10

[Colossians]

Wow, this thread introduces an entirely new fallacy, arguement from making no frikkin sense
Sense? Oh mean ‘10’!





(Freodin)
He assumes that there is an "ultimate purpose" that is different from the current state, but is to be achived by Evolution - this is incorrect.
No no no. You have it wrong again.
‘10’ exists; that is why it is mentioned:
For example: ‘4’ might be a man’s arm. ‘1’ might be the ability to bend it upwards. ‘5’ might be using such ability to pick up a rock. ‘10’ might be throwing the rock on you.
‘10’.

On the other hand he ignores that science does not look for a way to explain what ought to be, but what is.
False dichotomy. What is, is only understood to be what it is, in light of its perceived utility. This is why we have the phenomenon that nouns can be verbs (“book him!” ) , and verbs can be nouns (“smoking is prohibited” ) .

"There is a 4. Now if we assume that this has come from evolutionary processes, we should find a 2 and a 3 in certain other situations.
Not according to your books. The very existence of 4 is due to the advantage it contains over 3.
3 long ago bit the dust.







(lucaspa)
However, the selective advantage of particular designs are not difficult to find -- because they are DESIGNS.
Which are necessarily DESIGNED. (You may not appropriate a word which inherently implies intelligent impetus, to that which implies it not.) This is one of your camp’s tricks (you do the same with “incentive” and other words). It serves a purpose, but not an honest one.
If your beliefs are correct, you should be able to articulate them without any resort whatsoever to words that are inextricably linked to cognition.







(logic)
Just because something is possible, doesn't mean that it is happening or has happened.
Who said it is or has?
But in declaring that all might expire, one necessarily militates against the concept that that which ‘drives’ evolution, is “benefit”. Tell us, what benefit drives extinction? And if there is no benefit in such, then how is it you even cite benefit at all as a concept? Is not benefit only extant by virtue of an implied absolute – (your ‘10’ ) ?

Jet said that evolution may lead to extinction simply to demonstrate that it does NOT have an "upward direction."
Obviously you understand the semantic of “upward” in this context. Such attests to your ‘10’. Attempting to disengage yourself from such a concept, does nothing other than attest to the fact that you are aware of what it is you are disengaging yourself from: ‘10’.

It's a natural process, it's not aiming for perfection or something like that.
Your acknowledgment of the concept of “perfection”, is yet another example of your ‘10’, and of your unwitting subordinancy to a scheme of purpose within a framework which implies an absolute. Such comprises the necessary redundany of your argument.
In fact, even your desire to argue at all, militates against the random scheme of things you suggest is in force.

Sometimes a catastophe will occur and an organism will go extinct, perhaps because of something that it developed which use to be BENNEFICIAL, but is not harmful.
Your understanding is simply a tautology: you claim that what exists, does so because there was a benefit in existing. Your ‘10’ is the benefit of existing, itself inseparable from the utility of what exists.

You have a really warped view of what evolution is, describing it with numbers and everything,
The mathematical analogy is sound. The problem is you have trouble with abstracts, and inductive reasoning.






(lucaspa)
Natural seletion has no ultimate goal. However, it does have a short-term goal:
Any goal is, in absence of a greater goal, a ‘10’. For it is in such case, an absolute by default.
Your point militates against your intent.

For instance, do you think that seals are a "5" and are on the way to the "goal" of becoming a "10" -- whales? Sounds like it.
Sounds like you haven’t understood the legend provided in the OP.
Seals are a ‘4’, and not a ‘5’: they are an evolved entity.
They might be combined with the ‘1’ of where they naturally live: sea-water, to become the ‘5’ of a salt-water predator.
‘10’ will be their place in the scheme of ecology.

 

[Nathan Poe]

(Freodin)
He assumes that there is an "ultimate purpose" that is different from the current state, but is to be achived by Evolution - this is incorrect.
No no no. You have it wrong again.
‘10’ exists; that is why it is mentioned:

10 exists because you say it does.
I find your argument less than compelling.

For example: ‘4’ might be a man’s arm. ‘1’ might be the ability to bend it upwards. ‘5’ might be using such ability to pick up a rock. ‘10’ might be throwing the rock on you.
‘10’.

AHA! This "10" business is beginning to clear up.... slightly.

Your '10' is referring to what an organism is capable of doing at this moment.

The first obvious flaw (of several) is that you're assuming that the current state (the ability to throw a rock) is a "final" product.

But evolution is an ongoing process. When the 11s show up, the 10s are going to be in a bit of a spot, now aren't they?

Second, you're completely ignoring the effect of the environment. your rock-throwing 10s are in a spot once they run out of rocks, wouldn't you agree?

On the other hand he ignores that science does not look for a way to explain what ought to be, but what is.
False dichotomy. What is, is only understood to be what it is, in light of its perceived utility. This is why we have the phenomenon that nouns can be verbs (“book him!” ) , and verbs can be nouns (“smoking is prohibited” ) .

Very teleological, but the quirks of grammar are a poor analogy for science. Take it from an English teacher.

"There is a 4. Now if we assume that this has come from evolutionary processes, we should find a 2 and a 3 in certain other situations.
Not according to your books. The very existence of 4 is due to the advantage it contains over 3.

And if the 4s were in competition with the 3s, then at some point the 3s would likely become extinct. But this is not always the case, now is it.

Col, you wasted a lot of people's time rehashing the old "If humans came from apes, why are there apes?" argument.

3 long ago bit the dust.

Not so.

(lucaspa)
However, the selective advantage of particular designs are not difficult to find -- because they are DESIGNS.
Which are necessarily DESIGNED. (You may not appropriate a word which inherently implies intelligent impetus, to that which implies it not.) This is one of your camp’s tricks (you do the same with “incentive” and other words). It serves a purpose, but not an honest one.

