citizen of the universe". It hasn't been an accurate codeword since the formation of Israel.

[BillHoyt]

As long as you make sure to explicitly endorse the material contained in these books in class I see no problem with your idea.
Delphi? Did you really miss Diamond's irony? I can't believe that. It was meant to be fed back to (read: shoved back down the throats of) those making the original comment, and it was meant to be clearly unacceptable in their eyes.

[hammegk]

Hmmm. Did someone miss the irony of delphi_ote's response?

[drkitten]

Ironic, considering that 'cosmopolitan' means "one whose allegiance is not given to any particular city-state, but is a citizen of the universe". It hasn't been an accurate codeword since the formation of Israel.

Is your suggestion that all Jews' allegiance is given to Israel?

If so, I'm afraid that you're completely innaccurate.

[Melendwyr]

Is your suggestion that all Jews' allegiance is given to Israel?

If so, I'm afraid that you're completely innaccurate. But this codeword is being applied to Jews who do give their allegiance to Israel. Thus the inaccuracy.

[delphi_ote]

Delphi? Did you really miss Diamond's irony? I can't believe that. It was meant to be fed back to (read: shoved back down the throats of) those making the original comment, and it was meant to be clearly unacceptable in their eyes.

Let's treat the books exactly like Pandas and People and take time out of the day to give the students the impression that the contents of these books is an adequate substitute for what's being taught in science class. I'm sure the intelligent design advocates will have no problem with this.

I think it's a great idea.

P.S. As with my previous post, this post is sarcasm.

[Upchurch]

P.S. As with my previous post, this post is sarcasm.Are you being serious? Surely, you don't mean that?

[BillHoyt]

Are you being serious? Surely, you don't mean that?
Shirley he jests?

[Cleon]

Is your suggestion that all Jews' allegiance is given to Israel?

If so, I'm afraid that you're completely innaccurate.

Yeah, I'll testify to that. :D

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

How long has Creationism and ID been around? No research worth a damn.

But with Flying Spagetti Monsterism we have serious work going on:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/fasting-breakin.html

~~ Paul

[Eos of the Eons]

Something must be done. I made spaghetti the other night, in honor of his noodliness. My son still hates spaghetti! He wouldn't have a bite! Any advice? He'll eat any other noodle, but won't partake of the spaghettieism :(

[delphi_ote]

Shirley he jests?

Come now. Let's not bring Shirley into this!

[fishbob]

Something must be done. I made spaghetti the other night, in honor of his noodliness. My son still hates spaghetti! He wouldn't have a bite! Any advice? He'll eat any other noodle, but won't partake of the spaghettieism :(The noodle directed scepticism of youth can often be assuaged by cheese.

[Moose]

Something must be done. I made spaghetti the other night, in honor of his noodliness. My son still hates spaghetti! He wouldn't have a bite! Any advice? He'll eat any other noodle, but won't partake of the spaghettieism :(

No worries. Pastafarians aren't gluten-snobs like some religions. It is enough to partake of any sort of pasta dish, from the creamy Fettucini Alfredo, through the educational Alphabet Soup, right down to the ever-humble KD/Mac-and-Cheese for the starving students/artists among the faithful. It is all suitably reverential in the eyes of Him, our most Noodly Creator.

After all, the sacred offerings of Saint Boyardee come in over fourty varieties worldwide.

It's all good.

rAmen.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

His Noodliness is ever munificent. She is pleased with whatever you eat, even if not pastafarious, as long as you merely give a sidelong glance to the sky while chowing down.

~~ Paul

[Ed]

Something must be done. I made spaghetti the other night, in honor of his noodliness. My son still hates spaghetti! He wouldn't have a bite! Any advice? He'll eat any other noodle, but won't partake of the spaghettieism :(

crucify him crucify him

[Betenoire]

*sings, a la Elmer Fudd* Kill the sinnner, kill the sinner, kill the sinnnner...



If your son doesn't know a question on a test, he shouldn't come crying to His Noodliness, 'cause the FSM might not be there for him.

[Diamond]

We haven't had a poll on this and I think the time has come....

[BillHoyt]

Come now. Let's not bring Shirley into this!
Agreed, so long as we're talking about Shirley, the Pastafarian.

[pgwenthold]

Wow, you're right. I hadn't looked at the journals.

I just noticed Henry Schaefer's name on the list of ISCID fellows. And he's a fellow of the Discovery Institute, too. He is a very very big noise indeed in quantum chemistry. I hadn't realised he was an IDer.

Yeah, he's fine as long as he sticks with computational chemistry. Other than that, he is out there.

(he started at Berkeley but didn't stay there too long. Didn't quite fit in...)

[Upchurch]

Could the plaintiffs conceivably still drop the suit, even though the final arguments have already been made?
To answer my own question....


Backing out of lawsuit possible, but not simple (http://www.eveningsun.com/localnews/ci_3227308)

[BillHoyt]

To answer my own question....


Backing out of lawsuit possible, but not simple (http://www.eveningsun.com/localnews/ci_3227308)
Wow! While I don't blame the new board for trying this, the old board still needs to answer for its bull. It is a shame the answer, slapping and fines need to be at the expense of the new board. And, of course, a judicial decision squarely against this garbage would be a wonderful shot over the bow of ID's weenie little paper boat, and I would rather see the caliber about to be shot, then have to wait for round II.

[delphi_ote]

To answer my own question....


Backing out of lawsuit possible, but not simple (http://www.eveningsun.com/localnews/ci_3227308)

You KNOW how the ID community is going to spin this... awful awful awful.

[BillHoyt]

You KNOW how the ID community is going to spin this... awful awful awful.
Wah! The g-d secular humanists won't let us be heard. We will prevail as soon as we rid 'murica of the pinkos in the closet. Oops, sorry, wrong decade! Rid 'murica of the cults of Satan responsible for secular humanism and its handmaiden, Science. It is NO accident Satan and Science both start with 'S'! Am I right, brothers? Can I get a witness?

[Hellbound]

Am I right, brothers? Can I get a witness?

Judging from this trial, yes, but not a good one.

:D

[Mojo]

It is NO accident Satan and Science both start with 'S'! And they both end in an "n" as well. If you assume that all words end after five letters. It is a sign, brothers!

[Mercutio]

Ok, it does not really belong here, but nowhere else either...I am so pissed off at my local paper. Today's editorial cartoon?


http://www.cagle.com/working/051110/dickwright.gif


So...does my paper now openly advocate ignorance?

[Melendwyr]

So...does my paper now openly advocate ignorance? Write in and complain. Mention Dawkins and "The Blind Watchmaker", if you get a chance. It's the perfect setup, after all.

[Mercutio]

Write in and complain. Mention Dawkins and "The Blind Watchmaker", if you get a chance. It's the perfect setup, after all.I've already been looking online to do so. Looks like I actually have to put pen to parchment, though...but thanks for the Dawkins tip--I had gone a completely different direction.

[hellaeon]

These zealots sicken me. This is just ignorance. that link about the discovery institute makes me VERY angry. All the valid arguement goes out the window in the end and the final say is because of their belief. Belief based on assumptions. I do not like religions.

Welcome to the dark ages.

[teacher]

My very first post in the JREF.
With reference to Mercutio's cartoon post (which is apparently nothing to do with this thread, so sorry to further detract).
Whilst I agree with the gross over simplification of this creationist propoganda, what is known with regards to the beginning, if such a time or event occurred?
I get a bit bamboozled thinking about it. It would seem the possibilities are limited to a never beginning or ending continuous reincarnation of universes, an 'always there' theory, a beginning/big bang theory which seems hard to explain the unscientific something from nothing and finally the odd and unlikely nothing exists option of the Christian scientists.
Any thoughts on a scientifically plausible solution?
:boxedin:

[Bronze Dog]

The one I tend to think is easiest is the "always there" for matter. Of course, the closer you get to t=0, the weirder t gets. As I understand it, the idea of creation ex nihilo having a place in science is a creation ex nihilo by religion.

[Mercutio]

My very first post in the JREF.
With reference to Mercutio's cartoon post (which is apparently nothing to do with this thread, so sorry to further detract).
Whilst I agree with the gross over simplification of this creationist propoganda, what is known with regards to the beginning, if such a time or event occurred?
I get a bit bamboozled thinking about it. It would seem the possibilities are limited to a never beginning or ending continuous reincarnation of universes, an 'always there' theory, a beginning/big bang theory which seems hard to explain the unscientific something from nothing and finally the odd and unlikely nothing exists option of the Christian scientists.
Any thoughts on a scientifically plausible solution?
:boxedin:
Very Very quick response...the beginnings of the universe are not something that is covered by Natural Selection.

The formation of Stars & origin of heavy elements...is not something that is covered by natural selection.

The Origin of Life is not something that is covered by Natural Selection.

Three uses of "evolved" in the cartoon, and thus far not one of them is how Darwin used the term...

Teacher...each of these areas has scientific hypotheses attempting to explain them. They may be strongly supported, they may not. What they absolutely are not, is relevant whatsoever to Evolution by Natural Selection.

I don't know whether I addressed your question, but I thank you for letting me vent just a little bit more about mine...

[teacher]

Many thanks Bronzedog, that would make sense. Hope to join in a lot in future threads on various topics, and you seem to be a regular (2164 posts). Have some particular favourite topics, e.g. healing.

[teacher]

Oh hi Mercutio! An even more experienced poster with 8959. To both of you- I am a keen zoologist and I was an evangelical/creationist speaker for many years. I'm now a non evangelical (but still a Christian) evolutionist. I was wondering about how science explains the 'beginning' as an alternative to God. Oh, and I am sceptical about anything supernatural (as well as just paranormal) being able to be proven or demonstrated, though I am obviously a supernaturalist. I personally doubt all paranormal activity exists and my personal interest/expertise is healing, having previously been very involved in it.

[Mercutio]

Oh hi Mercutio! An even more experienced poster with 8959. Mostly limericks, I assure you.
To both of you- I am a keen zoologist and I was an evangelical/creationist speaker for many years. I'm now a non evangelical (but still a Christian) evolutionist. I was wondering about how science explains the 'beginning' as an alternative to God. "Explains"? I think "I don't know" is the best that we have, although there are some promising possibilities. The possibilities are, IMO, plausible enough that the burden of proof shifts to the proponent of some supernatural force, but that is just my (correct) opinion.
Oh, and I am sceptical about anything supernatural (as well as just paranormal) being able to be proven or demonstrated, though I am obviously a supernaturalist. I personally doubt all paranormal activity exists and my personal interest/expertise is healing, having previously been very involved in it.I (and most probably, "we") would love to hear your story!

[Spidey13]

Mostly limericks, I assure you.

Not lately, buddy. Get your butt over to that thread! It's been dead lately.

OK, you can get back on topic now.

[teacher]

Hi Mercutio. Unfortunately it's 4.25 a.m. here and I need to sleep and so perhaps now is a good time for me pause here. I shall return tomorrow and hope I can find you.
Let me know if:
a.) there is anything you need to know now and
b.) if there is anything I need to know about this site/threads etc. as I'm new, e.g. is there a thread that relates to healing?
Maybe I'll just ask if there are any (other) theists you know of that do not seem to have any qualms with a sceptics site?

[Bronze Dog]

Just an amusing coincidence for when you get back, teacher: Mercutio and I both have the same birthday. Sadly, last July, my bday thread could not hope to compete with his. *sniff* And no one's complemented the avatar I made from scratch for the occasion.










But I digress.

Another trippy thing I suddenly remembered hearing: Creation ex nihilo might be possible scientifically, after all: When you add it all up, the universe is nothing: All the forces and such cancel each other out. So, even starting with nothing, the universe still obeys conservation. Of course, I don't know if that's really true, or just one of those things some people randomly think up.



All this time and cosmology stuff makes my head hurt. (http://www.bobandgeorge.com/Archive/Jun04.php?date=19)

[Kiless]

Hi Mercutio. Unfortunately it's 4.25 a.m. here and I need to sleep and so perhaps now is a good time for me pause here. I shall return tomorrow and hope I can find you.
Let me know if:
a.) there is anything you need to know now and
b.) if there is anything I need to know about this site/threads etc. as I'm new, e.g. is there a thread that relates to healing?
Maybe I'll just ask if there are any (other) theists you know of that do not seem to have any qualms with a sceptics site?

It's 1.44 in the afternoon here (and a slow day), so I'll see if I can help.

a) Also interested in your story - perhaps the Forum Community one or even this one on how you came to be so many things! :)
b) The search function up the top is useful, although the
Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/forumdisplay.php?f=5) forum area is good too as a start.
As for other theists, there's quite a nice bunch around here... I'm certain if you started up a) you'll find some reply to you. :) Otherwise I'll prod them with a stick or something, being a teacher myself and all. ;)

[Dr Adequate]

b.) if there is anything I need to know about this site/threads etc. as I'm new, e.g. is there a thread that relates to healing? Hi, welcome.

As far as "healing" goes, that word covers a lot of things. Are we talking crystals? homeopathy? magnetic insoles?

Lots of things are called "healing" by their practitioners.Maybe I'll just ask if there are any (other) theists you know of that do not seem to have any qualms with a sceptics site? There are various theists and deists who post here: for example, I believe that a couple of the heros of the Homeopathy Wars have faith.

"Skeptics" is a loose term. I think that the mood of the forums is much more pro-science than anti-religion: and so as long as people find science to be compatible with religion, they're on my side.

[Kiless]

Just an amusing coincidence for when you get back, teacher: Mercutio and I both have the same birthday. Sadly, last July, my bday thread could not hope to compete with his. *sniff* And no one's complemented the avatar I made from scratch for the occasion

I just didn't want my compliment of your lovely avatar to detract attention from my birthday present to you, a large iron coathanger. :) It's currently strung over the Sydney Harbour, let me know when you're coming to collect it! :)

[chran]

So...does my paper now openly advocate ignorance?No, it's just funny! :D

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Merc, don't forget to mention that the "complete void in space" has nothing to do with how we think our universe happened. So the artist must be talking about a different universe. Perhaps in that universe Swatches do evolve.

