Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)[link=http://]http://universe-life.com/[/link]

DAVID: The above website from October is available in the achives of the site. Interesting counter-view to world science.

Welcome to the website, Dov. As a scientist, David is better able to follow this than I am, but we've just had a very long discussion on the dangers of synonymising evolution and natural selection, as you appear to do in your first sentence. If I’ve understood the rest correctly, it boils down to the fact that living creatures need to eat (gain energy) in order to survive until they die, at which time their energy returns to the sum total of the universe’s energy. Would that be a fair summary? If so, I can’t see what natural selection has to do with it, since the energy of those creatures that are not selected will simply return to the sum total before those that are selected. They/We all end up the same way anyway!

I’m intrigued by your “comments from the 22nd century”. Perhaps you could explain this to us? Once again, welcome to the forum.

Essence Of Evolution, Natural Selection
[link=http://] http://universe-life.com/2011/10/07/eotoe-some-implications-i/[/link]

Thus the essence/definition of evolution, natural selection is:

Mass formats attaining temporary augmented energy constraint in their successive generations, with energy drained from other mass formats, to temporarily postpone, survive, the reversion of their own constitutional mass to the pool of cosmic energy fueling the galactic clusters expansion.
This explains why black holes and humans, in fact all mass formats, must feed themselves in order to survive.

This explains that the essence of quantum mechanics of all processes are the probable or actual evolution steps between physical states ordained for natural selection.

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
[link=http://]http://universe-life.com/[/link]

The above website from October is available in the achives of the site. Interesting counter-view to world science.

Thus the essence/definition of evolution, natural selection is:

Mass formats attaining temporary augmented energy constraint in their successive generations, with energy drained from other mass formats, to temporarily postpone, survive, the reversion of their own constitutional mass to the pool of cosmic energy fueling the galactic clusters expansion.
This explains why black holes and humans, in fact all mass formats, must feed themselves in order to survive.

This explains that the essence of quantum mechanics of all processes are the probable or actual evolution steps between physical states ordained for natural selection.

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
[link=http://]http://universe-life.com/[/link]

dhw,

I think I'm finally fully on board with you here, but I just want it to be acknowledged that I don't view evolution as a linear process.

Hurray!

I think I'm finally fully on board with you here, but I just want it to be acknowledged that I don't view evolution as a linear process.

DAVID: Bravo. You did a better job of taming Matt than I did.

Thank you, David. Only on reading this do I realize that I got so carried away by Matt's muddy mess of muddled m's that I left out the main item in my own list of non-synonyms! Thanks to the mysterious and magical powers invested in me by the almighty Neil, I can step back in time and put in the missing words.

I don't want to tame Matt. His unpredictability keeps us all on our toes. In this particular case, I just want him to acknowledge what you and I regard as obvious.

2) Nobody has ever at any time at any point in any way even indirectly, implicitly or remotely suggested that NS should be removed from evolution! My objection is to the ruse of synonymising the two terms, as is sometimes used to divert attention from the gaps in the overall theory. NS is the stage of evolution that follows on from reproduction, adaptation, innovation. All of these are integral phases of the one process we call “evolution”, but “reproduction”, “adaptation”, “innovation”, “evolution” do not mean the same thing (i.e. they are not synonymous). Does that clear the methodological materialist mathematical mud for you?

Bravo. You did a better job of taming Matt than I did.

MATT: I don't see a material difference between my definition of evolution or the one you provide here in 1. 2 is harder for me to tackle, because again, if you remove it from the equation of evolution, you no longer have evolution. It is irreducible. Natural Selection is not removable from the theory of evolution. Because of this, I have a difficult time answering yes or no to the synonymous question, because again, my hands are tied by the ropes of methodological materialism. I have attempted (and failed) to explain why I hold this view, both through a mathematical argument as well as an attempt to explain the mathematical argument in plain english. Is it synonymous? Not syntactically, but Natural Selection is such an important part of the process that I cannot remove it. Does this clear the mud for you?