Sorry Col, but words do not mean what you want them to mean. "Design" can come about through unintelligent processes.

If your beliefs are correct, you should be able to articulate them without any resort whatsoever to words that are inextricably linked to cognition.

The words are not inextricibly linked. Your edict to the contrary does not make it otherwise.

(logic)
Just because something is possible, doesn't mean that it is happening or has happened.
Who said it is or has?
But in declaring that all might expire, one necessarily militates against the concept that that which ‘drives’ evolution, is “benefit”. Tell us, what benefit drives extinction? And if there is no benefit in such, then how is it you even cite benefit at all as a concept? Is not benefit only extant by virtue of an implied absolute – (your ‘10’ ) ?

"Benefit" is not what drives evolution. Survival is. And not everyone gets the prize.

Jet said that evolution may lead to extinction simply to demonstrate that it does NOT have an "upward direction."
Obviously you understand the semantic of “upward” in this context. Such attests to your ‘10’. Attempting to disengage yourself from such a concept, does nothing other than attest to the fact that you are aware of what it is you are disengaging yourself from: ‘10’.

YOUR '10,' not ours.

It's a natural process, it's not aiming for perfection or something like that.
Your acknowledgment of the concept of “perfection”, is yet another example of your ‘10’, and of your unwitting subordinancy to a scheme of purpose within a framework which implies an absolute. Such comprises the necessary redundany of your argument.

You really are in love with your '10,' aren't you?

In fact, even your desire to argue at all, militates against the random scheme of things you suggest is in force.

What does a desire to argue have to do with biological evolution? You're wandering all over the map on this one...

Sometimes a catastophe will occur and an organism will go extinct, perhaps because of something that it developed which use to be BENNEFICIAL, but is not harmful.
Your understanding is simply a tautology: you claim that what exists, does so because there was a benefit in existing. Your ‘10’ is the benefit of existing, itself inseparable from the utility of what exists.

That's the third time you've said "YOUR" '10,' in refence to the analogy you yourself made up. Are you trying to distance yourself from a flawed argument?

You have a really warped view of what evolution is, describing it with numbers and everything,
The mathematical analogy is sound. The problem is you have trouble with abstracts, and inductive reasoning.

Ad Hom. your analogy is flawed. You refuse to accept that.

Now, don't get me wrong, I think it's wonderful that you're so deeply in love with your own idea. Summer is the time for romance, after all...

(lucaspa)
Natural seletion has no ultimate goal. However, it does have a short-term goal:
Any goal is, in absence of a greater goal, a ‘10’. For it is in such case, an absolute by default.
Your point militates against your intent.

Fine, 10 today, 11 tomorrow. 4,577 in a few million years. Your point?

For instance, do you think that seals are a "5" and are on the way to the "goal" of becoming a "10" -- whales? Sounds like it.
Sounds like you haven’t understood the legend provided in the OP.
Seals are a ‘4’, and not a ‘5’: they are an evolved entity.
They might be combined with the ‘1’ of where they naturally live: sea-water, to become the ‘5’ of a salt-water predator.
‘10’ will be their place in the scheme of ecology.

No, no, no... now you're contradicting youself. 10 is what the organism is capable of right now. Throwing the rock, remember? Seals would have to be a 10 because they are ideally suited for their environment as it currently is.

Take a seal out of its environment and stick it in the Mojave Desert, and it'll become a zero pretty quickly.

 

[funyun]

This is quality, Colossians. Your threads keep getting funnier and funnier. keep up the good work!

The evolutionist, we have pointed out on other threads, builds his platform on a logical redundancy.
When you ask him how such and such evolved, he will answer you with a description of its current utility, and suggest that those without such utility were culled by natural selection. As we have pointed out, his position is summed up by the parody "post hoc ergo propter hoc", which is to say "after the fact, therefore before the fact".

I think Nathan already pointed out your bad Latin. So I'll instead just tell you that it's not a parody. It's an idiom.

Let us use the number '4' to represent the current state of a supposed evolved entity.
Let us use the number '1' to represent a catalytic situation, or some assistance/partnership, on route to the number '5'.
Let us use the number '5' to represent an intermediary utility/purpose of '4'.
Let us use the number '10' to represent an ultimate utility/purpose of '4'.

You are treading evolution as if it is a pre-determined equation with some kind of purpose, with fixed variables and a fixed solution. 'Tis not so.

I also don't see what the heck the analogy has to do with the other one you present at the end of your post. If you really think that just because you plug in the number "10" to stand for an eventual outcome in evolution, and that since for some reason "the number 10 can't be explained by evolution" (a fallacy in both the assertion and in the principle of the argument: evolution does not explain such concepts, and even so, that 10 is a special number is a mathematical illusion), then that is the dumbest critique of evolution I have ever heard in my life.

The dialogue:
Creationist: "how did '4' evolve?"
Evolutionist: "because '4' had an advantage over '3': it could combine with '1' to form '5', instead of having to combining with two lots of '1'".
Creationist: "so?"
Evolutionist: "so '5' was needed because it fits exactly two times into '10'!".
Creationist: "but that is only so because '10' divided by '2' produces '5'! Why is it that '10' exists in the first place? Where did it come from?"

(The evolutionist, realising there is something missing in his reasoning at this point, but not really wanting to find out what, immediately invokes his higher-than-usual evolved thought-blocking ability, and declares proudly but irrelevantly: "natural selection!".)

Strawman. Amid the confusing jumble of words and "logic" in the rest of the post, this section stands out as the comedy relief.