Hi, I'm an idiot. I have no idea about any of this stuff, so I think I'll draw a cartoon illustrating my ignorance. Then we can all laugh at ... evolution!

~~ Paul

[Melendwyr]

Natural selection does apply to all of those situations. Evolutionary biology, however, is only concerned with natural selection as it applies to living organisms - it makes no statements about the origins of life or the existence of matter.

[hammegk]

Natural selection does apply to all of those situations.
I'm amazed! We agree on something. :D

[Mercutio]

Natural selection does apply to all of those situations. Evolutionary biology, however, is only concerned with natural selection as it applies to living organisms - it makes no statements about the origins of life or the existence of matter.
What definition of natural selection are you using? Certainly not any that I am familiar with. Darwin's summary is:
IF there are organisms that reproduce, and
IF offspring inherit traits from their progenitor(s), and
IF there is variability of traits, and
IF the environment cannot support all members of a growing population,
THEN those members of the population with less-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will die out, and
THEN those members with more-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will thrive

So...I don't see how this can possibly apply to the beginnings of the universe, the formation of stars, metals, etc., or even to abiogenesis. Only after these things have happened can we possibly have the IF conditions which define natural selection.

I look forward to your explanation.

[Upchurch]

Natural selection does apply to all of those situations. How so? Natural selection works through the subject being able to reproduce (or not, as the case may be) and pass along its genetic material.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'm amazed! We agree on something.
I agree, too! It's a giant love-fest!

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

How so? Natural selection works through the subject being able to reproduce (or not, as the case may be) and pass along its genetic material. As in, for example, the birth of stars from the remnants of previous stars.

I wouldn't use the term natural selection for this, just because it causes confusion with a term that already has the world confused. But it's something similar to selection. I'd also avoid using the term evolution in other contexts.

~~ Paul

[Upchurch]

But it's something similar to selection.I have to disagree. The formation of a new star based on the material of old star is not dependant upon the old star's ability to survive in its environment.

[Melendwyr]

How so? Natural selection works through the subject being able to reproduce (or not, as the case may be) and pass along its genetic material. No, it doesn't. Natural selection is really only concerned with the persistance of arrangements - biological reproduction is only an particular example of the more general principle.

[Melendwyr]

As in, for example, the birth of stars from the remnants of previous stars. That's not really a good example.

A better one would be osmosis. Or the rounding of pebbles in a streambed or ancient desert. Or a sand-sifter.

[Upchurch]

A better one would be osmosis. Or the rounding of pebbles in a streambed or ancient desert. Or a sand-sifter.How in the world are those examples of natural selection?

[Mercutio]

No, it doesn't. Natural selection is really only concerned with the persistance of arrangements - biological reproduction is only an particular example of the more general principle.
So, a completely different definition than Darwin's.

[delphi_ote]

So, a completely different definition than Darwin's.

Who cares what he had to say about evolution? It's not like he wrote the book on the subject.

[Upchurch]

So, a completely different definition than Darwin's.
Or anyone else's, for that matter, since it completely leaves out the mechanism in natural selection that interrupts "the persistance of arrangements".

Or is extinction not a part of natural selection?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hold on! I agree that the term natural selection is confusing and misleading here.

But there certainly are selection pressures for events other than biological ones. Here's one: There is significant pressure for a trickle of water to follow depressions in the ground rather than small hillocks. Another: There is pressure for a planetoid to end up in certain orbits around its sun. How about: There is pressure for mountains to appear where tectonic plates are compressing.

Or is extinction not a part of natural selection?
In all the cases I cited above, certain objects disappear if they do not happen to "follow the pressure."

~~ Paul

[petre]

What I noted was the very first sentence of the cartoon:

Once upon a time, there was a complete void in space.

I'm not aware of any currently supported theory that includes this. Any that I have heard of make it quite clear that time, space, and matter are all related. Time could not exist without the other two, therefore there was no time before the existance of matter.

It's just bad form to begin any point with a faulty model of the opposing view. I believe there's a word for that, starts with a straw- and ends with a -man :)

[PatKelley]

Hold on! I agree that the term natural selection is confusing and misleading here.

But there certainly are selection pressures for events other than biological ones. Here's one: There is significant pressure for a trickle of water to follow depressions in the ground rather than small hillocks. Another: There is pressure for a planetoid to end up in certain orbits around its sun. How about: There is pressure for mountains to appear where tectonic plates are compressing.


In all the cases I cited above, certain objects disappear if they do not happen to "follow the pressure."

~~ Paul

I think you might be misapprehending pressure in this context. Living organisms do not conform by being beaten down, as in water in a graviational field or pebbles being rounded.

Living organisms persist only if they can continue to accrue energy. The original competition was in who could actually reproduce, and at that time the only energy was in other organic molecules. The original was chemical evolution by sustained reaction. The more molecules that accrued, the more chance of persisting; rather the antithesis of rocks being beaten down. It would be as if rough rocks had a better chance of washing downstream; you would end up with more rough rocks than not in a given environment. The rounding is not a selection pressure; the differential is.

Now, this is not to say sedimentation is evolution; it represents a selection pressure. A sieve in sand is similar in this regard, as there are some grains that get past while some do not. But this is only part of the equation; it is selection pressure, it is not evolution. Evolution comes about when there is more than one molecule vying for available energy as a means of survival. The larger ones persist, then the ones that can fold so they are harder to break apart, then the ones of those that can more efficiently fold and unfold with temperature changes to both guard and assemble more energy. Eventually, some have folding sequences that curve and actually cover other sequences during vulnerable times, or that form a ribozyme that clips at other sequences (the first predator).

From there it is steps along the way, with selection pressure being the gate, but mutation and reproduction being the driving force to create a new generation. Without change, a new selection pressure could cause an end to this process. Without reproduction, the process stops.

[PatKelley]

Ok, it does not really belong here, but nowhere else either...I am so pissed off at my local paper. Today's editorial cartoon?


http://www.cagle.com/working/051110/dickwright.gif


So...does my paper now openly advocate ignorance?
They left out the last line: "That one REALLY shows my total ignorance!"

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I think you might be misapprehending pressure in this context. Living organisms do not conform by being beaten down, as in water in a graviational field or pebbles being rounded.
Well, the ones that can't see above themselves are beaten down by falling rocks, right? Yes, I understand that "selection pressure" does not mean physical pressure.

~~ Paul

[Melendwyr]

So, a completely different definition than Darwin's. (raises eyebrow) Darwin was addressing the subject of change in biological organisms. Not surprisingly, he was concerned with selection pressures that operate on biological organisms.

Nature exercises selection in other ways that reproduction and (biological) competition, too.

[Upchurch]

Nature exercises selection in other ways that reproduction and (biological) competition, too.I know you've already given what you think are examples of this, but could you please expain how these are examples?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I gave several examples above. We are not saying that other forms of selection are exactly the same sort of thing as biological natural selection, but they are forms of pressure and selection. Dust and rocks in the appropriate orbits are selected to become planetoids. The other dust stays dust. Water that follows depressions collects into rivulets and then streams. The other water simply evaporates. The right sort of crystals replicate; the rest crumble apart.

It must be the case the non-life undergoes pressure and selection, or life would not have gotten started in the first place.

~~ Paul

[Melendwyr]

Or the rounding of pebbles in a streambed or ancient desert. Pebbles come in all shapes and sizes. Pebbles with extrusions are more likely to hit another object, or be hit against by an object, in a way that causes wearing. Wearing can cause a jagged edge to become rounded, or a rounded pebble to become jagged again, but rounded edges are harder to turn jagged than vice versa. Over time, the distribution of shapes will be dominated by roundness.

You really shouldn't need me to explain how a sand-sifter is an example of selection.

[PatKelley]

I gave several examples above. We are not saying that other forms of selection are exactly the same sort of thing as biological natural selection, but they are forms of pressure and selection. Dust and rocks in the appropriate orbits are selected to become planetoids. The other dust stays dust. Water that follows depressions collects into rivulets and then streams. The other water simply evaporates. The right sort of crystals replicate; the rest crumble apart.

It must be the case the non-life undergoes pressure and selection, or life would not have gotten started in the first place.

~~ Paul

No, because this is just establishing that some in a population encounter situation x, and some do not. If you said solar radiation put more momentum on low metal dust than high metal dust, that is selection pressure because it serves to winnow a population, essentially sorting it by properties. Where water lands is random chance, and is not selection pressure. It is going to either flow or evaporate; that's not material to selection at all.

It is winnowing and sorting by the properties of the subject that is selection pressure.

[PatKelley]

Pebbles come in all shapes and sizes. Pebbles with extrusions are more likely to hit another object, or be hit against by an object, in a way that causes wearing. Wearing can cause a jagged edge to become rounded, or a rounded pebble to become jagged again, but rounded edges are harder to turn jagged than vice versa. Over time, the distribution of shapes will be dominated by roundness.

You really shouldn't need me to explain how a sand-sifter is an example of selection.
First, your instance above is an example of a distribution, not a selection. It establishes properties within a population, but does not serve to select some based on those properties above others.

A sand sifter is an example of selection pressure. The particles larger than the size of the opening in the sifter pass through, others do not. It is selection pressure for those grains and particles below a certain size, and one has effectively sorted the group based on a property of the group.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It is winnowing and sorting by the properties of the subject that is selection pressure.
And the location of an object is not one of its properties? Location has a lot to do with biological natural selection. For example, when a natural disaster occurs, location may make all the difference to survival.

I agree that it is more interesting to consider selection based on intrinsic properties that are "carried with the object." But I'm not sure why the term need be restricted to that situation.

~~ Paul

[PatKelley]

And the location of an object is not one of its properties? Location has a lot to do with biological natural selection. For example, when a natural disaster occurs, location may make all the difference to survival.

I agree that it is more interesting to consider selection based on intrinsic properties that are "carried with the object." But I'm not sure why the term need be restricted to that situation.

~~ Paul

You've been talking about selection pressure, yes? First, let's suppose you have two populations with distribution like so that describes population (vertical bar) and a property (horizontal bar).



Population 1
| _
| / \
|__/ \__

Population 2
| _
| / \
|__/ \__


Population one will experience a disaster, population two will experience selection pressure based on the property. Both currently are bell-curve distributions in this ideal scenario. Now, let's look at the graphs after the disaster and selection pressure based on the property.


Population 1
| _
| / \
|__/ \__
Population 2
|
|_/\______

Note something? Population one is now just a sub-set of the previous population. While total numbers have changed, the distribution of properties (other than location ) has not. Population two, however, has experienced a population change based on prevalence of the property determining which of the population was removed and which remained.

To represent selection pressure it needs to be a factor that by its nature is represented in the objects, or else one is simply dealing with an indeterminate population - there is nothing to select for or against. It is completely random. Location alone is not enough. A property of the object that determines location would be, because after the event one population would be reduced, and the distribution would no longer be uniform or return to a uniform equilibrium.

With location-only, it is binary: either the population dies, or it does not.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

To represent selection pressure it needs to be a factor that by its nature is represented in the objects, or else one is simply dealing with an indeterminate population - there is nothing to select for or against. It is completely random. Location alone is not enough. A property of the object that determines location would be, because after the event one population would be reduced, and the distribution would no longer be uniform or return to a uniform equilibrium.
Okay, I'm happy to go with this. We won't consider an accidental attribute of objects to be something that is subject to selection pressure. However, this means that when we speak of the processes behind evolution, we have to list mutation, genetic drift, natural selection, ..., and the luck of location.

Note something? Population one is now just a sub-set of the previous population. While total numbers have changed, the distribution of properties (other than location ) has not. Population two, however, has experienced a population change based on prevalence of the property determining which of the population was removed and which remained.
-
...
With location-only, it is binary: either the population dies, or it does not.
Population 1 might not just become a simple subset, but two disjoint subsets 1a and 1b. By choice, but also possibly by luck, the distribution of properties might not be uniform between the two subsets. Imagine, for example, that the mating practices of the creatures are such that the two populations end up each with one primary founder. Then the gene pools can go their separate ways. Would we not call this selection?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Nope, never mind, I'm full of crap. Natural selection is defined to operate on heritable differences between individuals. I should not use the term for anything else, and if I want to talk about selection in a nonbiological context, I'd better be careful with my terminology.

Thanks for the kick in the butt, Pat.

~~ Paul

Edited to add: Hold on! It appears that the definition of genetic drift covers accidents of location. So I was, like, double extra wrong.

[hammegk]

I'd posit that the selection pressure that controls evolution from Big Bang to now are only the laws of physics. The quark-gluon plasma condensed as only it could have done, elements formed under the same strictures, stars formed subject to cosmological 'evolution' resulting in heavy elements, chemistry follows the plan, and on to us today. In this universe, why is any outcome other than intelligence possible? That is selection pressure in the grand view.

We could go on and on; galactic location, sunsize & type, planets & orbits needed, we know water based life appears (once for sure), etc.

This still does not address why the subtle changes we all agree are micro-ev seemingly undergo the drastic & rapid changes to provide new (macro-ev) species.

[delphi_ote]

I'd posit that the selection pressure that controls evolution from Big Bang to now are only the laws of physics. The quark-gluon plasma condensed as only it could have done, elements formed under the same strictures, stars formed subject to cosmological 'evolution' resulting in heavy elements, chemistry follows the plan, and on to us today. In this universe, why is any outcome other than intelligence possible? That is selection pressure in the grand view.

We could go on and on; galactic location, sunsize & type, planets & orbits needed, we know water based life appears (once for sure), etc.

This still does not address why the subtle changes we all agree are micro-ev seemingly undergo the drastic & rapid changes to provide new (macro-ev) species.

Your contention here seems to be that the laws of physics do not allow for drastic and rapid change. I see that quite often in nature, actually.

Your argument against a version of evolution you've created yourself doesn't even work, and that's just downright sad. If you can't win at a game where you make the rules as you go along, how can you ever hope to win a real contest?

[Mercutio]

(raises eyebrow) Darwin was addressing the subject of change in biological organisms. Not surprisingly, he was concerned with selection pressures that operate on biological organisms.