1) Then you can’t see a material difference between adaptation and natural selection. If an organism undergoes environmental pressure and responds in its genotype, it adapts. Some organisms don’t respond, i.e. they don’t adapt. Natural selection is the process whereby those organisms that do not adapt will die out, and those organisms that adapt best will survive and flourish. Nature will only select when the adaptations have (or haven’t) taken place. The two processes are inseparable, just as cause and effect are inseparable (i.e. you can’t have one without the other), but you don’t say that cause is synonymous with effect (i.e. “cause” does not mean the same as “effect”). Your definition of natural selection stops before it reaches natural selection.

2) Nobody has ever at any time at any point in any way even indirectly, implicitly or remotely suggested that NS should be removed from evolution! My objection is to the ruse of synonymising the two terms, as is sometimes used to divert attention from the gaps in the overall theory. NS is the stage of evolution that follows on from reproduction, adaptation, innovation. All of these are integral phases of the one process we call “evolution”, but “reproduction”, “adaptation”, “innovation”, "natural selection" and “evolution” do not mean the same thing (i.e. they are not synonymous). Does that clear the methodological materialist mathematical mud for you?

Natural Selection is not removable from the theory of evolution. Because of this, I have a difficult time answering yes or no to the synonymous question, because again, my hands are tied by the ropes of methodological materialism.

I don't understand the problem here. NS is not synonymous as a title, for a portion of a process, with the word for the total process, evolution. NS is just a portion of the process. NS is not syonymous with the word evolution.
I don't need to repeat the definition of 'synonym' here.

MATT: I am prepared to modify my position, but only after I get some more clarity on what my fundamental problems ARE. (It became clear to me that in the intervening months, my inability to communicate is NOT helping things... your questions were good, but they lead me to the conclusion that we're not talking about the same thing, and this is MY fault.)

David has answered most of your numbered points, so I’ll summarize what I see as your fundamental problems. The main one is that you’ve obviously been under such pressure lately that you’ve forgotten what we were actually discussing! I asked you five specific questions on 13 August, and on 14 November you gave direct, very grudging answers to only two of them. The bones of contention between us were your insistence 1) that your definition of NS as “the process by which an organism undergoes environmental pressure and responds to that pressure in its genotype” had superseded the conventional one, which for brevity’s sake I will simplify to “NS is the process by which those forms of life best suited to the environment will survive”; 2) that NS and evolution were synonymous.

I don't see a material difference between my definition of evolution or the one you provide here in 1. 2 is harder for me to tackle, because again, if you remove it from the equation of evolution, you no longer have evolution. It is irreducible. Natural Selection is not removable from the theory of evolution. Because of this, I have a difficult time answering yes or no to the synonymous question, because again, my hands are tied by the ropes of methodological materialism. I have attempted (and failed) to explain why I hold this view, both through a mathematical argument as well as an attempt to explain the mathematical argument in plain english. Is it synonymous? Not syntactically, but Natural Selection is such an important part of the process that I cannot remove it. Does this clear the mud for you?

As far my own view of evolution is concerned, I firmly believe in Darwin’s theory of common descent and in the process of Natural Selection as I have defined it. Current areas of dispute, as I see them, include his insistence on gradualism (I would opt for Gould’s punctuated equilibrium), and the mechanisms that lead to change, with the possibility that epigenetics may play a far greater role than random mutations.

Right on!!!

Sadly, Matt, I think Abel has given up on us, so I doubt if you’ll get a reply from him on the ID thread.

He might reappear. We have given him full disclosure time, and I was willing to study his slides.

David has answered most of your numbered points, so I’ll summarize what I see as your fundamental problems. The main one is that you’ve obviously been under such pressure lately that you’ve forgotten what we were actually discussing! I asked you five specific questions on 13 August, and on 14 November you gave direct, very grudging answers to only two of them. The bones of contention between us were your insistence 1) that your definition of NS as “the process by which an organism undergoes environmental pressure and responds to that pressure in its genotype” had superseded the conventional one, which for brevity’s sake I will simplify to “NS is the process by which those forms of life best suited to the environment will survive”; 2) that NS and evolution were synonymous.