For over a century now, we have still not heard from the evolutionist the reason for the existence of '10'. In the absence of such explanation, all he is doing is working within the confines of a superset called "purpose" of which he is unaware. Accordingly, his argument is nothing more than a living corollary. It is redundant from the very start.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to drive home here, unless it is to communicate some sense of irony or maybe the vacuous nature of your own analogy. I see the word purpose, and it makes me cringe. I see the number 10 again, and I am confused. What was the point?

Unamiously, this is the last straw to break the camels back!!!

Enter Colossian's Cheerleader.

I pointed out in the OP that evolutionists have trouble grasping abstract concepts.

Such has been evidenced so far by:
One honest answer (Magnus).
One dishonest piece of false indignation (Nathan Poe) who thinks he can call my bluff.

This keeps getting funnier and funnier. Here we see Colossians defend a strawman......with another strawman! He says in the OP that evolutionists have trouble grasping abstract concepts. Then, when the flaws in his OP are pointed out, he uses what he said in the OP as a defense for why he wasn't wrong in the first place. Hilarious!

You go awry in implying that evolution has a goal.
It is you who are always telling us about its goal. (I think you use the word "advantage". Sound familiar?)

So now you need to tell us why '5' is desireable because it divides into '10' exactly twice, when perhaps '7' is desirebale because it divides into '21' three times.

Evolution has no set goal. It has methods, and it has results. The results being advantage. There is a difference between "goal" and "result".

And the whole number thing is still confusing me.

 

[Jet Black]

aah, so it is a strawman. the placement of the numbers is entirely arbitrary, 1 can be anything from seawater to a joint, and 10 is just a combination of different things. we could redefine 10 as 1, 1 as 6, 6 as 2 and so on. the use of the numbering system appears to be an attempt at obfuscation and giving a false impression that the numbers define the evolutionary stages of some feature of the organisms.

why not deal with proper examples colossians?

 

[Colossians]

Nathan Poe,

10 exists because you say it does.
If it does not exist, then what is it within your psyche that motivates you to prove it does not exist?



For example: ‘4’ might be a man’s arm. ‘1’ might be the ability to bend it upwards. ‘5’ might be using such ability to pick up a rock. ‘10’ might be throwing the rock on you.
‘10’.
AHA! This "10" business is beginning to clear up.... slightly.
So you admit to bluffing your way through to this point.



Your '10' is referring to what an organism is capable of doing at this moment.
Not really: you are overly stringent. '10' is simply an ultimate purpose. Don't try to pin everything on my rock-throwing arm analogy. The analogy assumed that that was the ultimate purpose of the arm. As such it was only an illustration.



The first obvious flaw (of several) is that you're assuming that the current state (the ability to throw a rock) is a "final" product. But evolution is an ongoing process. When the 11s show up, the 10s are going to be in a bit of a spot, now aren't they?
You militate against yourself here: your perception of evolution is necessarily defined from the perspective of utility, and ultimate utility at that.To delete such from your cognitive repertoire, leaves you without any impetus or relativity to spark of your idea in the first place.
Your anchoring point, ('10'), is by definition that which has sparked off the need within you to create your theory.



On the other hand he ignores that science does not look for a way to explain what ought to be, but what is.
False dichotomy. What is, is only understood to be what it is, in light of its perceived utility. This is why we have the phenomenon that nouns can be verbs (“book him!” ) , and verbs can be nouns (“smoking is prohibited” ) .
Very teleological, but the quirks of grammar are a poor analogy for science. Take it from an English teacher.
More of your empty fluff and bluff. The point stands. There are no marks for witty sayings.
The quirks of grammar are inextricably linked to reality: they are symptomatic and indicative of the presence of both state and action. As such, they constitute one of the best ideology-verifying mechanisms available. It comes as no surprise that your peculiar ideology seeks to isolate itself from such universal substance.



"There is a 4. Now if we assume that this has come from evolutionary processes, we should find a 2 and a 3 in certain other situations.
Not according to your books. The very existence of 4 is due to the advantage it contains over 3.
And if the 4s were in competition with the 3s, then at some point the 3s would likely become extinct. But this is not always the case, now is it.
It is when it is. And that is the situation in view. And such is that which your camp proudly alludes to when referring to "advantage". Ad nauseum.



However, the selective advantage of particular designs are not difficult to find -- because they are DESIGNS.
Which are necessarily DESIGNED. (You may not appropriate a word which inherently implies intelligent impetus, to that which implies it not.) This is one of your camp’s tricks (you do the same with “incentive” and other words). It serves a purpose, but not an honest one.
Sorry Col, but words do not mean what you want them to mean. "Design" can come about through unintelligent processes.
"Design" is a noun. "Designed" a participle. The root semantic in each is consistent with that in the other. You may not allow the word "design" to be applied to that which cannot also be said to be "designed". Your argument is a prime example of the arrogance of your camp: you choose to redefine the semantic borders of words, rather than submit to them.
My point stands. It is you who wish to make words mean something tangential to their default semantic.



If your beliefs are correct, you should be able to articulate them without any resort whatsoever to words that are inextricably linked to cognition.
The words are not inextricibly linked. Your edict to the contrary does not make it otherwise.
They are inextricably linked, as I have also proven via its link with its corresponding participle.
Your eccentric use of the word is simply a construct designed to support your ideas. And also that which is designed to hood-wink the public. (Note that you will not here consider my last use of "designed" as that which refers to a random, accidental occurence.)



Just because something is possible, doesn't mean that it is happening or has happened.
Who said it is or has?
But in declaring that all might expire, one necessarily militates against the concept that that which ‘drives’ evolution, is “benefit”. Tell us, what benefit drives extinction? And if there is no benefit in such, then how is it you even cite benefit at all as a concept? Is not benefit only extant by virtue of an implied absolute – (your ‘10’ ) ?
"Benefit" is not what drives evolution. Survival is.
False dichotomy.