Nature exercises selection in other ways that reproduction and (biological) competition, too.
Mmmmmkay...but those other ways do not come under the definition of the term "natural selection". It may well be that selection of some sort is happening naturally...but the term "natural selection" is narrowly defined, and does not include these others.

[Melendwyr]

Mmmmmkay...but those other ways do not come under the definition of the term "natural selection". It may well be that selection of some sort is happening naturally...but the term "natural selection" is narrowly defined, and does not include these others. So what would you call these selections made by nature? Non-artificial selection?

[Melendwyr]

First, your instance above is an example of a distribution, not a selection. There is a change in the distribution because of the selection pressures.

[PatKelley]

There is a change in the distribution because of the selection pressures.
But there is no selection pressure defined in this example. No properties of the population are distinguished as being selected; it's a description of what happens to the entire population. A population as a whole has a rate of death. This is not a selection pressure; it is an observation of the entire population, and does not refer to any sub-set or other properties. It is not representative of selection pressure because, like the disaster example. it does not establish some property in the population that is selected for or against; it is a description of the population as a whole changing over time. Rocks get rounder. People die. Objects fall. These are not examples of selection pressure.

[PatKelley]

Nope, never mind, I'm full of crap. Natural selection is defined to operate on heritable differences between individuals. I should not use the term for anything else, and if I want to talk about selection in a nonbiological context, I'd better be careful with my terminology.

Thanks for the kick in the butt, Pat.

~~ Paul

Edited to add: Hold on! It appears that the definition of genetic drift covers accidents of location. So I was, like, double extra wrong.
For the record, I never meant to imply anyone was full of anything, and I'd like to say these conversations helped me to get clear the concept in my own mind, and how it could be applied in a nonbiological situation. So, thanks in general :)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

For the record, I never meant to imply anyone was full of anything, and I'd like to say these conversations helped me to get clear the concept in my own mind, and how it could be applied in a nonbiological situation. So, thanks in general.
I did not take your statements as a commentary on my crapological status. Nevertheless, I was misusing terminology and now I, too, am clear. Not in the Scientological sense, of course. :D

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

Your contention here seems to be that the laws of physics do not allow for drastic and rapid change. I see that quite often in nature, actually.
Now if you just understood what you read. From the Big Bang through all cosmology - novas, supernovas, black holes; planet formation, geology, weather - through and including The Theory itself all significant events are catastrophic. The Theory unfortunately is tied to micro-ev with time being all that's needed.

The people who don't allow drastic & rapid change are neo-Darwinist evolutionists.


Your argument against a version of evolution you've created yourself doesn't even work, and that's just downright sad.
Got some data to back up that wrong assertion?

[Upchurch]

Segueing back to Dover for a minute.

Vote still at issue in Dover (http://www.ydr.com/ci_3232629)

But Cashman alleged the night of the race that one of the machines at Friendship Community Church in Dover Township appeared faulty. And since Cashman lost by 99 votes - 2,526 votes to Rehm's 2,625 - that one machine could theoretically have made a difference in the race.

County solicitor Mike Flannelly said that he and county elections commissioner John Scott met with Cashman, Rehm and the two men's lawyers.

Flannelly said that the county has not opened the voting machine to check for a malfunction and that it has no intention of doing so unless instructed to by court order. While the county has not officially acknowledged any malfunction, Flannelly said, he's willing to acknowledge that one appears likely.

That's because the voting machine registered somewhere in the neighborhood of 90 votes for all of the other candidates, but only one for Cashman.
Not that it matters as far as the ID decision goes. There are still more against than for it.

[Melendwyr]

But there is no selection pressure defined in this example. No properties of the population are distinguished as being selected; it's a description of what happens to the entire population. It's the states that are being selected, not the rocks themselves.

[chipmunk stew]

Now if you just understood what you read. From the Big Bang through all cosmology - novas, supernovas, black holes; planet formation, geology, weather - through and including The Theory itself all significant events are catastrophic. The Theory unfortunately is tied to micro-ev with time being all that's needed.Since you don't have a definition for "micro-ev vs. macro-ev", "significant event", or "catastrophic", this statement is entirely meaningless.

You could easily and reasonably argue that life itself was the significant, catastrophic event, and everything that followed was just a natural consequence of that singular event. Objectively, what makes relatively major transitions through forms any more significant than relatively minor ones?

[chipmunk stew]

You could also argue that there have been catastrophic events such as viral epidemics or large heavenly bodies striking the Earth which have at times accelerated the pace of transitions through forms and led to "significant" or "drastic and rapid" change.

Your argument has a real definition problem.

[PatKelley]

It's the states that are being selected, not the rocks themselves. Okay, so let's take a look at the example and what states exist.
Pebbles come in all shapes and sizes. Pebbles with extrusions are more likely to hit another object, or be hit against by an object, in a way that causes wearing. Wearing can cause a jagged edge to become rounded, or a rounded pebble to become jagged again, but rounded edges are harder to turn jagged than vice versa. Over time, the distribution of shapes will be dominated by roundness.
I'll start with the population diagram again, with population as the x-axis and roundness as the y.
We'll start with a population of rough rocks.


| _
| / \
|_/ \__
|________

Now, we expose them to river water wear and tear.


| _
| / \
|__/ \_
|________


Versus having a person walking along the river select for round rocks


|
| _
|____/ \_
|________


Because we've not really selected for anything in the first diagram, all we've done is shift the population as a whole. There is no selection pressure winnowing the population based on an attribute, but rather a shift of all of the population one direction. This differs from selection pressure in that there is no population reduction. The states are not being selected independant of the objects, as if states are selected there is no population. It is the population of physical objects in those states which determines what your population is, oddly enough. Without a population, one has a pressure with no subject to be selected.

[delphi_ote]

The people who don't allow drastic & rapid change are neo-Darwinist evolutionists.

Care to point me to a place where a scientist has said that? You seem to enjoy inventing your opponent.

[PatKelley]

Segueing back to Dover for a minute.

Vote still at issue in Dover (http://www.ydr.com/ci_3232629)


Not that it matters as far as the ID decision goes. There are still more against than for it.
Now, one vote for Cashman and ninety for all of the others... well, I'd say that's either selection pressure or God's will...

[delphi_ote]

Segueing back to Dover for a minute.

Vote still at issue in Dover (http://www.ydr.com/ci_3232629)


Not that it matters as far as the ID decision goes. There are still more against than for it.

Clearly the satanists rigged the machine. Only through Pat Robertson's appeals to the almighty God was the deception revealed. Praise Jesus!

Think that'll be on the 700 Club next week?

By the way, why is it we can't get elections right in this bastion of democracy? Seems like we should get the whole counting thing down ourselves before we try exporting our democracy.

[PatKelley]

Clearly the satanists rigged the machine. Only through Pat Robertson's appeals to the almighty God was the deception revealed. Praise Jesus!

Think that'll be on the 700 Club next week?

By the way, why is it we can't get elections right in this bastion of democracy? Seems like we should get the whole counting thing down ourselves before we try exporting our democracy.
Home schooling. I blame home schooling.;)

[hammegk]

Care to point me to a place where a scientist has said that? You seem to enjoy inventing your opponent.
Should I now infer that mutation and selection is not 'slow'? What part of The Theory suggests otherwise? Obviously the fossils do.

I notice no one yet cares to follow up linking, say, chaos & strange attractors to explosive cycles of mutation followed by stasis.



Since you don't have a definition for "micro-ev vs. macro-ev", "significant event", or "catastrophic", this statement is entirely meaningless.
To you, apparently. Hopefully a brighter bulb grasps the import and responds to it.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No really, Hammy, it's meaningless. We don't understand what you are saying. We argue incessantly over the meanings of words without making any forward progress.

As far as I can tell, this is what you are saying: Hey! This evolution thing just can't possibly produce whatever it is *I* think exists. Much too complicated. Can't get started. Everyone to get from street!

~~ Paul

[chipmunk stew]

Hopefully a brighter bulb grasps the import and responds to it.You mean, hopefully someone agrees with you that you said something important. This dim bulb responded:

"You could easily and reasonably argue that life itself was the significant, catastrophic event, and everything that followed was just a natural consequence of that singular event. Objectively, what makes relatively major transitions through forms any more significant than relatively minor ones?"

"You could also argue that there have been catastrophic events such as viral epidemics or large heavenly bodies striking the Earth which have at times accelerated the pace of transitions through forms and led to 'significant' or 'drastic and rapid' change."

Care to correct me, o enlightened one? You can do it here or in that other thread you abandoned after apparently conceding the argument.

[delphi_ote]

Should I now infer that mutation and selection is not 'slow'? What part of The Theory suggests otherwise? Obviously the fossils do.

Obviously you can infer whatever you damn well please if you're not interested a conversation about evolution. If you'd like to have an intellectually honest conversation, I challenged an assertion you made. The burden of proof is on you. If you want to talk about scientists that "don't allow drastic & rapid change," point one out to me. You can't start making inferences yet, because nobody knows what you're talking about.

[hammegk]

... You can't start making inferences yet, because nobody knows what you're talking about.
Of course I can, even though I agree with you that nobody here understands what I said. :)


How about tackling this one: I notice no one yet cares to follow up linking, say, chaos & strange attractors to explosive cycles of mutation followed by stasis.
Or is that meaningless for y'all too? ;)

[delphi_ote]

explosive cycles of mutation

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

[chipmunk stew]

Of course I can, even though I agree with you that nobody here understands what I said.There are at least a couple possible answers to the question "Why doesn't anyone understand me?"

They include:
1. I'm smarter than everyone else.
2. I'm vague and incoherent.
eta: 3. I never answer clarifying questions...at least without generating more vagaries requiring further clarification.

Clearly, you believe the correct answer is "1" in your case. So, rather than smugly implying in every other post that we're just too stupid to appreciate the nuggets of wisdom that you keep dropping at our feet, try a different tactic, like spelling out WHAT THE F:)K YOU MEAN in language that can't readily be misinterpreted.

All your clever barbs with the winking smileys don't stick if no one knows WHAT THE F:)K YOU MEAN.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I notice no one yet cares to follow up linking, say, chaos & strange attractors to explosive cycles of mutation followed by stasis.
Yup, that would be meaningless to me. Now, if you'd mentioned quantum mechanics ...

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
Er, that puctuated equilibrium stuff?


1. I'm smarter than everyone else.
2. I'm vague and incoherent.
eta: 3. I never answer clarifying questions...at least without generating more vagaries requiring further clarification.

You forgot 4. I have a different set of understandings (and mis-understandings) than someone else does.

I accept 2: for 3, try asking a real, non-rhetorical question.

1. Nope, and most likely below par in this bunch. :confused:


Yup, that would be meaningless to me.
Why? It seems straight-forward to me.

[chipmunk stew]

for 3, try asking a real, non-rhetorical question.Okay:

"Objectively, what makes relatively major transitions through forms any more significant than relatively minor ones?"

(It wasn't rhetorical the first two times, either.)

[hammegk]

Not rhetorical, yet not a question I -- nor apparently anyone -- can answer (for someone else). It's the macro-ev = new species, micro-ev = same species problem, if I understood your question.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Why? It seems straight-forward to me.
I didn't realize that evolution has anything to do with dynamical systems that are attracted to particular states when trajectories get close enough.

~~ Paul

[chipmunk stew]

Not rhetorical, yet not a question I -- nor apparently anyone -- can answer (for someone else). It's the macro-ev = new species, micro-ev = same species problem, if I understood your question.My question addresses this:

all significant events are catastrophic. The Theory unfortunately is tied to micro-ev with time being all that's needed.from which I inferred that you consider relatively major ("macro-ev") biological changes "significant events", but not relatively minor ("micro-ev") ones. What makes one "significant" and the other not?

This is key because your assertion was that "all significant events are catastrophic", from which you concluded that "macro-ev", being a significant event, must have a "catastrophic" mechanism (correct me if I'm mistaken, please.)

So in addition to the question in bold above, here's another that's not rhetorical, but relies on an answer to the first: What qualifies as "catastrophic" when analyzing the mechanism behind a significant event?

[Dr Adequate]

Not rhetorical, yet not a question I -- nor apparently anyone -- can answer (for someone else). It's the macro-ev = new species, micro-ev = same species problem, if I understood your question. HI. Remeber me? Remember how on every thread you posted on, I challenged you to define the boundary between micro-evolution and macro-evolution?

And you couldn't?

Well you still can't.

So why are you blabbering about concepts you admit you can't define?

We're going to have to split this thread for a third time, aren't we? Because hammy wants his gibberish to have centre stage. Again.

[chipmunk stew]

Because hammy wants his gibberish to have centre stage. Again.I've got to give credit where it's due, though, Dr A. He's a right perfect foil. I've learned a lot reading these threads, and much of that was through refutations of hammy's posts.

[Mercutio]

So what would you call these selections made by nature? Non-artificial selection?
I would call them whatever label was appropriate which might vary from case to case. What I would not do is call them something that sounded right but which has a particular technical definition fitting only one of the phenomena.

In behaviorism, Skinner (perhaps unwisely, perhaps wisely) used some fairly common words in new and technically defined ways, giving us the phrases negative reinforcement and positive punishment, each of which makes perfect sense within the system, but which may sound either oxymoronic or nonsensical in casual conversation. Indeed, I have seen business textbooks which (quite improperly) switch the two terms, apparently because the author confused something that sounded right with something that had a specific technical definition.

There is already enough trouble with Creationists intentionally misdefining "natural selection", as a rhetorical tool to fight Darwin on fronts where his theory does not apply. The cartoon I posted takes advantage of three different uses of "evolved" to (intentionally or ignorantly) make the theory of natural selection look unsupported. It is clear that this issue is important enough that it should be phrased carefully and precisely.

[delphi_ote]

Er, that puctuated equilibrium stuff?

Alright. Now I see where the confusion comes in. Punctuated equilibrium isn't caused by increased/decreased mutations. To give a quick rundown of the concept, I'll steal a couple quotes from talkorigins here:

the period of transition between parent species and daughter species is short compared to the period of time a species exists as a distinct form

significant adaptations developed or accentuated in the daughter species can lead to the rapid dispersal and establishment of a daughter species throughout the range of the ancestral species, or into new ranges. The ecological processes of dispersal and succession can occur very quickly compared to evolutionary processes of change.