You agreed that your definition applies to adaptation, and that adaptations and innovations must take place before they can be selected. You did not give me the straight answer I asked for to the question whether NS was SYNONYMOUS with the term evolution, you did not give me a reference confirming your claim that “professional scientists” reject the conventional definition in favour of your own, and you did not explain why the beta-lactamase experiment is not a perfect example of beneficial mutations surviving and flourishing as per the Darwinian definition of NS.

As regards current evolutionary theory, both David and I have consistently argued that NS is NOT responsible for adaptations and mutations. Only you have pursued that argument, by insisting that NS and evolution are synonymous. This is a device often used by atheist evolutionists to ridicule their opponents, because it’s against common sense and observed experience to reject NS, whereas evolutionary theory as a whole contains a great deal of disputed speculation. Your fourth point is a similar sort of equivocation. You say that NS is “the primary mechanism of WHY WE SEE THE SPECIES WE SEE.” Yes, because Nature selects those species best suited to survive, and gets rid of those that are unsuited. We see what we see, and we don’t see what we don’t see. But no, because NS does not explain the mechanisms that cause adaptation and innovation. NS is therefore not the primary mechanism for the physical changes without which we would not see the species we see.

As far my own view of evolution is concerned, I firmly believe in Darwin’s theory of common descent and in the process of Natural Selection as I have defined it. Current areas of dispute, as I see them, include his insistence on gradualism (I would opt for Gould’s punctuated equilibrium), and the mechanisms that lead to change, with the possibility that epigenetics may play a far greater role than random mutations.

******
Sadly, Matt, I think Abel has given up on us, so I doubt if you’ll get a reply from him on the ID thread.

The (possible) error(s) in my thinking is/are this/these:

1. The criticism that you (and possibly David) are leveling against current evolutionary thought, is that Natural Selection alone is not sufficient for change.

NS alone is not sufficient for change. It is passive and must be preented with changes, and then NS is a major helper in the choices.

2. You and David accuse current thought as one that is too passive to account for the change we have witnessed.

Which current thought do you mean?

My contention was this:
Current evolutionary thought does not think that natural selection *alone* is responsible for change.

True

3. David and yourself challenge that current evolutionary thought thinks the opposite to my previous sentence.

False

4. Darwinian thought as it originated from Charles, placed Natural Selection as the primary mechanism of why we see the species we see. (Italics here are ultra-important.)

OK

5. With the above statement, I see no reason to refute THAT part of Charles' theory, and I think you and David are opposed to THIS thought.

Theories change with time and new discoveries. CD's contentions are no longer correct. NS can never initiate change, only pass judgement on what is presented to it.

I am prepared to modify my position, but only after I get some more clarity on what my fundamental problems ARE. (It became clear to me that in the intervening months, my inability to communicate is NOT helping things... your questions were good, but they lead me to the conclusion that we're not talking about the same thing, and this is MY fault.)

Errors in my thought will be numbered here.

The (possible) error(s) in my thinking is/are this/these:

1. The criticism that you (and possibly David) are leveling against current evolutionary thought, is that Natural Selection alone is not sufficient for change.

2. You and David accuse current thought as one that is too passive to account for the change we have witnessed.

My contention was this:
Current evolutionary thought does not think that natural selection *alone* is responsible for change.

3. David and yourself challenge that current evolutionary thought thinks the opposite to my previous sentence.

4. Darwinian thought as it originated from Charles, placed Natural Selection as the primary mechanism of why we see the species we see. (Italics here are ultra-important.)

5. With the above statement, I see no reason to refute THAT part of Charles' theory, and I think you and David are opposed to THIS thought.

I am prepared to modify my position, but only after I get some more clarity on what my fundamental problems ARE. (It became clear to me that in the intervening months, my inability to communicate is NOT helping things... your questions were good, but they lead me to the conclusion that we're not talking about the same thing, and this is MY fault.)

On 13 August I tried to untangle the mess by asking you specific questions. I shan’t repeat these, or your answers where they confirm – sometimes grudgingly – that your own definition is the same as that for adaptation (epigenetics), and that innovations and adaptations must take place before they can be selected.

