There is a such a thing as a hasty selection, or a prompt decision but there is no such thing as a natural selection. A selection is a choice, decision and preference. Nature is not conscious and can’t make decisions or make choices. Darwin introduced a grammatical
mistake into the English language confusing YEC, atheists and agnostics. The entire edifice of evolution pivots on this grammatical
mistake - a mistake responsible for two world wars.
The term natural “selection” does not mean a conscious choice , it means a “sorting” out in various ways by an organism for a better way to survive or multiply within it’s environment - which I don’t find confusing at all. Organisms will adapt and modify to their environments in order to propagate their species in order to survive - yes there will be mistakes during this process and those mistakes usually are short lived, but it is this “sorting” out that is the basis of evolutionary theory.
What interests me more is your last sentence:
The entire edifice of evolution pivots on this grammatical mistake - a mistake responsible for two world wars.
please explain how Darwins grammatical error was responsible for two world wars.
Hi metari1, welcome to the forum. Judging by the pattern of similar posts I’m not sure that you are interested in returning, but I’ll endeavour to start a discussion. 
A direct translation of the individual words will lead you to make the deduction that you have made. Not that the words together define a concept, and specifically a biological concept. In science, day-to-day words are often redefined and have a meaning different from the original use, this is where a lot of confusion can come in. According to most dictionaries (SELECTION Definition & Usage Examples | Dictionary.com will show you some of them) the word “selection” has a specific meaning in Biology and is indicated that way. It describes a process, there is no tie-in to the day-to-day uses of the word “selection”.
Isn’t that attacking religion? Isn’t that an argument against a master plan?
As described above, Darwin introduced a new definition into the biological lexicon. Darwin didn’t introduce a grammatical error into regular English. Perhaps he can only be accused of introducing confusion into people who do not understand that the concept is separate from the words being used. The words do not describe the process and the process is not “summarised” by the words. It would probably have been better if the term Shoefla-bogra was used instead so that there is no confusion with other English words. (But “Shoe” is based on walking and steps and Nature doesn’t work in steps).
Ah yes, the very slightly disguised Agrumentum-Ad-Nazium (as it is popularly referred to or Genetic Fallacy http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Genetic_Fallacy). This argument was popularised by William Jennings Bryan. Eugenics was an idea that was thrown into society’s face by a man called Sir Francis Galton (he happened to be the cousin of Charles Darwin and was inspired by “The Origin” to kickstart his idea). Unfortunately we don’t get to choose our family. There is no record of Darwin supporting or opposing Galton, so the family link is a mute point.
But eugenics (not the word, the concept) is far older than Darwinian Evolution. Plato wrote in The Republic that
Also, non-genetic eugenics was practiced in Sparta where newborn children were judged for their apparent fitness to survive to adolescence and the inferior were thrown from a mountain top. This was ultimately Hitler’s inspiration because he praised Sparta for its primitive form of eugenics.
Had the theory of evolution come after World War II it is still likely that Hitler would have practiced these principles. The “Evolution caused World War II” argument doesn’t hold water.
Hmm, guess I didn’t proof-read …
Note that the words together define a concept, and specifically a biological concept.
:-[
I do that “not” / “note” thing a lot and spell-checkers love it.
The waves sorting the sand on the beach is a pattern not a design. I sorting the rocks in a specific pattern is a design. The context in which the word “sorting” is used will indicate the intent of the author either in the “pattern” or the “design” sense. All language is an attempt at communicating motive, will, intent or pragmatics. All language must contain four things as signal sender communicates his intent to signal receiver.
Grammar(Alphabet)
Syntax(rules of a language)
Semantics(meaning of a word or dictionary definition
Pragmatics(will, motive or intent)
I have given you two sentences where my intent with “sorting” is clear. When the intent is not clear we then have what the linguists call a “structural ambiguity” - http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Linguistics-and-Philosophy/24-903Spring-2005/CourseHome/index.htm
The cartoon at MIT shows what I mean “…Sherlock saw the man holding binoculars…”
Let me give you another sentence: You have a green light. What does this mean?
a) You are holding a green light bulb.
b) You have the go ahead for your project
c) You can drive your car.
Three completely different meanings all based on intent. Without knowing my intent with the sentence is not even wrong. You have a green light has syntax, grammar and semantics but no pragmatics or intent just as it is. In order for us to communicate our will,motive,intent or pragmatics we need to agree on a communication protocol or “semantics”. The semantics is the meaning or defined meaning of a word. There are words for which the meaning can never change like love,hope,honor, hate, integrity and valor,choice and selection. No man can make hate suddenly mean love, not even Darwin. Darwin for example couldn’t do any algebra or higher math, he was actually quite lacking in the upstairs department and Darwin can’t by his authority as Darwin redefine the meaning of choice, preference, decision or selection. This would be tantamount to redefining hope as meaning pig excrement.