So how does this relate to "The people who don't allow drastic & rapid change are neo-Darwinist evolutionists?"

[Dr Adequate]

I've got to give credit where it's due, though, Dr A. He's a right perfect foil. I've learned a lot reading these threads, and much of that was through refutations of hammy's posts. Which is sweet, but this thread is about the Dover ID trial.

If hammy wants to blather on about his unique undiscoverable genius, then he can start a thread about it.

[hammegk]

I didn't realize that evolution has anything to do with dynamical systems that are attracted to particular states when trajectories get close enough.

~~ Paul

Ask BillHoyt. He made the initial suggestion -- one I agree with in the sense significant and rapid mutation points exist. Cats are not Dogs, critters above the K-T boundary break with those below. We could always discuss the Mid-Cambrian Explosion -- a few million years at most produced phenotypes we still don't understand -- the the actual time involved is unknown. The canid phenotype has been prodded to produce extreme body-types in just a few thousand years.


Today, we are faced with the fact that at the genotype level significant and catastrophic occurences are known, and needed for change -- gene-splicing, anyone? Micro-ev? I think not.


HI. Remeber me? Remember how on every thread you posted on, I challenged you to define the boundary between micro-evolution and macro-evolution?

And you couldn't?

Well you still can't.
Agreed. And on your side, you can't even figure out what a "species" is. Species, you know, that thing you want to teach The Origin of? "Remeber"?


Which is sweet, but this thread is about the Dover ID trial.
So are my comments. You just don't understand your opponents. :)


delphi_ote: I'd agree a gene-splice doesn't take long.

[chipmunk stew]

Today, we are faced with the fact that at the genotype level significant and catastrophic occurences are known, and needed for change -- gene-splicing, anyone? Micro-ev? I think not.Just because major change can be produced by gene-splicing, doesn't make such a major, one-time overhaul a requirement for major change. Other catastrophic occurrences are known, too. Mass extinction, anyone?

[Melendwyr]

There is already enough trouble with Creationists intentionally misdefining "natural selection", as a rhetorical tool to fight Darwin on fronts where his theory does not apply. The cartoon I posted takes advantage of three different uses of "evolved" to (intentionally or ignorantly) make the theory of natural selection look unsupported. It is clear that this issue is important enough that it should be phrased carefully and precisely. And that careful, precise definition does not exclude the situations I mentioned. "Natural selection" refers to the winnowing process and has nothing to do with reproduction. Nor does it have to be acting upon biological organisms. It's just the mechanism that drives the evolution of those organisms.

It's called "the Theory of Evolution", not "the Theory of Natural Selection", for just that reason.

[Mercutio]

And that careful, precise definition does not exclude the situations I mentioned. "Natural selection" refers to the winnowing process and has nothing to do with reproduction. Nor does it have to be acting upon biological organisms. It's just the mechanism that drives the evolution of those organisms.

It's called "the Theory of Evolution", not "the Theory of Natural Selection", for just that reason.
Again, Darwin's summary of natural selection:
IF there are organisms that reproduce, and
IF offspring inherit traits from their progenitor(s), and
IF there is variability of traits, and
IF the environment cannot support all members of a growing population,
THEN those members of the population with less-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will die out, and
THEN those members with more-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will thrive

This is the process. The result of this process is evolution. Unless you wish to argue that river rocks reproduce and inherit, with variability, characteristics from their progenitors, and that the environment can only support so many rocks...then your example simply do not fit the definition.

You say that only evolutionary biology uses this term this way. Can you provide examples of other areas using this technical term in other ways?

[Dr Adequate]

Agreed. And on your side, you can't even figure out what a "species" is. Species, you know, that thing you want to teach The Origin of? "Remeber"? I remember you telling this pointless stupid lie before, yes. In your halfwitted fantasy world, no-one can define species. In the real world --- remember that? the one outside your padded cell? --- you have been told repeatedly that a species is a reproductively isolated variety.So are my comments. But you are just reciting the same tedious nonsense you always recite when we discuss biology. You haven't even tried to make it relevant to the goings-on in Dover, you've just taken another opportunity to bore us with your dreary, hopeless monomania.

[hammegk]

I remember you telling this pointless stupid lie before, yes. In your halfwitted fantasy world, no-one can define species. In the real world --- remember that? the one outside your padded cell? --- you have been told repeatedly that a species is a reproductively isolated variety.

And the reproductively isolated varieties mutate & get selected, remaining varietal. Your assertion that time, random mutations & natural selection lead to useful genotype changes -- macro-ev, a new "species" -- remains an unproven hypothesis.

My understanding is that at the microbiology level, the action occurs not in groups in isolation but in groups of mixed partners-- the more, the merrier.


I'm not the only monomaniac in these discussions. If you find me boring, try Ignore.

[delphi_ote]

I'd agree a gene-splice doesn't take long.

Do I dare ask what you're talking about and how it relates to punctuated equilibrium or your earlier claim that "The people who don't allow drastic & rapid change are neo-Darwinist evolutionists?"

[chipmunk stew]

Your assertion that time, random mutations & natural selection lead to useful genotype changes -- macro-ev, a new "species" -- remains an unproven hypothesis.Wrong. It remains an unfalsified theory.

[Bronze Dog]

Your assertion that time, random mutations & natural selection lead to useful genotype changes -- macro-ev, a new "species" -- remains an unproven hypothesis.
Funny, it works in all the A-life programs I've heard of... But I suppose if I linked to one, you might redefine "useful". And as for species, you've done an excellent job of rendering your null hypothesis unfalsifiable by rejecting all definitions of "species" we have observed speciation with, and refusing to come up with a definition yourself. I suppose next you'll come up with a psychic prediction that I'm going to die in the future.

You know, I feel like I've learned more about irreducible complexity than Behe and most IDers from playing Armored Core than they have in their entire education. After all, I started out building up my AC to a multiweapon heavyweight, and got it all the way down to an irreducibly complex underweight. Even doing so during all the environmental changes through the series. (Big one for me: Energy and back weapon crisis of AC3: They removed the "Plus Powers" that cut down on booster energy use and the one that allowed bipeds to use back cannons while moving.)

[Melendwyr]

Let's look at which statements can be removed without invalidating the conclusion.

(1) IF there are organisms that reproduce, and
(2) IF offspring inherit traits from their progenitor(s), and
(3) IF there is variability of traits, and
(4) IF the environment cannot support all members of a growing population,
THEN those members of the population with less-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will die out, and
THEN those members with more-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will thrive[/i]

We can easily remove statements 1 and 2 and keep the conclusions, assuming that the different traits are not all equally likely to survive. (You forgot to stipulate that - without differential viability, change in the distribution of traits is not guaranteed by any combination of those statements.)

[Mercutio]

Let's look at which statements can be removed without invalidating the conclusion.

We can easily remove statements 1 and 2 and keep the conclusions, assuming that the different traits are not all equally likely to survive. (You forgot to stipulate that - without differential viability, change in the distribution of traits is not guaranteed by any combination of those statements.)
Not me, Darwin. This is not my version; you can remove statements 1 and 2, but in doing so you are now defining something else entirely.

[Melendwyr]

Not me, Darwin. This is not my version; you can remove statements 1 and 2, but in doing so you are now defining something else entirely. No, you're not. For example, you don't need to assume that the environment cannot support all members - if some variations are more successful than others, they will eventually dominate the population. Voila! Evolution!

Darwin talked primarily about slow and gradual changes. That doesn't mean that the more rapid changes separated by periods of stasis postulated by punctuated equilibrium make PE not evolution. Likewise, forms of selection caused by environmental effects acting upon a population distribution are still natural selection, even if they don't match exactly what Darwin was talking about.

There's really not much else to be said. I'm really not interested in repeating this simple and obviously correct argument while you hold your fingers in your ears and hum. You're wrong, and that's all there is to it.

[Mercutio]

No, you're not. For example, you don't need to assume that the environment cannot support all members - if some variations are more successful than others, they will eventually dominate the population. Voila! Evolution!
That is #4, not #1 or #2, which were what you removed before. My point was that Natural Selection specifies that we are looking at organisms which reproduce and inherit from their progenitors, which is not the case with stars, pebbles, metals, etc.

Darwin talked primarily about slow and gradual changes. That doesn't mean that the more rapid changes separated by periods of stasis postulated by punctuated equilibrium make PE not evolution. Likewise, forms of selection caused by environmental effects acting upon a population distribution are still natural selection, even if they don't match exactly what Darwin was talking about.
Did you find sources in which things other than reproducing organisms are said to undergo "natural selection"? A journal where physicists use the term for the process of birth, death, rebirth of stars, for instance, would be enough for me to say I am wrong. I have only seen the term used as Darwin defined it, except by Creationists.

There's really not much else to be said. I'm really not interested in repeating this simple and obviously correct argument while you hold your fingers in your ears and hum. You're wrong, and that's all there is to it.I am more than willing to admit I am wrong. So far, all you have done is assert.

[Melendwyr]

That is #4, not #1 or #2, which were what you removed before. So? What's your point? (You don't actually have one - you just wanted to throw out an objection.)

My point was that Natural Selection specifies that we are looking at organisms which reproduce and inherit from their progenitors, which is not the case with stars, pebbles, metals, etc. Not necessary. A limited set of entities with differential viability will experience a change in the distribution of traits - evolution.

I am more than willing to admit I am wrong. So far, all you have done is assert. :rolleyes:

[Mercutio]

So? What's your point? (You don't actually have one - you just wanted to throw out an objection.)
Asked and answered. You even quoted it. Where I use the phrase "my point is..."

Not necessary. A limited set of entities with differential viability will experience a change in the distribution of traits - evolution.
Darwin himself said that natural selection was not the only mechanism of evolution. The change in distribution of traits--evolution--does not mean that the process behind it was natural selection.

:rolleyes:I note that you have thus far declined to produce a source using the term as you do. That would have been a much more effective comeback than :rolleyes:.

[delphi_ote]

Melendwyr, there may be a similarity between these ideas, but natural selection is a technical term with a precise definition. You don't like it when woos co-opt technical terms from other scientific fields out of context, do you?

Don't do it yourself!

[chipmunk stew]

Melendwyr, there may be a similarity between these ideas, but natural selection is a technical term with a precise definition. You don't like it when woos co-opt technical terms from other scientific fields out of context, do you?

Don't do it yourself!Delphi, I think you must be having trouble creating your own quantum reality. If your energy field was fully charged you'd be able to see that pebbles evolve.

[c4ts]

I'll just pop Magneurol pills until my aura turns so blue I can shoot chakras out of my highly evolved nostrils.

[PatKelley]

No, you're not. For example, you don't need to assume that the environment cannot support all members - if some variations are more successful than others, they will eventually dominate the population. Voila! Evolution!

If no individuals die, or are removed, and the population only relies upon which reproduces faster, the upper limit of the population supportable by available energy is reached. Once that limit is hit, either some start to die or there is no population change. It has to do with replacement by death in animals because with other populations, the populations are relatively static, and the only way to winnow is removal without replacement. In animals, replacement is also necessary, and explains why populations persist. If traits were not passed generation to generation, the selection pressure would not cause a population change as a new random group would be culled each time.

Darwin talked primarily about slow and gradual changes. That doesn't mean that the more rapid changes separated by periods of stasis postulated by punctuated equilibrium make PE not evolution. Likewise, forms of selection caused by environmental effects acting upon a population distribution are still natural selection, even if they don't match exactly what Darwin was talking about.

Environmental effects on a population are not selection unless part of the population is removed. Whether it is by competetive disadvantage or no, eventually some has to be replaced or again one reaches a static equilibrium.

There's really not much else to be said. I'm really not interested in repeating this simple and obviously correct argument while you hold your fingers in your ears and hum. You're wrong, and that's all there is to it.

Your argument is incorrect, as has been shown several times. A blanket effect upon a population without differentiation is not selection. Death is a process in a population; only when it affects disparately based on traits of the population does it become a selection mechanism.

[Ed]

And the reproductively isolated varieties mutate & get selected, remaining varietal. Your assertion that time, random mutations & natural selection lead to useful genotype changes -- macro-ev, a new "species" -- remains an unproven hypothesis.

My understanding is that at the microbiology level, the action occurs not in groups in isolation but in groups of mixed partners-- the more, the merrier.


I'm not the only monomaniac in these discussions. If you find me boring, try Ignore.

I am sorta curious. Do you have a better explanatory model than evolution or are you simply pointing out areas for further research?

[Melendwyr]

If no individuals die, or are removed, and the population only relies upon which reproduces faster, the upper limit of the population supportable by available energy is reached. You're assuming there is such a limit - true about the real world, but not necessary for the argument.

Environmental effects on a population are not selection unless part of the population is removed. Whether it is by competetive disadvantage or no, eventually some has to be replaced or again one reaches a static equilibrium. No one is talking about that - the whole point is that the environmental effects are selective, affecting some trait combinations more than others. An environmental pressure that acts on a whole population equally obviously will not result in evolution.

Your argument is incorrect, as has been shown several times. A blanket effect upon a population without differentiation is not selection. That's not my argument. You've resorted to building strawmen.

[Melendwyr]

Melendwyr, there may be a similarity between these ideas, but natural selection is a technical term with a precise definition. You don't like it when woos co-opt technical terms from other scientific fields out of context, do you? No, which is why I'm objecting to the improperly limited use advocated in this thread.

'Natural selection' whenever elements of the environment acting upon a population create a differential viability of trait groupings in that population. The population does not need to be alive, or reproducing; there does not need to be replacement or loss.

Biology only uses the term to refer to living organisms because biology only deals with living organisms.

[Melendwyr]

Asked and answered. You even quoted it. Where I use the phrase "my point is..." That's just a restatement of your position. It doesn't follow from your objection, which in itself leads to no substantive conclusions. You objected for the sake of objecting.

Darwin himself said that natural selection was not the only mechanism of evolution. The change in distribution of traits--evolution--does not mean that the process behind it was natural selection. Sexual selection, for example. But sexual selection only applies to things that have sex, and anything vulnerable to sexual selection will necessarily also be vulnerable to natural selection.