Jet said evolution may lead to extinction simply to demonstrate that it does NOT have an "upward direction."
Obviously you understand the semantic of “upward” in this context. Such attests to your ‘10’. Attempting to disengage yourself from such a concept, does nothing other than attest to the fact that you are aware of what it is you are disengaging yourself from: ‘10’.
YOUR '10,' not ours.
Again, you simply do not respond to that which you can't. Instead you post denial. Denial is good for people like Sadam Hussein (a last resort). Presumably this is the same reason you are using it.



It's a natural process, it's not aiming for perfection or something like that.
Your acknowledgment of the concept of “perfection”, is yet another example of your ‘10’, and of your unwitting subordinancy to a scheme of purpose within a framework which implies an absolute. Such comprises the necessary redundany of your argument.
You really are in love with your '10,' aren't you?
More fluff in the absence of the ability to out-argue the point. You should not be so transparent.



In fact, even your desire to argue at all, militates against the random scheme of things you suggest is in force.
What does a desire to argue have to do with biological evolution?
What does biological evolution have to do with the philosophical focus of this thread?
(But nice try to try to narrow the borders.)
The point stands: your desire to argue over abiogenesis is attestation to the presence in your mind of '10'.




Sometimes a catastophe will occur and an organism will go extinct, perhaps because of something that it developed which use to be BENNEFICIAL, but is not harmful.
Your understanding is simply a tautology: you claim that what exists, does so because there was a benefit in existing. Your ‘10’ is the benefit of existing, itself inseparable from the utility of what exists.
That's the third time you've said "YOUR" '10,' in refence to the analogy you yourself made up. Are you trying to distance yourself from a flawed argument?
Again you come up with another peace of substanceless entertainment, characteristic of your camp. The rule seems to be: "when you can't argue intelligently, try to at least appear intelligent by creating a witty remark which will hopefully distract the opponent from the fact that you have not attended to the point".



Natural seletion has no ultimate goal. However, it does have a short-term goal:
Any goal is, in absence of a greater goal, a ‘10’. For it is in such case, an absolute by default.
Your point militates against your intent.
Fine, 10 today, 11 tomorrow. 4,577 in a few million years. Your point?
It is to be expected that those proponents of a doctrine which have difficulty in evaluating abstracts, will not understand generic principles.
If '10' today is replaced by '17' tommorow, then '17' is simply your new '10'. You haven't grasped the fact that '10' is not a fixed point, but an implicit, generic, absolute.



Mr Poe, your post lacks a lot: chiefly substance.

 

[challenger]

Creationist: "how did '4' evolve?"
Evolutionist: "because '4' had an advantage over '3': it could combine with '1' to form '5', instead of having to combining with two lots of '1'".
Creationist: "so?"
Evolutionist: "so '5' was needed because it fits exactly two times into '10'!".
Creationist: "but that is only so because '10' divided by '2' produces '5'! Why is it that '10' exists in the first place? Where did it come from?"

(The mythical "evolutionist" realises that he is saying things no scientist would support and goes off to do some proper research)
Evolutionist: Look here, I've found 5 through 9, this shows a logical progression from 4 to 10
Creationist: That proves nothing! Where is 9.5?
Evolutionist: *bangs head against handy wall*

 

[PhantomLlama]

Nathan Poe,

10 exists because you say it does.
If it does not exist, then what is it within your psyche that motivates you to prove it does not exist?



For example: ‘4’ might be a man’s arm. ‘1’ might be the ability to bend it upwards. ‘5’ might be using such ability to pick up a rock. ‘10’ might be throwing the rock on you.
‘10’.

So the dialogue from your first post becomes:
Creationist: "how did 'the arm' evolve?"
Evolutionist: "because 'the arm' had an advantage over '3': it could combine with 'the ability to bend it upwards' to form 'the ability to pick up a rock', instead of having to combining with two lots of 'the ability to bend it upwards'".
Creationist: "so?"
Evolutionist: "so 'the ability to pick up a rock' was needed because it fits exactly two times into 'throwing a rock onto you'!".
Creationist: "but that is only so because 'throwing a rock onto you' divided by '2' produces 'picking up a rock'! Why is it that 'throwing a rock onto you' exists in the first place? Where did it come from?"

While the dialogue above doesn't make perfect sense, your point is slowly starting to emerge from the confusing way it was presented. Now I think I understand the general thrust of what you are saying, I will make a quick response (I have to go quite soon)

The 'ultimate purpose', as you put it, was not there before as a goal that the appearance of 4 was a step towards.

What happens (to oversimplify) is that an organism developed the arm (or '4') as a random mutation, then discovered that if they used the arm to pick up a rock (combine with '1' to get '5') they could throw it at you ('10'). '10', however, did not exist beforehand and need to have it's origin explained, as you seem to be implying. It was a discovered use by the organism of '4'.

If '10' is useful in the creatures environement (for example, if you are trying to attack the organism, throwing a rock at you is useful as it stops you trying to attack it) then the organism is more able to reproduce and the '4' mutation is passed on. If '10' is not useful, then the organism is not more able to reproduce, so the '4' mutation will not be passed on more favourably.

 

[Jet Black]

funny, evoltuoin has no goal, I would say not even a short term goal. if 10 is the goal then the concept of 10 is redundant.

 

[Mistermystery]

funny, evoltuoin has no goal, I would say not even a short term goal. if 10 is the goal then the concept of 10 is redundant.

Ha ha, Jet loses the argument because he misspelled evolution. Thanks for dooming evolution Jet!

 

[Jet Black]

Ha ha, Jet loses the argument because he misspelled evolution. Thanks for dooming evolution Jet!

lol

 

[lucaspa]

The OP is so hopelessly addled by poor understanding that there is little that can be done to correct it. Furthermore, the post is simple sophistry and attempts to "win" a debate by confusing pseudo intellectual rambling. Colossian can only "win" by so frustrating anyone willing to actually write out a response, as he has in this thread already. He is the very definition of a troll and this thread is nothing more than a sophists (poorly laid) trap.