Darwin was a language terrorist. 1+1 = 2 is an axiomatic statement, I can’t prove it. There is no such thing as a triangular circle and no such thing as an artificial and natural selection not now , not ever. I can’t prove it, its an axiomatic statement. There is no casual relationship between organisms, surviving, adaption and anybody making a choice or implementing a decision. By using “selection” in the same breath as talking about organisms “surviving” we are conflating two concepts that has got absolute nothing to do with each other on a casual basis. It is personifying nature and invoking nature as some sort of cause in and of itself. Given your materialist premises that there is no God the word “selection” is simply not available to you. You can’t deny your cake and then proceed to eat it to!
Ken Ham a YEC for example says:“I believe in Natural Selection”. But so does Dawkins. Both Ham and Dawkins are wrong and
no amount of naturaling is going to make natural selection actually mean something. Since both are wrong their entire debate is meaningless, because of this fundamental fissure in the structure of their language. Is natural selection Godless? No, something which doesn’t exist can be Godless. Is the theory of evolution Godless, no since there is no theory of evolution.
A theory which doesn’t exist can’t be Godless. Noam Chomsky says that natural selection can’t explain the origin of language, if only he would come out of the closet and admit that NS is grammatical gargoyle. Natural Selection as some sort of universal mechanism is just as implausible as having a single differential equation explain all of physics. And some consider
natural selection as the mechanism of apes slowly transforming into humans. An ape transforming into a human is not a theory but a conjecture. A theory would be the actual explanation as to how the interdependent relationship between the control algorithms, feed back control loops, transfer function and actuating muscles was maintained as the chimpanzee transformed into a human being. The dead bones can’t tell you this of course, since the soft brain parts are not available.
Selection is a choice because that was the meaning and the intent with the word choice since the dawn of mankind with whatever word was used back then. One can coin new technical jargon terms such as quantum mechanics. But words fundamental to expressing the very essence of consciousness the very nature of being human - selection, choice, hope, love, decision - these words can never change meaning nor have any other intent other than what they had before some fool made the English language undefined in 1859.
Our language have become undefined and confused and if your language is confused your mind is confused and your descriptions of the world around you will reflect this confusion as it can be plainly seen in YEC literature accepting “natural selection” as actually meaning something.
Hi metari1, welcome back. I am honestly pleased to see that you returned. For a moment I thought that you might be trolling but I am glad to see that you are interested in a discussion.
There are a lot of points to address so I hope that I get to answer most of them.
I see that you are sticking to the original point that “natural selection” as a term is an error introduced into English by Darwin. I think that I should reword the explanation that I provided earlier with examples which should clarify that there is no error.
Various sciences use “normal” English words and give them new meanings. When you talk to scientists working in the same paradigm, they all understand the shared alternate meaning. By way of example consider a statistician that concludes “100% of the population prefers orange juice to apple juice”. And that statistician is not lying, he is being accurate. Why? Because the word “population” in a normal sense means the inhabitants of a country. But in statistics it means the group which was targeted in the study (the people who are part of the targeted population who were actually surveyed are the “sample”). In the orange juice survey the population happened to be “people who have an apple allergy”.
I agree. As a student of Linguistics, I find the whole area fascinating. There are actually two kinds of ambiguity; “Structural Ambiguity”, as you stated, and “Lexical Ambiguity”.
Now Structural Ambiguity is when the structure of the sentence (i.e. the punctuation and/or the order that the words are written in) leads to ambiguity of the meaning. There are many humorous examples from newspapers:
- Beating Witness Provides Names (Beating witness has provided names OR Beating the witness has provided names)
- P.L.O. invited to raid debates (P.L.O. invited to attend raid debates OR P.L.O. invited to raid the debates)
The Sherlock Holmes example that you provided is a Structural Ambiguity, all of the rest of your examples and the premise of your argument is that Darwin committed an error, specifically a Lexical Ambiguity.
In Lexical Ambiguity the cause is when two words have two different meanings and either appears to be applicable in the sentence. More examples from newspapers:
- Kids Make Nutritious Snacks (ambiguity of “make”)
- Prostitutes Appeal to Pope (ambiguity of “appeal to”)
I agree that the sentence above on its own is ambiguous, but context always disambiguates (BTW: there are two definitions as b and c are a shared definition). In the example of the word “selection” within the term “natural selection” there is no ambiguity because there is only one meaning of “selection” to biologists. As I said earlier; the term “selection” for biologists describes a process and has nothing to do with the normal day-to-day use of the word “selection”. Much like the word “population” to statisticians.