Natural selection is the most basic cause of evolutionary change. If you can tell us about an even simpler cause, and then explain why it is not included in the concept of 'natural selection', do so.

[Mercutio]

Biology only uses the term to refer to living organisms because biology only deals with living organisms.
I keep hoping you will post an example of physicists using the term for stars (or pebbles, for that matter). I seriously would like to learn that I am using the term too narrowly, that all this time I have been in error. That would be cool. But thus far, the only examples I have found have been in Biology, and thus far you have not provided any others.

[Mercutio]

That's just a restatement of your position. It doesn't follow from your objection, which in itself leads to no substantive conclusions. You objected for the sake of objecting.
No. You suggested eliminating 1 & 2. My point was that 1 & 2 define natural selection as working on organisms which reproduce and inherit from their progenitors. Stars do not. Pebbles do not. You have removed from Darwin's definition those things which make your examples inappropriate. Your "improperly limited use" is, in fact, the accepted technical definition; the use which you are advocating, by eliminating parts of the technical definition, is an "improperly broad use".

[hammegk]

Do you have a better explanatory model than evolution or are you simply pointing out areas for further research?
I'm in full agreement with the parts of The Theory that are fact based, which include inheritance, mutation, survival and on to the offspring.

I accept that common ancestor has reasonable basis, although the actual number of abiogenesis events needed to represent viruses, prokaryotes, and eukaryotes -- and all rna/dna life -- is unknown. Parallel development vs common ancestor is as yet poorly defined.

Another area of interest is the implication in microbiology, sfaik, that environmental stress 'encourages' mutation, and those mutations are not random but occur at specifically defined locations. Are these hints of Lysenkoism in action, and if so, do similar pressures effect mutation in even the most complex creatures?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Let's see what we can find out about natural selection in fields other than biology.

Neither of my physics dictionaries mention it.

Lee Smolin gave a keynote address at the international meeting on genetic algorithms in 1999 titled "Natural selection in physics and cosmology." Here's a bit about it:

http://www.templeton.org/humbleapproach/many_worlds/default.asp

And he wrote a book, The Life of the Cosmos, which talks about universe reproduction and selection via black holes:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195126645/002-9670325-1999231?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance

Googling "natural selection in cosmology" brings up a few hits.


~~ Paul

[Mercutio]

Let's see what we can find out about natural selection in fields other than biology.

Neither of my physics dictionaries mention it.

Lee Smolin gave a keynote address at the international meeting on genetic algorithms in 1999 titled "Natural selection in physics and cosmology." Here's a bit about it:

http://www.templeton.org/humbleapproach/many_worlds/default.asp

And he wrote a book, The Life of the Cosmos, which talks about universe reproduction and selection via black holes:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195126645/002-9670325-1999231?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance

Googling "natural selection in cosmology" brings up a few hits.


~~ Paul
From your first link:
Lee Smolin is a theoretical physicist who has made significant contributions to the search for a quantum theory of gravity. A professor of physics at the Center for Gravitational Physics and Geometry at Pennsylvania State University, he is one of a small number of scientists actively seeking to reconcile - or "unify" - general relativity, Einstein's theory of gravity, and quantum mechanics, the prevailing theory of matter and motion developed in the 1920s. Among his most fruitful ideas is the loop formation of quantum gravity, which he developed with Carlo Rovelli and other physicists. It led to the prediction that space has a certain discrete or atomic structure at very small distances. He also has worked on cosmology and, in particular, proposed a hypothesis called "cosmological natural selection," in which Darwinian principles of evolution are applied to the universe, providing a possible explanation for some of the properties of the elementary particles and forces. His conjecture is that our universe forms part of an infinite chain of self-reproducing universes whose physical laws evolve through natural processes of self-organization. The black holes created by collapsing stars lead to the creation of new regions of space and time. These events resemble the big bang, and, indeed, the big bang in our past is assumed to be one such event. Dr. Smolin has hypothesized that the daughter worlds that emerge from "dark stars" may differ in small, random ways from their parents. But if, and to the extent, that changes of even the slightest degree affected the production of black holes, evolutionary pressure would favor universes with many of them. I stand partially corrected. "Cosmological natural selection"...It does, though, sound as if Smolin's hypothesis proceeds from the narrower biological definition of "natural selection", rather than from a broader one which does not include reproduction. Here, "daughter worlds" and "parents" are specifically hypothesized.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Smolin's ideas bring us to a question about selection pressure. There really isn't any pressure in his analogy to natural selection, in the sense that black hole-sparse universes would be killed before they can reproduce, because there is no environment in which the universes reside. Rather, it is simply the case that universes with many black holes will reproduce at a greater rate.

~~ Paul

[Melendwyr]

I keep hoping you will post an example of physicists using the term for stars (or pebbles, for that matter). I seriously would like to learn that I am using the term too narrowly, that all this time I have been in error. That would be cool. But thus far, the only examples I have found have been in Biology, and thus far you have not provided any others. Why do you think creationists always accuse biologists of making claims about the origins of life? Biology only deals with the evolution of biological organisms, but natural selection is far broader. Once you recognize that selective pressures can be responsible for the change in organisms, you must also accept that living organisms can arise from non-living substances through natural selection.

You don't understand your own arguments. Points 1 and 2 did not define natural selection as applying to reproducing organisms. They were just statements of how natural selection applies to reproducing organisms. As I've pointed out several times before, the conclusion of that argument follows even when those assumptions are eliminated.

One final note: quit it with the appeals to authority. Creationists are the ones who argue that because modern biology doesn't use the exact same concepts in the exact same way that Darwin did, Darwinian evolution has been rejected. If you're not willing to apply reason to the perfectly acceptable English words and derive valid conclusions from them, don't bother replying. Natural selection can operate on reproducing organisms in more ways than it can on static populations, but it's still natural selection. If natural selection cannot be applied to a population, no other forms of selection can either - NS is the broadest and most inclusive conceptual form of selection there is.

[Bronze Dog]

Another area of interest is the implication in microbiology, sfaik, that environmental stress 'encourages' mutation, and those mutations are not random but occur at specifically defined locations. Are these hints of Lysenkoism in action, and if so, do similar pressures effect mutation in even the most complex creatures?
No, those are fictional. During environmental stress, "good" mutations are just more likely to stick around than they are in stable times, when a species is already doing well. "Bad" mutations are also more likely to be weeded out. The mutation rate is the same. The environment changes, and with it, the selection pressures that act on those mutations.

[Mercutio]

Why do you think creationists always accuse biologists of making claims about the origins of life? Biology only deals with the evolution of biological organisms, but natural selection is far broader. Once you recognize that selective pressures can be responsible for the change in organisms, you must also accept that living organisms can arise from non-living substances through natural selection.
First...why do creationists do this? Because it is part of a rhetorical divide-and-conquer strategy to attack on several fronts and take advantage of, say, a biologist's ignorance of cosmology and vice versa. Second, I never limited natural selection to living organisms, merely to reproducing (with heritability) organisms. I have posted on here (months ago) about a wonderful example of natural selection in teddy bears. The means of reproduction was human-mediated, but it fit all of the criteria for natural selection. And your last sentence...unless the non-living substances fit the criteria (reproducing, with inheritable characteristics), then natural selection does not apply until those criteria are met.

You don't understand your own arguments. Points 1 and 2 did not define natural selection as applying to reproducing organisms. They were just statements of how natural selection applies to reproducing organisms. As I've pointed out several times before, the conclusion of that argument follows even when those assumptions are eliminated.
Right...when you redefine it, it fits more examples.

One final note: quit it with the appeals to authority. Creationists are the ones who argue that because modern biology doesn't use the exact same concepts in the exact same way that Darwin did, Darwinian evolution has been rejected. If you're not willing to apply reason to the perfectly acceptable English words and derive valid conclusions from them, don't bother replying. Natural selection can operate on reproducing organisms in more ways than it can on static populations, but it's still natural selection. If natural selection cannot be applied to a population, no other forms of selection can either - NS is the broadest and most inclusive conceptual form of selection there is.The appeal to authority, in this case, is to legitimate authority, and not fallacious.

My major argument was, and is, that the term "Natural Selection" is used in the literature much more narrowly than you use it in your examples here. Paul has tried to show other examples. You seem to be arguing that the way the term is used by the scientific community is wrong, not that the way I use it is different from how the scientific community uses it.

[BillHoyt]

Why do you think creationists always accuse biologists of making claims about the origins of life? Biology only deals with the evolution of biological organisms, but natural selection is far broader. Once you recognize that selective pressures can be responsible for the change in organisms, you must also accept that living organisms can arise from non-living substances through natural selection.
Sorry, this simply isn't so. Your opening sentence, I'm afraid, implies a subject / motive shift. Who cares why a group says a or not-a; it has nothing to do with whether the truth is a or not-a. Regardless of this fallacy, though, "natural selection" is NOT as broad as you claim. In fact, Darwin's original meaning has been NARROWED over the decades. His "natural selection" today is called "directional selection," and now known to be one of three principle selection modes.

[Mercutio]

Sorry, this simply isn't so. Your opening sentence, I'm afraid, implies a subject / motive shift. Who cares why a group says a or not-a; it has nothing to do with whether the truth is a or not-a. Regardless of this fallacy, though, "natural selection" is NOT as broad as you claim. In fact, Darwin's original meaning has been NARROWED over the decades. His "natural selection" today is called "directional selection," and now known to be one of three principle selection modes. If it has narrowed to one of three, is the evolution of stars, metals, etc. (as per the cartoon) contained within any of the three?

[BillHoyt]

If it has narrowed to one of three, is the evolution of stars, metals, etc. (as per the cartoon) contained within any of the three?
In a word, no. I think Melendwyr is simply confusing the terms evolution and natural selection. Natural selection is one of the mechanisms we critters use to change over time (that is, evolve).

[PatKelley]

You're assuming there is such a limit - true about the real world, but not necessary for the argument.

But it is. Finite numbers are necessary else one never is talking about selection. A population assumes proportion, which as near as I can tell does not allow infinity as the denominator.

No one is talking about that - the whole point is that the environmental effects are selective, affecting some trait combinations more than others. An environmental pressure that acts on a whole population equally obviously will not result in evolution.

That is my point. You spoke of rocks in a streambed. It is precisely this of which you spoke, and it was your example of "selection."

That's not my argument. You've resorted to building strawmen.

You stated that rounding of rocks in a streambed was an example of selection. That is not a strawman; it is your statement. If it fits the definition of blanket effect, it does little good to accuse me of building strawmen when you are the holder of the incorrect analogy "bag" as it were.

[Melendwyr]

In fact, Darwin's original meaning has been NARROWED over the decades. In the field of biology, which has developed more specialized terms to discuss the kinds of selection that take place within populations of organisms.

'Confused evolution and natural selection'? Did you even read my previous posts?

[Melendwyr]

But it is. Finite numbers are necessary else one never is talking about selection. A population assumes proportion, which as near as I can tell does not allow infinity as the denominator. Unlimited population growth permits evolutionary change. "Infinity" never enters into it.

That is my point. You spoke of rocks in a streambed. It is precisely this of which you spoke, and it was your example of "selection." You idiot, the pressures in my earlier example don't apply equally to all members of the population!

[Melendwyr]

If it has narrowed to one of three, is the evolution of stars, metals, etc. (as per the cartoon) contained within any of the three? Even ignoring the contexually improper use of 'evolve', BillHoyt spoke of selection methods, and you're asking if certain end results are included in his statement. Of course they're not.

[Mercutio]

I must be misunderstanding something you say here...
Even ignoring the contexually improper use of 'evolve', BillHoyt spoke of selection methods, and you're asking if certain end results are included in his statement. Of course they're not.
Hey, I am the one who said these things are not natural selection, remember? All I am doing is looking to see another person's opinion of whether I am using my terms improperly.

Recall: the cartoon used the term "evolve". I pointed out that it used it in three different senses, none of which were Natural Selection (which is the centerpiece of the Theory of Evolution, mentioned in the last panel of the cartoon). You are the one who said that Natural Selection does apply to each of those uses of the term "evolve". So now...the context does call for the word "evolve", your argument was that natural selection does apply, and I asked Hoyt whether his clarification might somehow reconcile your view with mine.

Of course not.

[Melendwyr]

Hey, I am the one who said these things are not natural selection, remember? All I am doing is looking to see another person's opinion of whether I am using my terms improperly. Natural selection is a process. Evolution is a result. Asking whether a result is a subset of a group of processes is inane.

Recall: the cartoon used the term "evolve". I pointed out that it used it in three different senses, none of which were Natural Selection (which is the centerpiece of the Theory of Evolution, mentioned in the last panel of the cartoon). Of course none of them are Natural Selection! A more intelligent observation would have been that none of those usages were compatible with the "change in the traits of a population over time" meaning that a comparison was being drawn to, and they are in fact used improperly.

You are the one who said that Natural Selection does apply to each of those uses of the term "evolve". Liar. Or fool. I don't know which, and I don't really care. I never said any such thing.

[BillHoyt]

In the field of biology, which has developed more specialized terms to discuss the kinds of selection that take place within populations of organisms.

'Confused evolution and natural selection'? Did you even read my previous posts?
"Natural selection" is a term within biology. Its narrowing within biology, therefore, is a narrowing overall. Yes, you've confused terms. Yes, I've read your posts, and stand by everything I've written thus far.

[BillHoyt]

You idiot, the pressures in my earlier example don't apply equally to all members of the population!
Your argument seems to rest on this fallacy of equivocation. You seem to confuse "natural selection" with "selection." When I select a marble from an urn, there is no "natural selection" involved.

[PatKelley]

Of course none of them are Natural Selection! A more intelligent observation would have been that none of those usages were compatible with the "change in the traits of a population over time" meaning that a comparison was being drawn to, and they are in fact used improperly.

Technically, that's genetic drift. Natural Selection is operating on a current population. Iterations of that cause a subset of the population to be selected for the next generation. There is no change, just alteration in proportions of the population. Genetic drift allows mutations within a population, and is the second contributing factor besides iterative selection pressure or Natural Selection.