I say call a spade a spade.

IF that is the case, then call the OP "trolling". Again, discussing the statements and not the person.

I, of course, disagree that the OP was so hopelessly addled that little can be done to correct it, since I have 2 posts doing just that.

The weakness of the OP lies in the mistaken idea that it is not abstract. It is abstract. What Colossians did was post a hypothesis about how evolution works. That is, evolution goes stepwise from 1, 2, 3 ...5, 6, ... 10 combined with the idea that it is inevitable that a form should go to a 10. That's a statement about how the physical universe works. Now, what science requires is testing that hypothesis in the physical world. Colossians has to demonstrate a lineage always proceeds to the next step in the design. Or rather, Colossians should look for instances where the next step was not taken in an attempt to falsify the hypothesis.

Colossians, please pay attention. If you had done science correctly, you would soon have come upon the different types of eyes in the animal kingdom. All are in the sequence of 1 .... 10 with 1 being an eyespot on a unicellular organisms and 10 being a pinhole and camera eye. Yet here we have lineages that stopped at 1, 2, 3, ... 9. IOW, the "progression" is not inevitable. These animals make a good living with the "intermediate" design.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Nathan Poe,

10 exists because you say it does.
If it does not exist, then what is it within your psyche that motivates you to prove it does not exist?

A desire to educate.

Are you suggesting that your mythical "10" exists because people are telling you that it does not? Does this make sense to anyone but you?

For example: ‘4’ might be a man’s arm. ‘1’ might be the ability to bend it upwards. ‘5’ might be using such ability to pick up a rock. ‘10’ might be throwing the rock on you.
‘10’.
AHA! This "10" business is beginning to clear up.... slightly.
So you admit to bluffing your way through to this point.

No, I admit that your analogy is so flawed, it's taken me this long to even begin to see where you were going with this.

And it has not been worth the effort thus far.

Your '10' is referring to what an organism is capable of doing at this moment.
Not really: you are overly stringent. '10' is simply an ultimate purpose. Don't try to pin everything on my rock-throwing arm analogy. The analogy assumed that that was the ultimate purpose of the arm. As such it was only an illustration.

And a poor illustration at that. As you have been told many times before, evoluton has no "ultimate purpose." it is a series of improvisations and jury-rigs that accomplish what needs to be done at the time.

The first obvious flaw (of several) is that you're assuming that the current state (the ability to throw a rock) is a "final" product. But evolution is an ongoing process. When the 11s show up, the 10s are going to be in a bit of a spot, now aren't they?
You militate against yourself here: your perception of evolution is necessarily defined from the perspective of utility, and ultimate utility at that.To delete such from your cognitive repertoire, leaves you without any impetus or relativity to spark of your idea in the first place.

Not ultimate utility, current utility. But today's utility can turn against oneself rather quickly should the environment change.

Your anchoring point, ('10'), is by definition that which has sparked off the need within you to create your theory.

YOUR anchoring point. Stop trying to fob off your '10' on the rest of us. You've made your bed, now lie in it.

On the other hand he ignores that science does not look for a way to explain what ought to be, but what is.
False dichotomy. What is, is only understood to be what it is, in light of its perceived utility. This is why we have the phenomenon that nouns can be verbs (“book him!” ) , and verbs can be nouns (“smoking is prohibited” ) .
Very teleological, but the quirks of grammar are a poor analogy for science. Take it from an English teacher.
More of your empty fluff and bluff. The point stands. There are no marks for witty sayings.

Including your own (failed) attempt at wit. Your argument is flawed from the beginning. Face it.

The quirks of grammar are inextricably linked to reality: they are symptomatic and indicative of the presence of both state and action. As such, they constitute one of the best ideology-verifying mechanisms available. It comes as no surprise that your peculiar ideology seeks to isolate itself from such universal substance.

Say WHAT? Reality only exists if we have the grammar to express it?

"There is a 4. Now if we assume that this has come from evolutionary processes, we should find a 2 and a 3 in certain other situations.
Not according to your books. The very existence of 4 is due to the advantage it contains over 3.
And if the 4s were in competition with the 3s, then at some point the 3s would likely become extinct. But this is not always the case, now is it.
It is when it is.

How profound.

And that is the situation in view. And such is that which your camp proudly alludes to when referring to "advantage". Ad nauseum.

What situation? What are you referring to?

However, the selective advantage of particular designs are not difficult to find -- because they are DESIGNS.
Which are necessarily DESIGNED. (You may not appropriate a word which inherently implies intelligent impetus, to that which implies it not.) This is one of your camp’s tricks (you do the same with “incentive” and other words). It serves a purpose, but not an honest one.
Sorry Col, but words do not mean what you want them to mean. "Design" can come about through unintelligent processes.
"Design" is a noun. "Designed" a participle. The root semantic in each is consistent with that in the other. You may not allow the word "design" to be applied to that which cannot also be said to be "designed". Your argument is a prime example of the arrogance of your camp: you choose to redefine the semantic borders of words, rather than submit to them.

Words do not control us; we control them.

My point stands. It is you who wish to make words mean something tangential to their default semantic.

Could you use a larger font? I'm having difficulty seeing your point through this smokescreen.

If your beliefs are correct, you should be able to articulate them without any resort whatsoever to words that are inextricably linked to cognition.
The words are not inextricibly linked. Your edict to the contrary does not make it otherwise.
They are inextricably linked, as I have also proven via its link with its corresponding participle.

Utter nonsense.