Darwin is not interested in redefining the word “selection”. BTW: the meanings of Love and Valour have actually changed over time. The word “love” meant a beloved person from about 1225 and didn’t describe the concept of being in love until 1508. Have a look at the etymology online reference Etymonline - Online Etymology Dictionary).
This is a personal attack on the man not the argument that he is making. It is a fallacy referred to as “Argumentum Ad Hominem”. But if we go along with what you said; Darwin actually was able to do maths. He took mathematics in university and he did barely pass but at least he passed mathematics at university at a time when most people didn’t have an education at all. An understanding of mathematics at a higher level than that isn’t required for understanding geology, natural selection or anthropology otherwise we’d better send out a recall to all the people in the field today to go back to university until they have a masters in maths.
As for lacking in the upstairs department, I might agree, considering that he really liked the writings of William Paley on intelligent design while he was at theological university. Oops … I’m sinking to a tit-for-tat level. :-[
Just to reiterate: he had no such intention.
I would not agree (from the evidence above). There are more modern language terrorists around such as the people who commit tense or plurality confusion. For example … “Our language have become undefined”. It is handy to label Darwin as a terrorist so that it fits with the “War on terror” but is it valid? Bear in mind that the phrase “War on terror” is grammatically incorrect and the president who coined it can be labelled a “language terrorist”.
… continued …
… continued …
I agree that there is no relationship between the biological term “selection” and the dogmatic locking-on to the day-to-day term “selection” that you have. And causality never came into it.
Uhhh, no it isn’t. No personification and no causality.
Something which doesn’t exist can be godless and a theory which doesn’t exist can’t be godless? That is a logical argument which is self contradictory.
Well, maybe it was a typo. If it was then consider that the theory doesn’t prove or disprove the existence of god. Darwin himself required god to start the process. Darwin did see that Earth is very old and that deep time is required for evolution, so technically he was an old earth creationist.
Noam Chomsky says that the way that humans got language can’t be explained by evolution. That has nothing to do with whether the word is a “grammatical gargoyle” or not. Chomsky’s position doesn’t come into the argument. If you would like to explore Chomsky’s position then we can but you must recognise that it has no direct relationship to the position that you are putting forward.
Chimpanzees did not “turn into” human beings. This just shows a superficial understanding of evolution. Humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor. This ancestor was not a chimpanzee and was not a human – its descendants split into these groups. By way of example; I share ancestry with many people that have my surname, but I, James Soap, am not the descendant of Joe Soap, but Joe and I have the same great-great-great-grandfather Patrick Soap. Patric doesn’t exist anymore but he was our common ancestor.
But the brain cavity is available and for our ancestors it has shown a gradual increase in size.
From the earlier discussion on Lexical Ambiguity, I think that you are not understanding the separate use of the word for biologists. That has driven you to want a rule like this but there is no such rule in language.
It was I should have said can’t not can.
Chimpanzees did not “turn into” human beings. This just shows a superficial understanding of evolution. Humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor. This ancestor was not a chimpanzee and was not a human – its descendants split into these groups. By way of example; I share ancestry with many people that have my surname, but I, James Soap, am not the descendant of Joe Soap, but Joe and I have the same great-great-great-grandfather Patrick Soap. Patric doesn’t exist anymore but he was our common ancestor.
[/quote]
This thread http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/3b7d9b411887c7b5/ec81c846c43a2ae7#ec81c846c43a2ae7 the consensus agreement amongst evolutionists themselves after debating it for three months on talk.origins was that the common ancestor is just weasel words to confuse the issues. The evolutionists themselves now agree that the it was infact a flee scratching ape because the common ancestor would have looked like an ape to an observer back then.
I didn’t say that the common ancestor was not an ape. I said that the common ancestor was not a Chimpanzee.
The group discussion which you linked to is pretty fascinating. It isn’t really possible to find a “conclusion” because the discussion does split down various paths but from the ones that I went through I certainly didn’t find anyone saying that the “common ancestor” term was a cop-out / weasel word / confusing.
I did find a poster who accurately summed-up the whole discussion, and does apply quite well to this discussion; science versus linguistics.
And a seperate thread …
And I don’t know about you but I definately scratch flees, I can’t ignore them for more than 2 minutes. 
Richard a poster on http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/f2fb1a3e6b24b984/d445c3a6b9535def#d445c3a6b9535def thread has over 50 years experience studying fossils as an evolutionary biologist. He admits here and at other threads that something which looked like what we would refer in the colloquial sense as an “ape” or “chimp” or to use the vernacular “monkey” was infact the this mystical “common ancestor”.