[Melendwyr]

Technically, that's genetic drift. No, genetic drift is the change in the gene distribution of a reproducing population due solely to mutation and the statistical effects of random mate selection. Very different concept.

One thing you did get correct, though: genetic drift is one of the possible causes of evolution. It only applies to reproducing organisms, however.

[PatKelley]

Unlimited population growth permits evolutionary change. "Infinity" never enters into it.

There is no such thing; it is a fallacy to assume unlimited population growth, as selection pressure implies a limit as well. One can assume arbitrarily large populations, or proportional measures, but never is an unlimited population implied or used. This the rejoinder to "Fermi's Paradox" in that growth is not infinitely exponential but subject to limits rather than being unlimited.

You idiot, the pressures in my earlier example don't apply equally to all members of the population!
You never stipulated that any rocks in the population were not in the river, ergo not involved. The population was the rocks in a river; ergo it does apply equally to all members of a population.

[PatKelley]

Double-Post. Sorry. Nothing to see.

[PatKelley]

No, genetic drift is the change in the gene distribution of a reproducing population due solely to mutation and the statistical effects of random mate selection. Very different concept.

One thing you did get correct, though: genetic drift is one of the possible causes of evolution. It only applies to reproducing organisms, however.
Genetic drift is the change in the gene frequency within a population due to mutation; it is independant of selection pressure. It is referred to as "stochastic" in that it, independant of selection, will cause gene frequency changes. That is "change in the traits of a population over time." Selection for or against traits does not change traits of a population; it only alters their ratios.

[BillHoyt]

No, genetic drift is the change in the gene distribution of a reproducing population due solely to mutation and the statistical effects of random mate selection. Very different concept.
Mutation pressure is mutation pressure. It is not random drift. It also has nothing to do with mate selection. That is a selection force. Please get your facts straight before you get called out.

[BillHoyt]

Genetic drift is the change in the gene frequency within a population due to mutation; it is independant of selection pressure. It is referred to as "stochastic" in that it, independant of selection, will cause gene frequency changes. That is "change in the traits of a population over time." Selection for or against traits does not change traits of a population; it only alters their ratios.
Please see my post above regarding mutation. It is termed "stochastic" because it is stochastic, period.

[Melendwyr]

There is no such thing; it is a fallacy to assume unlimited population growth, as selection pressure implies a limit as well. One can assume arbitrarily large populations, or proportional measures, but never is an unlimited population implied or used. This the rejoinder to "Fermi's Paradox" in that growth is not infinitely exponential but subject to limits rather than being unlimited. Evolution will take place in an expanding population. Whether there are ultimately any limits upon growth is unknown, but as an argument against my position, you've accomplished nothing.

You never stipulated that any rocks in the population were not in the river, ergo not involved. The population was the rocks in a river; ergo it does apply equally to all members of a population. You've completely missed the point, fool. The river does not have equal effect on all the rocks in it.

[Mercutio]

Liar. Or fool. I don't know which, and I don't really care. I never said any such thing.
Except on page 15 of this thread.
Natural selection does apply to all of those situations. Evolutionary biology, however, is only concerned with natural selection as it applies to living organisms - it makes no statements about the origins of life or the existence of matter.
I am glad to see that you appear to retract your original statement.

[PatKelley]

Please see my post above regarding mutation. It is termed "stochastic" because it is stochastic, period.
I'm taking the raw definition of "Genetic Drift" not "Mutation Pressure."
A rate of mutation plus other factors can determine the amount of genetic drift, but absent selection pressure it is an accumulation of mutation; essentially random in which factors are affected, and more precisely affected by the genetic makeup of the population in regards to which traits are subject to mutation. In its raw term this is what Melendwyr stated and described rather than natural selection

[PatKelley]

Evolution will take place in an expanding population. Whether there are ultimately any limits upon growth is unknown, but as an argument against my position, you've accomplished nothing.
There is no selection pressure in the situation you describe. As the population grows, it will simply be described by the same bell curve. A reduction in the reproduction rate of some cannot be described in an infinite series, as all end up with an infinite number of offspring, and it is difficult to parse infinities as greater or lesser.

And to clarify:
infinite
adj 1: having no limits or boundaries in time or space or extent or
magnitude;


You've completely missed the point, fool. The river does not have equal effect on all the rocks in it.
Pebbles come in all shapes and sizes. Pebbles with extrusions are more likely to hit another object, or be hit against by an object, in a way that causes wearing. Wearing can cause a jagged edge to become rounded, or a rounded pebble to become jagged again, but rounded edges are harder to turn jagged than vice versa. Over time, the distribution of shapes will be dominated by roundness.

Change in the entire population shifts the bell-curve. It does not select against a population, as all individuals are still present. I have not accomplished selection pressure by crippling the right foreleg of every member of a herd, though over time the distribution of mobility will be shifted towards lameness. The distribution of lameness has changed; the population has not.

By the way, the jagged rocks in a streambed argument is very much Lamarckian in that it involves somatic organism change representing the population change over time. It does not, however, eliminate members of a population from contributing to the next iteration of sorting which is the selection pressure mechanism.

[Melendwyr]

It also has nothing to do with mate selection. That is a selection force. Please get your facts straight before you get called out. Who said anything about mate selection? Randomly choosing which organisms will mate will often result in a change in the gene distribution of the resulting population. No special selective pressures need to exist.

Read the posts, fool. Then take the time to actually grasp their meaning.

[Melendwyr]

There is no selection pressure in the situation you describe. As the population grows, it will simply be described by the same bell curve. Not if some members reproduce more than others. The more successful variants will eventually vastly outnumber the less successful ones.

Remarkable, isn't it, how desperate people are to avoid admitting they were wrong?

[PatKelley]

Not if some members reproduce more than others. The more successful variants will eventually vastly outnumber the less successful ones.

Remarkable, isn't it, how desperate people are to avoid admitting they were wrong?
Maybe you do not understand "Unlimited." Absent limits, there are no selection pressures that prevent one organism from contributing to the next generation. With an unlimited amount of sand to be sorted, have I changed the prevalence of large grains by putting more over here than over there?

[PatKelley]

Not if some members reproduce more than others. The more successful variants will eventually vastly outnumber the less successful ones.

Remarkable, isn't it, how desperate people are to avoid admitting they were wrong?
I also note you did not address the remainder of my post. Is this what you were referring to in the second portion of your post?

[rwguinn]

Your argument seems to rest on this fallacy of equivocation. You seem to confuse "natural selection" with "selection." When I select a marble from an urn, there is no "natural selection" involved.

and just to throw more confusion into the mix, the round pebbles in a streambed are not "Selected", they are CREATED.
Erosion does tat sort of thing. The pebbles are not positioned by being round. They are round by virtue of their position.

[BillHoyt]

I'm taking the raw definition of "Genetic Drift" not "Mutation Pressure."
A rate of mutation plus other factors can determine the amount of genetic drift, but absent selection pressure it is an accumulation of mutation; essentially random in which factors are affected, and more precisely affected by the genetic makeup of the population in regards to which traits are subject to mutation. In its raw term this is what Melendwyr stated and described rather than natural selection
I think my post confused you here. I was writing about two different things. Drift is NOT an accumulation of mutation. Drift is a stochastic effect, and very distinct from mutation.

[BillHoyt]

Who said anything about mate selection?
You did, and I quoted you back. I've read enough of your nonsense now to conclude you're having fun at JREF expense. I will ignore you from now on. Go find a kiddie site, please; this is for mature people to discuss issues, not for pimply faced adolescents who've broken their video game players and need to find another way to kill time.

[PatKelley]

I think my post confused you here. I was writing about two different things. Drift is NOT an accumulation of mutation. Drift is a stochastic effect, and very distinct from mutation.
Okeydoke.
Is that "Drift" in the sense separate from "Genetic Drift?" Is then mutation a mechanism of drift for genetic organisms rather than an accumulation of mutation?

[BillHoyt]

Okeydoke.
Is that "Drift" in the sense separate from "Genetic Drift?" Is then mutation a mechanism of drift for genetic organisms rather than an accumulation of mutation?
I'm using "drift" and "genetic drift" interchangeably. The terms have gotten hard definitions from the population genetics literature that has had to isolate the variables clearly so that evolution can be expressed mathematically. Mutation pressure comes from the rate at which a particular mutation enters the population. Genetic drift is a purely statistical affair. It is like tossing a coin a number of times. You expect to get exactly 1/2 heads and 1/2 tails, but you will rarely get that in any particular series of tosses. Some sets of 10 tosses, for example, will give you 6 and 4; some 7 and 3 or even 2 and 8. This isn't a selection pressure, but in a small enough population, it can effectivelyact like one. If the population is very tiny, it can "fix" the "wild type" allele (that is, put it in 100% of the population) or it can "fix" any mutation to that allele, just because of its stochastic nature. In a larger population, it can cause fluctuations from generation to generation, resulting in smaller (percentage-wise) "random walks" of the population.

[BillHoyt]

If it has narrowed to one of three, is the evolution of stars, metals, etc. (as per the cartoon) contained within any of the three?
No, mercutio, I'm afraid our friend is just blowin' smoke up our collective rear end. When other scientists use the term "evolution" for stars, for example, they mean it in the same way that engineers speak of the "evolution" of the automobile over the past century-plus. That is all. Deliberately twisting the meaning as is being done here, is equivocation at best.

[PatKelley]

I'm using "drift" and "genetic drift" interchangeably. The terms have gotten hard definitions from the population genetics literature that has had to isolate the variables clearly so that evolution can be expressed mathematically. Mutation pressure comes from the rate at which a particular mutation enters the population. Genetic drift is a purely statistical affair. It is like tossing a coin a number of times. You expect to get exactly 1/2 heads and 1/2 tails, but you will rarely get that in any particular series of tosses. Some sets of 10 tosses, for example, will give you 6 and 4; some 7 and 3 or even 2 and 8. This isn't a selection pressure, but in a small enough population, it can effectivelyact like one. If the population is very tiny, it can "fix" the "wild type" allele (that is, put it in 100% of the population) or it can "fix" any mutation to that allele, just because of its stochastic nature. In a larger population, it can cause fluctuations from generation to generation, resulting in smaller (percentage-wise) "random walks" of the population.


Okay. Now I get it.

[BillHoyt]

Okay. Now I get it.
Kewl. ;)

[delphi_ote]

Except on page 15 of this thread.

I am glad to see that you appear to retract your original statement.

Note that Melendwyr totally ignored this post and has used the word "fool" quite a bit. I think someone is insecure and afraid to admit he's wrong. Wonder when he'll stop digging. :dig:

[Mercutio]

Note that Melendwyr totally ignored this post and has used the word "fool" quite a bit. I think someone is insecure and afraid to admit he's wrong. Wonder when he'll stop digging. :dig:
Aw, come on. He only used the word "fool" once after my post.

Remarkable, isn't it, how desperate people are to avoid admitting they were wrong?

[delphi_ote]

Aw, come on. He only used the word "fool" once after my post.

Yea, but he's certainly been getting nasty about this argument as the thread has gone on.

Read the posts, fool.
You've completely missed the point, fool.
Liar. Or fool. I don't know which, and I don't really care.
You idiot, the pressures in my earlier example don't apply equally to all members of the population!

Almost like his argument is falling apart...

[chipmunk stew]

Remarkable, isn't it, how desperate people are to avoid admitting they were wrong?Ah, yes. Quite remarkable. And in some cases, quite ironic.

[Melendwyr]

Almost like his argument is falling apart... There are only so many times I can watch someone misstate an argument (either intentionally or unintentionally) before I can't respect the misstater any longer.

Thus far, we've had corrections that didn't apply, restatements that didn't reflect what was said, confusions about the context of the debate, and straight-out lying. We've also experienced the social phenomenon of "Me, too!", which is surprising (and disappointing) for this forum.

[Melendwyr]

Except on page 15 of this thread. I said natural selection applies to all of those cases.

You said: "You are the one who said that Natural Selection does apply to each of those uses of the term 'evolve'."

My statement (which you quoted!): "Natural selection does apply to all of those situations."

The 'situations' referred to are the incidents mentioned in the cartoon. It's the use of 'evolve' in regards to those situations that's misleading, since evolution as a result of natural selection does not mean the same thing as the word in general English.

[Melendwyr]

You did, and I quoted you back. Wrong. You're talking about certain forms of sexual selection. I'm talking about the random allotment of mating partners, which by itself can lead to a change in the distribution of traits.

It's impossible to argue with people too desperate to score points (or too stupid) to understand the opponent's statements properly. This explains a lot of the protracted arguments I've seen you get into.

[Mercutio]

I said natural selection applies to all of those cases.

You said: "You are the one who said that Natural Selection does apply to each of those uses of the term 'evolve'."

My statement (which you quoted!): "Natural selection does apply to all of those situations."

The 'situations' referred to are the incidents mentioned in the cartoon. It's the use of 'evolve' in regards to those situations that's misleading, since evolution as a result of natural selection does not mean the same thing as the word in general English.
Each of those situations does involve evolution, in that each of those situations involves change over time. None of them involve evolution via natural selection, which is implied by his last panel, naming the Theory of Evolution specifically. This is what you say in your last sentence, and this was my point.

My comment, "Three uses of "evolved" in the cartoon, and thus far not one of them is how Darwin used the term..." is correct. Your comment, "Natural selection does apply to all of those situations", is incorrect.

I agree, his use of "evolve" was misleading. It was misleading because none of the uses of "evolve" was an example of evolution by natural selection. Still, he tries to infer that his strawman is more believable than the Theory of Evolution, the cornerstone of which is the mechanism of natural selection. His examples simply do not apply...your comment notwithstanding.

Your enthusiastic defense of your claim leads me to believe that you meant to say something else. But what you did say...was wrong.

[Melendwyr]

Each of those situations does involve evolution, in that each of those situations involves change over time. None of them involve evolution via natural selection, which is implied by his last panel, naming the Theory of Evolution specifically. But this is wrong.

