Dover Penn ID trial

[Melendwyr]

Originally Posted by 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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

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]

Originally Posted by PatKelley

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]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

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]

Originally Posted by PatKelley

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

(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]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

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]

Originally Posted by PatKelley

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]

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Pat

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.

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

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.

Quote:

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

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by PatKelley

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]

Originally Posted by hammegk

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]

Originally Posted by Melendwyr

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by hammegk

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]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Segueing back to Dover for a minute.

Vote still at issue in Dover


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]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Segueing back to Dover for a minute.

Vote still at issue in Dover


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]

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

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]

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

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.

Originally Posted by chipmunk_stew

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]

Originally Posted by hammegk

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]

Originally Posted by hammegk

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]

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

... 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:

Quote:

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]

Quote:

explosive cycles of mutation

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

[chipmunk stew]

Originally Posted by hammegk

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 FK 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 FK YOU MEAN.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Hammegk

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]

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Er, that puctuated equilibrium stuff?

Originally Posted by chipmunk_stew

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.

Originally Posted by Paul

Yup, that would be meaningless to me.

Why? It seems straight-forward to me.

[chipmunk stew]

Originally Posted by hammegk

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]

Originally Posted by Hammegk

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

My question addresses this:

Originally Posted by hammegk

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

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.