Your eccentric use of the word is simply a construct designed to support your ideas. And also that which is designed to hood-wink the public. (Note that you will not here consider my last use of "designed" as that which refers to a random, accidental occurence.)

You need to know that your obsession with grammar (bordering on fetishism, it would seem) is completely irrelevent to evolutionary theory.

Your problem is with the English language, not with science.

Just because something is possible, doesn't mean that it is happening or has happened.
Who said it is or has?
But in declaring that all might expire, one necessarily militates against the concept that that which ‘drives’ evolution, is “benefit”. Tell us, what benefit drives extinction? And if there is no benefit in such, then how is it you even cite benefit at all as a concept? Is not benefit only extant by virtue of an implied absolute – (your ‘10’ ) ?

The only "benefit" which drives evolution is survival. Not everyone receives this benefit.

And once again, it's YOUR 10, not ours. Your married the idea; till death do you part.

"Benefit" is not what drives evolution. Survival is.
False dichotomy.

Do you even know what a dichotomy is, let alone a false one?

Jet said evolution may lead to extinction simply to demonstrate that it does NOT have an "upward direction."
Obviously you understand the semantic of “upward” in this context. Such attests to your ‘10’. Attempting to disengage yourself from such a concept, does nothing other than attest to the fact that you are aware of what it is you are disengaging yourself from: ‘10’.
YOUR '10,' not ours.
Again, you simply do not respond to that which you can't. Instead you post denial. Denial is good for people like Sadam Hussein (a last resort). Presumably this is the same reason you are using it.

1: Who invented this '10' analogy? You did. That makes it yours.
2: Evolutionists are like Saddam Hussein? Your Ad Homs are getting more desperate.

It's a natural process, it's not aiming for perfection or something like that.
Your acknowledgment of the concept of “perfection”, is yet another example of your ‘10’, and of your unwitting subordinancy to a scheme of purpose within a framework which implies an absolute. Such comprises the necessary redundany of your argument.

Doubletalk.

You really are in love with your '10,' aren't you?
More fluff in the absence of the ability to out-argue the point. You should not be so transparent.

Express a point and I'll argue it. Your attempts to obfuscate a poor argument with bad sophistry is what's transparent.

In fact, even your desire to argue at all, militates against the random scheme of things you suggest is in force.
What does a desire to argue have to do with biological evolution?
What does biological evolution have to do with the philosophical focus of this thread?

You want to argue philosophy? What does this have to do with the biological processes of evolutionary theory.

You're doing precisely what creationists accuse evolutionists of: Trying to meld a scientific theory with some sort of worldview. That's simply not the way it works.

(But nice try to try to narrow the borders.)
The point stands: your desire to argue over abiogenesis is attestation to the presence in your mind of '10'.

It does no such thing, since you have utterly failed to adequately defend your concept of "10" in an evolutionary context.

Sometimes a catastophe will occur and an organism will go extinct, perhaps because of something that it developed which use to be BENNEFICIAL, but is not harmful.
Your understanding is simply a tautology: you claim that what exists, does so because there was a benefit in existing. Your ‘10’ is the benefit of existing, itself inseparable from the utility of what exists.

The benefit is survival. What other benfit do you think evolution provides?

That's the third time you've said "YOUR" '10,' in refence to the analogy you yourself made up. Are you trying to distance yourself from a flawed argument?
Again you come up with another peace of substanceless entertainment, characteristic of your camp. The rule seems to be: "when you can't argue intelligently, try to at least appear intelligent by creating a witty remark which will hopefully distract the opponent from the fact that you have not attended to the point".

You've evaded the question.

Natural seletion has no ultimate goal. However, it does have a short-term goal:
Any goal is, in absence of a greater goal, a ‘10’. For it is in such case, an absolute by default.
Your point militates against your intent.

And the goal is to not die. Pretty simple, eh?

Fine, 10 today, 11 tomorrow. 4,577 in a few million years. Your point?
It is to be expected that those proponents of a doctrine which have difficulty in evaluating abstracts, will not understand generic principles.
If '10' today is replaced by '17' tommorow, then '17' is simply your new '10'. You haven't grasped the fact that '10' is not a fixed point, but an implicit, generic, absolute.

An "absolute" which is in a constant state of change depending on the environment... Not very absolute, is it?

By this (your own) definition, '10' would be the ability for an organism to survive. Whatever route evolutin takes is simply a means to that end.

but since the means to that end are constantly changing, calling your '10' an absolute is rather pointless.

Mr Poe, your post lacks a lot: chiefly substance.

Now who's trying to be witty?

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Wow, this thread introduces an entirely new fallacy, arguement from making no frikkin sense (henceforth called arguement from idiocy). It goes [Random senseless statement] [Lots of "What are you talking about" type of posts] [Ha, you can't refute it! I win!].

Well he has used all the others, he had to start inventing his own.

Ghost

 

[Nathan Poe]

The weakness of the OP lies in the mistaken idea that it is not abstract. It is abstract. What Colossians did was post a hypothesis about how evolution works. That is, evolution goes stepwise from 1, 2, 3 ...5, 6, ... 10 combined with the idea that it is inevitable that a form should go to a 10. That's a statement about how the physical universe works. Now, what science requires is testing that hypothesis in the physical world. Colossians has to demonstrate a lineage always proceeds to the next step in the design. Or rather, Colossians should look for instances where the next step was not taken in an attempt to falsify the hypothesis.

Colossians, please pay attention. If you had done science correctly, you would soon have come upon the different types of eyes in the animal kingdom. All are in the sequence of 1 .... 10 with 1 being an eyespot on a unicellular organisms and 10 being a pinhole and camera eye. Yet here we have lineages that stopped at 1, 2, 3, ... 9. IOW, the "progression" is not inevitable. These animals make a good living with the "intermediate" design.