My comment, "Three uses of "evolved" in the cartoon, and thus far not one of them is how Darwin used the term..." is correct. Correct. Your comment, "Natural selection does apply to all of those situations", is incorrect. No, it's not.

I agree, his use of "evolve" was misleading. It was misleading because none of the uses of "evolve" was an example of evolution by natural selection. Correct. Still, he tries to infer that his strawman is more believable than the Theory of Evolution, the cornerstone of which is the mechanism of natural selection. His examples simply do not apply... Also correct.

Your enthusiastic defense of your claim leads me to believe that you meant to say something else. But what you did say...was wrong. No.

[Mercutio]

But this is wrong.

...because...

[Melendwyr]

...because...... those situations do indeed involve natural selection, although those aspects were not presented in the cartoon.

Natural selection is anything in an environment that causes traits to take on differential viability or persistance - the phrase is really an abbreviation for "natural selection of traits or properties", after all.

Evolution (in the specialized sense, not in the most general meaning) occurs as a result of natural selection, although it can have other causes. It is the change in the distribution of traits in a population. The more general sense of the word implies any kind of change, which is how the cartoonist was using it (improperly).

Pulling marbles out of an urn blindly is not natural selection, even if it leads to a change in the distribution of urn-marble-traits through random chance. If some marbles are denser than others, and sink to the bottom of the urn, and the marbles atop are more likely to be removed, then that is natural selection, and the marble population is virtually guaranteed to evolve.

[delphi_ote]

There are only so many times I can watch someone misstate an argument (either intentionally or unintentionally) before I can't respect the misstater any longer.

Thus far, we've had corrections that didn't apply, restatements that didn't reflect what was said, confusions about the context of the debate, and straight-out lying. We've also experienced the social phenomenon of "Me, too!", which is surprising (and disappointing) for this forum.

"I understand the concept of natural selection." "Me, too!"

I can see why this might disappoint you.

Reproduction is key in the concept of natural selection. It only applies to organisms. The marbles in your bag do not evolve.

[Mercutio]

... those situations do indeed involve natural selection, although those aspects were not presented in the cartoon.

Natural selection is anything in an environment that causes traits to take on differential viability or persistance - the phrase is really an abbreviation for "natural selection of traits or properties", after all.

Evolution (in the specialized sense, not in the most general meaning) occurs as a result of natural selection, although it can have other causes. It is the change in the distribution of traits in a population. The more general sense of the word implies any kind of change, which is how the cartoonist was using it (improperly).

Ok...thanks. I understand your position now. I am afraid I still disagree with you, and unless I am still misunderstanding you, you are indeed using the term differently than I have ever seen.

Natural selection, as the technically defined phrase, requires a population which reproduces and has heritable characteristics. (It does not require that they be "alive"--teddy bears and automobiles are subject to natural selection, both using us as their means of reproduction.) Mother stars do not pass on their fitness to daughter stars (to the best of my knowledge), and (again, to the best of my knowledge) there is no selective advantage passed on to metals, by which we could term them "more reproductively fit". I understand that you are specifically denying that this is a necessary part of "natural selection"; it will take more than your argument to convince me, though. (Again, a start would be the use of the term by scientists other than biologists, in your broad sense rather than as a metaphor derived from the biological definition.)

I am heartened to see that your argument does not mean (as I was initially led to believe) that you thought Wright's cartoon used the term "evolved" in the exact same, and proper, sense in each of his uses. On that, at least, we can agree.

[Mercutio]

Reproduction is key in the concept of natural selection. It only applies to organisms. The marbles in your bag do not evolve.
It does not apply only to organisms. It does apply only to things which reproduce. The process of natural selection can explain the year-to-year evolution of teddy bears (as more fit designs, which sell better, are copied for the next year, and unsuccessful designs go extinct) or automobiles (same process).

Of course, one could argue that these uses are metaphorical. Perhaps, but arguably not. Darwin's summary only requires that the population reproduces and inherits, not that it is alive.

[PatKelley]

... those situations do indeed involve natural selection, although those aspects were not presented in the cartoon.

Natural selection is anything in an environment that causes traits to take on differential viability or persistance - the phrase is really an abbreviation for "natural selection of traits or properties", after all.

Evolution (in the specialized sense, not in the most general meaning) occurs as a result of natural selection, although it can have other causes. It is the change in the distribution of traits in a population. The more general sense of the word implies any kind of change, which is how the cartoonist was using it (improperly).

Pulling marbles out of an urn blindly is not natural selection, even if it leads to a change in the distribution of urn-marble-traits through random chance. If some marbles are denser than others, and sink to the bottom of the urn, and the marbles atop are more likely to be removed, then that is natural selection, and the marble population is virtually guaranteed to evolve.
The marble population will not evolve. It will experience iterative selection pressure resulting in removal of some traits from the population. It will evolve if a) the marbles replicate and pass traits on to descendants and b) that replication is subject to mutation.

[Melendwyr]

(It does not require that they be "alive"--teddy bears and automobiles are subject to natural selection, both using us as their means of reproduction.) Neither contain heritable information. It's not the objects themselves which undergo natural selection, but the manufacturers' ideas about what the objects should be like. Those ideas do not reproduce in any conventional sense - rather, the essentially static population of manufacturers' ideas on the subject changes as the individual ideas are modified in response to consumer demand. The selection pressure operates over time, but in determining what ideas will persist, not which ones will reproduce.

Thus, both the ideas and the objects made with their designs evolve, but only the ideas undergo natural selection.

You do agree with me. You just haven't realized it yet.

[sphenisc]

Is it just me or is just an argument about definitions?

You're all free, along with Humpty Dumpty, to define 'natural selection' anyway you like. If you want to discuss together then I suggest you look up ' The Bumper Book of Biological Words', Wikipedia or whatever other source you can agree on. Otherwise that's it, end of story, there's no point arguing about whose definition's right. :)

[BillHoyt]

Almost like his argument is falling apart...
Or he's a poseur, or both... That's why I'm ignoring the turkey. His game is fairly apparent to me. I'll leave it to others to determine their individual "fed up" points.

[BillHoyt]

Is it just me or is just an argument about definitions?

You're all free, along with Humpty Dumpty, to define 'natural selection' anyway you like. If you want to discuss together then I suggest you look up ' The Bumper Book of Biological Words', Wikipedia or whatever other source you can agree on. Otherwise that's it, end of story, there's no point arguing about whose definition's right. :)
Nonsense. Malarky. There is no communication without definitions. This definition was first created by Darwin, and since amended by other biologists. It is not determined by consenus, vote, or any other idiotic bastardization of democratic principlies.

[sphenisc]

Nonsense. Malarky. There is no communication without definitions. This definition was first created by Darwin, and since amended by other biologists. It is not determined by consenus, vote, or any other idiotic bastardization of democratic principlies.

Yes, I see your point BillHoyt, though it might be more convincing if you didn't make up new words to end posts.

[PatKelley]

Neither contain heritable information. It's not the objects themselves which undergo natural selection, but the manufacturers' ideas about what the objects should be like. Those ideas do not reproduce in any conventional sense - rather, the essentially static population of manufacturers' ideas on the subject changes as the individual ideas are modified in response to consumer demand. The selection pressure operates over time, but in determining what ideas will persist, not which ones will reproduce.

Thus, both the ideas and the objects made with their designs evolve, but only the ideas undergo natural selection.

You do agree with me. You just haven't realized it yet.
Incorrect. The idea or information represents the heritable template of the physical object, that which is passed from generation to generation. It is only subject to selection pressure in the form of expression. Ergo, recessive genes are not subject to selection pressure if they are not expressed, and so can remain in a population. The information is there and heritable, but until it is expressed (via a double-recessive) it is not subject to selection pressure.

The upshot is that it involves expression. Information which has no bearing (no pun intended) on expression does not experience selection pressure. The original concept was that a population of physical objects changing over time represented selection pressure. This is false, no matter how it is expressed (pun intended).

[BillHoyt]

Incorrect. The idea or information represents the heritable template of the physical object, that which is passed from generation to generation. It is only subject to selection pressure in the form of expression. Ergo, recessive genes are not subject to selection pressure if they are not expressed, and so can remain in a population. The information is there and heritable, but until it is expressed (via a double-recessive) it is not subject to selection pressure.
Small correction, Pat: this is true for simple dominance, but not true for incomplete dominance.

[Melendwyr]

Incorrect. The idea or information represents the heritable template of the physical object, that which is passed from generation to generation. The template is not passed from one generation of objects to another. Again: it's not the objects that are subject to selection pressure. A car that is built or bear that is sewn exists, and people do not go around destroying the ones they don't like - or copying ones they do. People's behavior towards the objects determine the success of the templates - but templates do not reproduce in any conventional sense. They do not recombine. They don't mutate. And people starting new teddy bear or car production lines do not simply copy inherited blueprints.

The original concept was that a population of physical objects changing over time represented selection pressure. This is false, no matter how it is expressed (pun intended). That IS false. The argument is not that a population of physical objects changing over time represents selection pressure. The argument is that the differential viability of the properties of physical objects represents selection pressure.

[PatKelley]

The template is not passed from one generation of objects to another. Again: it's not the objects that are subject to selection pressure. A car that is built or bear that is sewn exists, and people do not go around destroying the ones they don't like - or copying ones they do. People's behavior towards the objects determine the success of the templates - but templates do not reproduce in any conventional sense. They do not recombine. They don't mutate. And people starting new teddy bear or car production lines do not simply copy inherited blueprints.


I'm not in the auto industry, but correct me if I am wrong in stating I think engine designs from previous years are not discarded? That popularity drives things like, oh I don't know, a prevalence of SUV designs as gas prices plummeted, and that now that gas prices are high, people are turning away from SUV designs? Don't cars wear out, too? I'm not currently aware of a car with a lifetime warranty, but again, I may be incorrect. Don't most of them run on gasoline too, after the steam designs didn't quite catch on?

And with teddy bears, weren't there a slew of copycats of the whole collectable stuffed toy craze came out? Didn't they stick close to a bear-only model when making color variants?

I must really have been somewhere else the last ten years.



That IS false. The argument is not that a population of physical objects changing over time represents selection pressure. The argument is that the differential viability of the properties of physical objects represents selection pressure.

So your argument is not for pebbles in a stream.

[PatKelley]

Small correction, Pat: this is true for simple dominance, but not true for incomplete dominance.
Thought of including it, but did not want to confuse the issue. :) Best example I can think of is sickle-cell anemia.

[BillHoyt]

Thought of including it, but did not want to confuse the issue. :) Best example I can think of is sickle-cell anemia.
I thought that might have been the case. There's always a problem with trying to explain something just enough to get the point across versus failing to cover some of the details. Sickle cell anemia is always the first example that pops into my mind as well. (Also a good example of why seemingly deleterious alleles can be maintained in a population.)

[Melendwyr]

I'm not in the auto industry, but correct me if I am wrong in stating I think engine designs from previous years are not discarded? That popularity drives things like, oh I don't know, a prevalence of SUV designs as gas prices plummeted, and that now that gas prices are high, people are turning away from SUV designs? It says a great deal that you can't recognize a genuine example of Intelligent Design. (Although whether car manufacturers said be said to be intelligent designs is another matter.)

[delphi_ote]

natural selection n. a natural process that results in the survival of individuals or groups best adjusted to the conditions under which they live and that is equally important for the perpetuation of desirable genetic qualities and for the elimination of undesirable ones as these are produced by recombination or mutation of genes
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary

That's the only definition of that term I've been able to find anywhere (some varations on it, but they all explicitly mention genes or organisms.) Since this is your claim, please cite an authoratative source (i.e. a textbook, a dictionary, an encyclopedia, or the like) that explicity defines the term in another way.

There may well be some analogy between these two concepts, but that does not mean this technical term applies to both.

[Mercutio]

Neither contain heritable information.
Surely you are not saying that '97 Mustangs do not resemble '96 Mustangs more than they resemble '97 Impalas...I know you are not saying that.
It's not the objects themselves which undergo natural selection, but the manufacturers' ideas about what the objects should be like. Interestingly, the same debate exists in biological organisms--is an organism simply DNA's method of reproducing itself?
Those ideas do not reproduce in any conventional sense - rather, the essentially static population of manufacturers' ideas on the subject changes as the individual ideas are modified in response to consumer demand. Recall, the definition does not specify a method of reproduction. Cars (and teddy bears) are parasitic; they rely on humans for their reproduction.
The selection pressure operates over time, but in determining what ideas will persist, not which ones will reproduce.I have never actually seen an idea. I have seen cars and teddy bears. Their characteristics are selected by consumers. I have yet to see a child prefer a particular bear's idea over another's.


Thus, both the ideas and the objects made with their designs evolve, but only the ideas undergo natural selection.Um....no. Actually, I can see your claim, in the same sense as DNA undergoes selection rather than the whole organism...but in the normal use of the term, I must disagree.

You do agree with me. You just haven't realized it yet.Unless you are saying that stars reproduce, and that daughter stars inherit characteristics from mother stars (likewise for metals)...no. I agree only with the parts of your posts that are right. :D

[delphi_ote]

It does not apply only to organisms. It does apply only to things which reproduce. The process of natural selection can explain the year-to-year evolution of teddy bears (as more fit designs, which sell better, are copied for the next year, and unsuccessful designs go extinct) or automobiles (same process).

Of course, one could argue that these uses are metaphorical. Perhaps, but arguably not. Darwin's summary only requires that the population reproduces and inherits, not that it is alive.

Teddy bears do not reproduce. Nor do marbles. We could talk about ideas reproducing and being selected, but Dawkins already did that for us.

[Mercutio]

Teddy bears do not reproduce. Nor do marbles. We could talk about ideas reproducing and being selected, but Dawkins already did that for us.
As I said above, with tongue in cheek, teddy bears reproduce parasitically. They depend on us. Natural selection does not specify a method of reproduction, only that the second generation resemble the first, with some variability. This is certainly the case with teddy bears.

Are teddy bears an imperfect example? Grudgingly, I admit it. Are teddy bears much much closer to an example of natural selection than stars are? Unquestionably.