The thing not only looked like an ape it actually was one that showed its dick for all the monkey babes. I need to know if you actually agree with these posters such as Harshman , Richard and UC. These are seasoned scientists who have studied evolution all their lives and certainly don’t have any creationist ideas. I would need to know if you actually believe that you descended from this ‘ape’ creature to use the vernacular. It all comes back to the issue of intent. What is the intent with calling this “ape”, “chimp” or whatever a “common ancestor” - is not perhaps to confuse the issues?
Of course the common ancestor of man and chimpanzees was an ape. At no point did anyone on this thread or the IRC thread say otherwise (except for a creationist who was putting words into someone else’s mouth). Richard said this on the same thread but he didn’t say “chimp” or “monkey” once.
This really shows a very superficial understanding of the primate family. Let me simplify: we know the following by definition …
(1) All chimpanzees are apes.
(2) All apes are primates (and thus all chimpanzees are primates).
(3) All monkeys are primates.
(4) No monkeys are apes.
(5) No apes are monkeys.
So no one of our ancestors would be showing anything to monkeys to attract a mate.
I have attached a homemade diagram (logged-on users can see the attachment) which illustrates this. The lineage shown is not an accurate of the entire “family tree”, but has enough information to illustrate the point. The numbers below match the numbers above.
(1) Chimpanzees are in the dark orange section (apes).
(2) Everything inside dark orange (apes) is also inside green (primates).
(3) Everything inside gold (monkeys) is also inside green (primates).
(4) Nothing in gold is inside dark orange.
(5) Nothing in dark orange is inside gold.
I have included the common ancestor (our common ancestor with chimps) in the ape section on purpose. I have also included another common ancestor, the one that we share with monkeys – it was a primitive primate … funny term
I agree with Richard, Inez, “Will in heaven”, Harshmann and UC (the last two when discussing language and the first ones when discussing biology).
No, I don’t believe that I descended from this “ape” creature.
I do think that I descended from this “ape” creature (ancestral apes). We are apes, we are primates as shown in the diagram.
I don’t need belief when I can think. Belief is trusting in the truth of something without evidence. I am very careful to correct everyone that I meet that belief is no longer required when you can think. “Seeing is believing”? No, belief is no longer required when you can see (I’m paraphrasing Terry Pratchett).
- I’m trying not to laugh.
There is absolutely no intent to confuse the issue. If you have all the common biological knowledge (including the classification of primate families) then there is nothing to confuse. If you are ignorant of the meaning of terms then I undestand how you can become confused, but it is illogical to deduce that the reason for your confusion is because of a specific intent by scientists.
I think the best way to summarise is to reitterate what Richard said:
So, metari, if I understand you correctly, the sum total of your argument is that “Natural Selection” is an oxymoron, given the original meanings of the individual terms that comprise the phrase.
If so, then “Calculator.” Thus, I refute you.
No. It was thought to be an axiom of arithmetic up until about 1913. Have a gander at Russell and Whitehead’s Principia Mathematica where it was proved from formal logic. Or, if you wish, the sound-bite version here.
'Luthon64
Hominid transitional forms. Judge for yourself.
'Luthon64
“Choice” as a single word implies both the semantics and pragmatics of making a goal directed decision or selection. “Natural” as a single word doesn’t have the same sort of clear intent as the word “decision” has. It is must be used in a sentence in order to convey the intent of the speaker since all communication from a dog wagging its tail to a child crying is an attempt at communicating intent.
“Natural” has a meaning dependent on the surrounding sentences and “selection” has a specific meaning and intent all on its own and that one can’t combine the two words in the same way that you can’t combine triangle with circle for triangular circles. I can’t prove that there is no such thing as a triangular circle and by the same logic I can’t prove there is no such thing as a natural selection.
(Emphasis added, although the word “intent” could equally well be replaced with “meaning.”) And that is just what Darwinists do, yet you seem to want to correct them on some odd notion that they’re being self-contradictory. Actually, Darwinists, just as most other scientists do, go one better: they define their terminology quite carefully before using it in order to enhance clarity and avoid misunderstanding. Thus, there is within the fraternity of Darwinists an accepted usage for each of various terms, including “natural selection.”
Still, it is hard to see what, exactly, you are driving at.
If you’re using the words “triangular” and “circle” in their proper geometric sense (i.e. as a particular attribute and a particular object within the framework of geometry as an axiomatic formal system) then you very much can disprove – and rigorously so – the existence of such an object as a “triangular circle” (at least within Euclidean geometry), analogous to the way you can disprove that “1 = 0”. The method of proof is known as reductio ad absurdum.