3) Is the term Natural Selection SYNONYMOUS with the term evolution? Please give me a straight answer yes or no.
You respond by giving me a lecture on recursion, stressing the importance of the filter, describing ocean waves (everything is in flux), and emphasizing that there is NO evolution without natural selection, all of which I agree with. Then at last: “Do I equate the moving pieces as identical? No.” Thank you. NS is not identical with epigenetics, adaptation, random mutations, innovations. It is one of several inseparable elements but is not synonymous with the term evolution and does not cover the entire process.

4) Please provide a reference confirming your claim that “professional scientists” now reject the conventional definition and adhere to your own, as above…
You have provided various links to show that Darwin’s gradualism has been discredited. What on earth has that got to do with the conventional and so-called “professional” definitions of NS as above, let alone with your insistence that NS covers the whole of evolution?

5) Please explain why [the beta-lactamase experiment] is not a perfect example of beneficial mutations surviving and flourishing, as per the Darwinian definition of NS.
You reply that your view is a modification, an extension, a displacement, but not a complete replacement of Darwinian theory, and “the basic equations are still valid, but the understanding and subsequent results are not.” Please explain why the experiment is not a perfect example of beneficial mutations surviving and flourishing, as per the Darwinian definition of NS.

Alternatively, why don’t you just agree that the conventional definition of NS (as above) is still valid, NS is not synonymous with the WHOLE process of evolution, and the beta-lactamase experiment illustrates the conventional definition of NS and not the one you have given us above?

5) I have given you a point for point analysis of the beta-lactamase experiment which you regard as a perfect example of your definition. I have explained why I see it as a perfect example of Darwinian evolution. Please explain as briefly as possible why this is not an example of beneficial mutations surviving and flourishing, as per the Darwinian definition of Natural Selection.

The view I presented to you is a modification of Darwinian theory in the same way that Einstein’s theory of relativity was a modification of Newton’s theory. The basic equations are still valid, but the understanding and subsequent results are not. The view I discussed that I had learned while working in a laboratory is an extension and displacement, not a complete replacement of the original Darwinian Theory.

3) A repeat question: Are you saying that Natural Selection IS epigenetics (IS random mutations) IS Evolution? I.e is the term Natural Selection SYNONYMOUS with the term evolution? Please give me a straight answer yes or no.
You say you took a number of days to meditate on this question, but you appear to have spent all that time looking for a cop-out:
“I do not see how you can separate them.”
The process of evolution entails adaptations and innovations and natural selection. Of course they are interdependent, and so can’t be separated. But they are not the same thing. What I consider to be me consists of various interdependent mechanisms, but that does not mean that my brain IS my heart IS my blood IS my lungs.

Evolution in the way that I have learned it from both training and study—is a function. Like a calculator. However it’s a recursive function. In another attempt at explaining recursion to you, my parents were the inputs that resulted in a temporary output, me. Myself and my wife will be the inputs that result in another temporary output, my child. When I referred to each stage of the equation before, where we choose to stop and study—that is the “Generation” under consideration.

To me, its hard to separate natural selection in any practical sense, because as I said before—the filter is the most important part of the process. My child is the result of the filter I passed through. I am the result of the filter my parents passed through. They are the result of the filter that… [ad nauseum]

The view I take… well brace yourself. You said I was supposed to use “plain language” to try and explain something I understand much more clearly with the language of math.

Life is NOT a sequence of events. Life is an ocean.

Where does an ocean wave begin? Where does it end? We look at creatures based on snapshots of time, and ask ourselves “what happened?” But Heraclitus is right: Everything is in flux. I am not the same being I was even a moment ago.

I am the sum of all the previous events that happened before me.

As life is an ocean, so too can evolution NOT be broken down into constituent pieces. Remove Natural Selection from the equation, and you no longer have speciation—everything gets to stay. Hopefully this answers your question: There is NO evolution without natural selection. Do I equate the moving pieces as identical? No.

The late S.J. Gould described the limits of this supposed creative process, "Natural selection is therefore a principle of local adaptation, not of general advance or progress."

5. S.J. Gould, Scientific American, October 1994, p. 85.