Kudos for your patience, lucaspa.

The ball's in your court, Colossians. Is your hypothesis backed up by observations of the real world?

 

[Jet Black]

And a poor illustration at that. As you have been told many times before, evoluton has no "ultimate purpose." it is a series of improvisations and jury-rigs that accomplish what needs to be done at the time.

while this could be understood as the evolution of evolvability, I don't think it is. one should be careful with phrases like this since it again implies that there is some kind of purpose. there is variation within the population, which is random with respect to the individual and even the population as a whole (the improvisations), and this results in differential reproductive success. some of the variations are to the breeding-benefit of the organism being studied, and some are to the detriment. there isn't really even any accomplishment.

 

[lucaspa]

(Freodin)
He assumes that there is an "ultimate purpose" that is different from the current state, but is to be achived by Evolution - this is incorrect.
No no no. You have it wrong again.
‘10’ exists; that is why it is mentioned:
For example: ‘4’ might be a man’s arm. ‘1’ might be the ability to bend it upwards. ‘5’ might be using such ability to pick up a rock. ‘10’ might be throwing the rock on you.
‘10’.

This is talking about the uses of a structure, not changes in the structure itself. Plus, if "4" is the arm, then "1" can't be a function of the arm. You can't have the function before you have the structure.

"There is a 4. Now if we assume that this has come from evolutionary processes, we should find a 2 and a 3 in certain other situations.
Not according to your books. The very existence of 4 is due to the advantage it contains over 3.
3 long ago bit the dust.

Not always. See Dawkins' Climbing Mt. Improbable. The intermediate steps in getting to a camera and pinhole eye are still in existence in living animals. Also, the intermediate steps in getting to a complete placenta are still in existence in the living species of a fish genus:
1. David N. Reznick, Mariana Mateos, and Mark S. Springer Independent Origins and Rapid Evolution of the Placenta in the Fish Genus Poeciliopsis Science 298: 1018-1020, Nov. 1, 2002. Intermediate steps in same genus. http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mmateos/reznicketal.pdf News article at: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/298/5595/945a

(lucaspa)
However, the selective advantage of particular designs are not difficult to find -- because they are DESIGNS.
Which are necessarily DESIGNED. (You may not appropriate a word which inherently implies intelligent impetus, to that which implies it not.)

Sorry, but "design" always had the implicit prepositional phrase "by an intelligent entity" attached. As you say, it was "implied". But that doesn't mean that intelligence is required. What Darwin did was discover an unintelligent process that also produced designs. Therefore "design" can no longer be used with the implicit prepositional phrase. You must say that phrase. Was the object designed by an intelligent entity or by natural selection?

This gets even more complicated now that humans are using natural selection to get designs that are too tough for them to come up with. Right now they are fooling the Patent Office that the designs are by people, since the Patent Office has no other way of dealing with the situation. But in reality, the new designs/inventions are not done by the people:
24. Jr Koza, MA Keane, MJ Streeter, Evolving inventions. Scientific American, 52-59, Feb 2003 check out www.genetic-programming.com

If your beliefs are correct, you should be able to articulate them without any resort whatsoever to words that are inextricably linked to cognition.

The problem is that design is no longer inextricably linked to cognition! New data revises old ideas. It is a trick of "your beliefs" that design requires an intelligent entity.

(logic)
Just because something is possible, doesn't mean that it is happening or has happened.
Who said it is or has?
But in declaring that all might expire, one necessarily militates against the concept that that which ‘drives’ evolution, is “benefit”. Tell us, what benefit drives extinction? And if there is no benefit in such, then how is it you even cite benefit at all as a concept? Is not benefit only extant by virtue of an implied absolute – (your ‘10’ ) ?

You are confusing evolution with natural selection. "Evolution" is what happens to populations: descent with modification. Natural selection is the chief method of "modification". What natural selection does is modify a population by picking the best designs among the individuals for that particular environment.

Now, the designs are produced by variation and are random with regard to the needs of the population or individual. So, in a changing environment it is very possible that the necessary variations/designs won't be produced. In that case, the population goes extinct.

It is also possible that a better design will occur someplace else. When that population invades the territory of the poorer design, the population with the poorer design will be driven to extinction. This is happening now in N. America by the coati replacing the raccoon. The coati evolved in S. America and has been extending its range north. It does a better job of being a "raccoon" than a raccoon, and wherever the coati is, the resident raccoons either to move out or they die.

And there is no "absolute" "10" Good designs are defined totally in relation to the environment. What is "good" and a "10" in one environment is a "0" in another. Let's take the thumbs of bears and pandas. The real thumbs. In bears -- the relatives and ancestors of pandas -- the thumb is fused to the other 4 fingers to make a rigid paw. That "10" works very well for bears in walking and getting food. However, the panda needs a flexible thumb to grasp its food -- bamboo. Now the fused thumb that is a "10" for other bears is a "0" for the panda. Natural selection ended up modifying a wrist bone into a makeshift thumb for the panda. In other animals, that modified wrist bone is not a "10" or even a "5", but a "0".

It's a natural process, it's not aiming for perfection or something like that.
Your acknowledgment of the concept of “perfection”, is yet another example of your ‘10’, and of your unwitting subordinancy to a scheme of purpose within a framework which implies an absolute. Such comprises the necessary redundany of your argument.

Sophistry. Good sophistry, but sophistry. Colossians, in science you assume an idea is true in order to test it. That's how deductive logic works. JB is not saying the framework of evolution implies or requires an absolute. Your proposed framework has an absolute. JB tested to see whether evolution had an abasolute. To do that he had to assume your statement so he could test it against evolution. And he found that evolution does not have such a framework

That framework comes only from creationism, where designs in plants and animals are expected to mirror the "perfect forms" proposed by Plato. But what Darwin changed was what I stated above: "perfection" is determined by particular environments. There is no "absolute", only relative to the environment.
In fact, even your desire to argue at all, militates against the random scheme of things you suggest is in force.