'Luthon64
For an example of the flaw in your word game, consider these examples:
“Aerial” has a meaning dependant on the surrounding sentences and “invasion” has a specific meaning and intent all on its own and that one can’t combine the two words …
???
Okay, so maybe “aerial invasion” is a fluke - I mean, how can aerials invade? Ummm …
“Electric” has a meaning dependant on the surrounding sentences and “passion” has a specific meaning and intent all on its own and that one can’t combine the two words …
??? … errm, someone should inform Mills & Boon.
The point is that adjectives can be combined with nouns - even “intent-carrying” nouns (which in some cases are really verbs which are transformed into nouns: select → selection and invade → invasion). This does not elevate the adjective to a proper noun, “electric passion” does not make “electric” personify all electricity or become Mother Electricity. That is why we don’t get disappointed that our electricity isn’t being as passionate as the Italians’ electricity.
Before you start this all over again by playing word games, take note of this (which you have conveniently ignored) …
Remember that much earlier in the discussion I mentioned that the process in no way is related to the words used to label it? The process of evolution is not summarised by the title that Darwin chose.
I see that this argument is going to go through another cycle of repeating the same thing again and again because you chose to ignore it the first time.
sigh
I’m curious if you are interested in also having a dead horse to flog or is this argument sufficient for now?
What process are you talking about, give me examples so I can understand your intent with “process”.
You are begging the question with “process of evolution”. Evolution and its sidekick natural selection are the terms under dispute. Everything pivots on this term natural selection. You would also need to define for me the difference between “evolution” and “Theory of Evolution”, since
evolution and natural selection are used interchangeably.
Was the common ancestor an ape then?
Yes, one of the common ancestors (the one we share with chimps and the one we have been talking about) was 100% ape. Maybe you didn’t read the earlier posts …
And even when I drew a picture to show you that the common ancestor between humans and chimps is an ape you seemed to ignore me …
Thank you for addressing this (following) point, I am happy to know that you are not just glancing-over the words on the page and actually considering my argument.
Happy to oblige … way back in the beginning I mentioned that the term “selection” has a specific meaning in biology which is separate form the day-to-day meaning of “selection”. Here is a definition of the process that biology labels as “selection”…
and more specifically natural selection …
Okay, I will accept that point, perhaps I was a bit hasty having not formally explained why I am using “evolution”, “the theory of evolution” and “natural selection” at different points in my argument.
The word evolution refers to the theory of evolution. I am using it as short-hand (as most people do) instead of typing-out the whole term again and again. This is common practice. Very seldom do you hear people refer to gravity as “the theory of gravitation” or people referring to planetary orbits as “the theory of planetary motion”.
So “evolution” = “the theory of evolution” and can be interchanged.
“Natural selection”, on the other hand, does not describe the entire process of evolution. Evolution comprises three main processes; natural selection, genetic drift and gene flow. The process of natural selection was the entirety of Darwin’s theory of evolution because in those days there was no knowledge of DNA.
Natural selection is by no means a “sidekick” of evolution, it is part and parcel of the theory of evolution.
If, as you state, “evolution” and “natural selection” are the terms under dispute then why are you objecting to me using both? At no point has the meaning of “evolution” been incorrectly used when “natural selection” should have been used.
By your line of reasoning, metari1, and by a similar token, a recent term much beloved by creationists of the intelligent design school (!) should be disallowed for being something of a tautology. The term in question is “irreducible complexity.”
Ignoring the grave difficulties of providing a proper functional definition of the term, consider as follows: For something to qualify as having “complexity,” there is a threshold, perhaps in the form of a grey area, that needs to be crossed between the “complex” and its antithesis. In other words, if one was in some way to reduce sufficiently the amount (or quality) of “complexity” that inheres in a thing that is already close to this threshold, it could no longer rightfully be said to be “complex.” Thus, “complexity” already carries with it an idea of “irreducibility.” Yet, when faced with this term, everyone has at least some intuitive grasp of what sense “irreducible complexity” aims to impart.
But never mind that. Suppose just for argument’s sake that you do manage to convince the entire biological sciences fraternity of the error of their semantic ways. You convince them to repent and revise their terminology. They now say “natural filtering” – you will, I hope, not insist that the word “filtering” necessarily entails conscious intent or agency – instead of the offending “natural selection.” What have you actually achieved, and what’s next on your agenda regarding the biological sciences?
The reason I ask the above is that, taken on its own, it strikes me as a most trivial axe you’re wanting to grind over mere specialist jargon, and I suspect there’s more to it that you’re not (yet) saying.
'Luthon64