[PatKelley]

It says a great deal that you can't recognize a genuine example of Intelligent Design. (Although whether car manufacturers said be said to be intelligent designs is another matter.)
And with that backhanded non-sequitur, I bid you adieu.

[delphi_ote]

As I said above, with tongue in cheek, teddy bears reproduce parasitically. They depend on us. Natural selection does not specify a method of reproduction, only that the second generation resemble the first, with some variability. This is certainly the case with teddy bears.

Are teddy bears an imperfect example? Grudgingly, I admit it. Are teddy bears much much closer to an example of natural selection than stars are? Unquestionably.

I didn't see that the first time around. Hilarious and very Douglas Adams!

You could drive yourself absolutely insane with that idea if you take it to an extreme. Perhaps we are merely slaves to what we think of as inanimate bars of soap, computer parts, and plastic toys. We exist only to produce more refined versions of these things. We don't write books to preserve our thoughts, our thoughts exist only to prod us into producing more and better books. We only have an illusion of utility for these devices. We actually create the uses out of whole cloth to suit the true dominant species of our planet.

Of course, you could also view it as a symbiotic evolution, which gives the image of a child clutching their favorite toy a new poignancy.

Despite your brilliant and humorous analogy, every definition of "natural selection" I can find includes the words "gene" or "organism" or both. It's hogwash!

Unless of course we imagine that the "genes" of the teddy bear exist somehow in our minds... which an interesting concept, actually. We'd also have to come up with an excuse for their being "self replicating." I guess we could say that their utility to us is actually inherent to them and causes their "reproductive system" (us) to make copies of them.

Unfortuantely, the definition of "life" shoots us down again (the definition of "organism" includes the word "living".) It includes "metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism." Teddy bears don't metabolize or grow, and they certainly don't adapt to their enviornment from within.

[Dr Adequate]

Perhaps we are merely slaves to what we think of as inanimate bars of soap, computer parts, and plastic toys. We exist only to produce more refined versions of these thing.
DARWIN AMONG THE MACHINES

Sir --- There are few things of which the present generation is more justly proud than of the wonderful improvements which are daily taking place in all sorts of mechanical appliances. And indeed it is matter for great congratulation on many grounds. It is unnecessary to mention these here, for they are sufficiently obvious; our present business lies with considerations which may somewhat tend to humble our pride and to make us think seriously of the future prospects of the human race. If we revert to the earliest primordial types of mechanical life, to the lever, the wedge, the inclined plane, the screw and the pulley, or (for analogy would lead us one step further) to that one primordial type from which all the mechanical kingdom has been developed, we mean to the lever itself, and if we then examine the machinery of the Great Eastern, we find ourselves almost awestruck at the vast development of the mechanical world, at the gigantic strides with which it has advanced in comparison with the slow progress of the animal and vegetable kingdom. We shall find it impossible to refrain from asking ourselves what the end of this mighty movement is to be. In what direction is it tending? What will be its upshot? To give a few imperfect hints towards a solution of these questions is the object of the present letter.

We have used the words "mechanical life," "the mechanical kingdom," "the mechanical world" and so forth, and we have done so advisedly, for as the vegetable kingdom was slowly developed from the mineral, and as in like manner the animal supervened upon the vegetable, so now in these last few ages an entirely new kingdom has sprung up, of which we as yet have only seen what will one day be considered the antediluvian prototypes of the race.

We regret deeply that our knowledge both of natural history and of machinery is too small to enable us to undertake the gigantic task of classifying machines into the genera and sub-genera, species, varieties and sub-varieties, and so forth, of tracing the connecting links between machines of widely different characters, of pointing out how subservience to the use of man has played that part among machines which natural selection has performed in the animal and vegetable kingdoms, of pointing out rudimentary organs which exist in some few machines, feebly developed and perfectly useless, yet serving to mark descent from some ancestral type which has either perished or been modified into some new phase of mechanical existence. We can only point out this field for investigation; it must be followed by others whose education and talents have been of a much higher order than any which we can lay claim to.

Some few hints we have determined to venture upon, though we do so with the profoundest diffidence. Firstly, we would remark that as some of the lowest of the vertebrata attained a far greater size than has descended to their more highly organised living representatives, so a diminution in the size of machines has often attended their development and progress. Take the watch for instance. Examine the beautiful structure of the little animal, watch the intelligent play of the minute members which compose it; yet this little creature is but a development of the cumbrous clocks of the thirteenth century-- it is no deterioration from them. The day may come when clocks, which certainly at the present day are not diminishing in bulk, may be entirely superseded by the universal use of watches, in which case clocks will become extinct like the earlier saurians, while the watch (whose tendency has for some years been rather to decrease in size than the contrary) will remain the only existing type of an extinct race.

The views of machinery which we are thus feebly indicating will suggest the solution of one of the greatest and most mysterious questions of the day. We refer to the question: What sort of creature man's next successor in the supremacy of the earth is likely to be. We have often heard this debated; but it appears to us that we are ourselves creating our own successors; we are daily adding to the beauty and delicacy of their physical organisation; we are daily giving them greater power and supplying by all sorts of ingenious contrivances that self-regulating, self-acting power which will be to them what intellect has been to the human race. In the course of ages we shall find ourselves the inferior race. Inferior in power, inferior in that moral quality of self-control, we shall look up to them as the acme of all that the best and wisest man can ever dare to aim at. No evil passions, no jealousy, no avarice, no impure desires will disturb the serene might of those glorious creatures. Sin, shame, and sorrow will have no place among them. Their minds will be in a state of perpetual calm, the contentment of a spirit that knows no wants, is disturbed by no regrets. Ambition will never torture them. Ingratitude will never cause them the uneasiness of a moment. The guilty conscience, the hope deferred, the pains of exile, the insolence of office, and the spurns that patient merit of the unworthy takes--these will be entirely unknown to them. If they want "feeding" (by the use of which very word we betray our recognition of them as living organism) they will be attended by patient slaves whose business and interest it will be to see that they shall want for nothing. If they are out of order they will be promptly attended to by physicians who are thoroughly acquainted with their constitutions; if they die, for even these glorious animals will not be exempt from that necessary and universal consummation, they will immediately enter into a new phase of existence, for what machine dies entirely in every part at one and the same instant?

We take it that when the state of things shall have arrived which we have been above attempting to describe, man will have become to the machine what the horse and the dog are to man. He will continue to exist, nay even to improve, and will be probably better off in his state of domestication under the beneficent rule of the machines than he is in his present wild state. We treat our horses, dogs, cattle, and sheep, on the whole, with great kindness; we give them whatever experience teaches us to be best for them, and there can be no doubt that our use of meat has added to the happiness of the lower animals far more than it has detracted from it; in like manner it is reasonable to suppose that the machines will treat us kindly, for their existence is as dependent upon ours as ours is upon the lower animals. They cannot kill us and eat us as we do sheep; they will not only require our services in the parturition of their young (which branch of their economy will remain always in our hands), but also in feeding them, in setting them right when they are sick, and burying their dead or working up their corpses into new machines. It is obvious that if all the animals in Great Britain save man alone were to die, and if at the same time all intercourse with foreign countries were by some sudden catastrophe to be rendered perfectly impossible, it is obvious that under such circumstances the loss of human life would be something fearful to contemplate--in like manner were mankind to cease, the machines would be as badly off or even worse. The fact is that our interests are inseparable from theirs, and theirs from ours. Each race is dependent upon the other for innumerable benefits, and, until the reproductive organs of the machines have been developed in a manner which we are hardly yet able to conceive, they are entirely dependent upon man for even the continuance of their species. It is true that these organs may be ultimately developed, inasmuch as man's interest lies in that direction; there is nothing which our infatuated race would desire more than to see a fertile union between two steam engines; it is true that machinery is even at this present time employed in begetting machinery, in becoming the parent of machines often after its own kind, but the days of flirtation, courtship, and matrimony appear to be very remote, and indeed can hardly be realised by our feeble and imperfect imagination.

Day by day, however, the machines are gaining ground upon us; day by day we are becoming more subservient to them; more men are daily bound down as slaves to tend them, more men are daily devoting the energies of their whole lives to the development of mechanical life. The upshot is simply a question of time, but that the time will come when the machines will hold the real supremacy over the world and its inhabitants is what no person of a truly philosophic mind can for a moment question.

Our opinion is that war to the death should be instantly proclaimed against them. Every machine of every sort should be destroyed by the well-wisher of his species. Let there be no exceptions made, no quarter shown; let us at once go back to the primeval condition of the race. If it be urged that this is impossible under the present condition of human affairs, this at once proves that the mischief is already done, that our servitude has commenced in good earnest, that we have raised a race of beings whom it is beyond our power to destroy, and that we are not only enslaved but are absolutely acquiescent in our bondage.

For the present we shall leave this subject, which we present gratis to the members of the Philosophical Society. Should they consent to avail themselves of the vast field which we have pointed out, we shall endeavour to labour in it ourselves at some future and indefinite period.

I am, Sir, etc., CELLARIUS

[sphenisc]

DARWIN AMONG THE MACHINES

Sir --- There are ...[snip].. Should they consent to avail themselves of the vast field which we have pointed out, we shall endeavour to labour in it ourselves at some future and indefinite period.

I am, Sir, etc., CELLARIUS

I'm sure Dr. Adequate meant to credit this piece to Samuel Butler in 'Erehwon'. It necessary to do so, because having read other contributions by DR. A., it's wit, charm, detail and poetry might easily be mistaken as his own.

:)

[Melendwyr]

Teddy bears do not reproduce. Nor do marbles. Reproduction is not necessary for the evolution of populations. It most certainly isn't necessary for natural selection to take place.

[Melendwyr]

Surely you are not saying that '97 Mustangs do not resemble '96 Mustangs more than they resemble '97 Impalas...I know you are not saying that. Surely you are not saying that '97 Mustangs do not contain periodic crystal structures that encode basic aspects of their functioning, or that the parts of '97's were copied from disassembled parts of '96 Mustangs. I know you are not saying that.

Interestingly, the same debate exists in biological organisms--is an organism simply DNA's method of reproducing itself? Does an oak exist to produce acorns, or do acorns exist to produce oaks?

Recall, the definition does not specify a method of reproduction. Cars (and teddy bears) are parasitic; they rely on humans for their reproduction. Teddy bears do not pass on heritable information. Nor do fires. Or bricks.

Reproduction is not required.

I have never actually seen an idea. I have seen cars and teddy bears. Their characteristics are selected by consumers. I have yet to see a child prefer a particular bear's idea over another's. It's parents whose preferences skew teddy bear populations, not children.

Unless you are saying that stars reproduce, and that daughter stars inherit characteristics from mother stars (likewise for metals)...no. I agree only with the parts of your posts that are right. :D Again: reproduction is not required. Evolution can take place across generations or across time within a static population. Biology deals with life, and is therefore only concerned with the evolution of life, and reproduction is generally considered to be a necessary attribute of life. That does not mean that reproduction is necessary for evolution.

[PatKelley]

I didn't see that the first time around. Hilarious and very Douglas Adams!

You could drive yourself absolutely insane with that idea if you take it to an extreme. Perhaps we are merely slaves to what we think of as inanimate bars of soap, computer parts, and plastic toys. We exist only to produce more refined versions of these things. We don't write books to preserve our thoughts, our thoughts exist only to prod us into producing more and better books. We only have an illusion of utility for these devices. We actually create the uses out of whole cloth to suit the true dominant species of our planet.

Of course, you could also view it as a symbiotic evolution, which gives the image of a child clutching their favorite toy a new poignancy.

Despite your brilliant and humorous analogy, every definition of "natural selection" I can find includes the words "gene" or "organism" or both. It's hogwash!

Unless of course we imagine that the "genes" of the teddy bear exist somehow in our minds... which an interesting concept, actually. We'd also have to come up with an excuse for their being "self replicating." I guess we could say that their utility to us is actually inherent to them and causes their "reproductive system" (us) to make copies of them.

Unfortuantely, the definition of "life" shoots us down again (the definition of "organism" includes the word "living".) It includes "metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism." Teddy bears don't metabolize or grow, and they certainly don't adapt to their enviornment from within.
....eeeeeh - "...adapt to their environment from within" isn't really what happens in biological organisms. The population appears to adapt; but individuals are set and not adaptable in genetics. That's why behavior developed as an adjunct; learned behavior is adaptable, and heritable. It would call into question the status of a virus, which does not metabolize without a host organism, and it has one response: invade host.

What is going on with teddy bears in terms of selection pressure has to do with measuring success in economic terms; more "successful" teddy bears are replicated, less successful ones are not. In this way they are very much viruslike as a meme. A teddy bear meme has no economic selection pressure; expressed as a product, however, some are more successful at invading other hosts. The expressed designs that are popular find new hosts by infecting manufacturing plants, and the cycle begins anew with a modified meme reproducing. The popularity of an expressed meme is its fitness; more fit designs go to infect new plants due to their success in the wild and by consequence more widespread distribution.

I won't get into mimicry and Disney knock-offs...

[delphi_ote]

It most certainly isn't necessary for natural selection to take place.

http://wizbangblog.com/images/inigomontoya.jpg
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Please read the one and only definition of that word and note that it most certainly is required. If you find another definition which you can quote from an authorative source, then we'll talk.

(Please note that your word does not count as an authorative source. Repeating this mantra is not going to convince me.)

[delphi_ote]

....eeeeeh - "...adapt to their environment from within" isn't really what happens in biological organisms.

Your point is valid there, but I think the problem is more with the wording than with the definition. It seems to me that their intent is to imply that the structures resulting from adaptation are within the organism and can be replicated by the organism.

Of course, there's a only fine line between machines and organisms these days. It wouldn't be beyond our capability to build a machine that self-replicates and is capable of adapting or responding to its enviornment in some way.

Did you expect your silly example Teddy Bear example to spark such an interesting conversation, Mercutio?

[delphi_ote]

I'm sure Dr. Adequate meant to credit this piece to Samuel Butler in 'Erehwon'. It necessary to do so, because having read other contributions by DR. A., it's wit, charm, detail and poetry might easily be mistaken as his own.

:)

I'll be adding that to my Christmas Break reading list.