You have a really warped view of what evolution is, describing it with numbers and everything,
The mathematical analogy is sound. The problem is you have trouble with abstracts, and inductive reasoning.

No, that's not our problem. The problem is that you have proposed a hypothesis about what evolution is. In order to test that hypothesis, you have to show us that this is really what evolution is. Not only that, but you have to test your mathematics against concrete biological examples. And you are looking for examples that show your idea to be wrong, not ones that show it to be right. I have already found examples -- data -- that show your mathematics to be wrong.

(lucaspa)
Natural seletion has no ultimate goal. However, it does have a short-term goal:
Any goal is, in absence of a greater goal, a ‘10’. For it is in such case, an absolute by default.
Your point militates against your intent.

The goal doesn't have to be a "10". For instance, if we are both running away from a bear, the goal of "10" is being faster than the bear, right? But for natural selection to work, I don't have to be faster than the bear. I only have to be faster than you. So the requirement is not to be the fastest possible, just to be faster than my contemporaries. Again, a relative goal, not an absolute one.

For instance, do you think that seals are a "5" and are on the way to the "goal" of becoming a "10" -- whales? Sounds like it.
Sounds like you haven’t understood the legend provided in the OP.
Seals are a ‘4’, and not a ‘5’: they are an evolved entity.
They might be combined with the ‘1’ of where they naturally live: sea-water, to become the ‘5’ of a salt-water predator.
‘10’ will be their place in the scheme of ecology.

But that "scheme of ecology" is relative, isn't it? Ecologies are not absolutes, but ever changing circumstances.

Maybe I haven't understood the legend in the OP. Educate me. Now, you say that seals are a "4". How did you assign that number? You say "1" is their environment. But isn't "1" an animal with fewer features for living in salt water? Wouldn't a polar bear be more of a "1"? Spends nearly all its time on land and only hunts a little in salt water?

If "10" is the best possible adaptation to the environment, then "1" can't be the environment, it seems to me, but must be a very poor or initial adaptation to that environment.

BTW, seals are salt-water predators!

 

[Jet Black]

Maybe I haven't understood the legend in the OP. Educate me. Now, you say that seals are a "4". How did you assign that number? You say "1" is their environment. But isn't "1" an animal with fewer features for living in salt water? Wouldn't a polar bear be more of a "1"? Spends nearly all its time on land and only hunts a little in salt water?

If "10" is the best possible adaptation to the environment, then "1" can't be the environment, it seems to me, but must be a very poor or initial adaptation to that environment.

BTW, seals are salt-water predators!

this is what I thought. of course, polar bears are only a 1 if you throw them in the water. where they are, they are a 10.

 

[lucaspa]

AHA! This "10" business is beginning to clear up.... slightly.
So you admit to bluffing your way through to this point.

No. He's admitting that he is trying to have an honest conversation with you and doing his best to understand what you are saying! The least you could do would be courteous and not insult him.

Your '10' is referring to what an organism is capable of doing at this moment.
Not really: you are overly stringent. '10' is simply an ultimate purpose. Don't try to pin everything on my rock-throwing arm analogy. The analogy assumed that that was the ultimate purpose of the arm. As such it was only an illustration.

What do you mean, "assume" it was the ultimate purpose? If you can't identify the ultimate purpose ahead of time, then all you have is a sequence of relative purposes. If you can't identify an ultimate purpose, what is your basis for saying there is one?

The first obvious flaw (of several) is that you're assuming that the current state (the ability to throw a rock) is a "final" product. But evolution is an ongoing process. When the 11s show up, the 10s are going to be in a bit of a spot, now aren't they?
You militate against yourself here: your perception of evolution is necessarily defined from the perspective of utility, and ultimate utility at that.To delete such from your cognitive repertoire, leaves you without any impetus or relativity to spark of your idea in the first place.
Your anchoring point, ('10'), is by definition that which has sparked off the need within you to create your theory.

You are projecting your views on to us. The "11" spoken of could be the ability to wave around to balance on a tightrope. That isn't ultimate, either, just another function. The point is that there is no "anchoring point" in an ultimate goal. There is simply response to design problems posed by the environment. Change the environment, and you change the design requirements.

"Benefit" is not what drives evolution. Survival is.
False dichotomy.

Colossians, have you ever heard of the Struggle for Existence? Or perhaps Malthusian economics? Basically, population increases geometrically while resources can only increase arithmetically. That means that more individuals are born than the environment can support. There is inevitable competition among individuals for scarce resources. Thus, what drives evolution is survival. The "beneficial" designs are a result of natural selection, not what drives it. Here, this is how Darwin summarized natural selection. Please pay special attention to the bold:

"If, during the long course of ages and under varying conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organization, and I think this cannot be disputed; if there be, owing to the high geometric powers of increase of each species, at some age, season, or year, a severe struggle for life, and this certainly cannot be disputed; then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of existence, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, I think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation ever had occurred useful to each beings welfare, in the same way as so many variations have occured useful to man. But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterized will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will will tend to produce offspring similarly characterized. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection." [Origin, p 127 6th ed.]

Natural seletion has no ultimate goal. However, it does have a short-term goal:
Any goal is, in absence of a greater goal, a ‘10’. For it is in such case, an absolute by default.
Your point militates against your intent.
Fine, 10 today, 11 tomorrow. 4,577 in a few million years. Your point?
It is to be expected that those proponents of a doctrine which have difficulty in evaluating abstracts, will not understand generic principles.
If '10' today is replaced by '17' tommorow, then '17' is simply your new '10'. You haven't grasped the fact that '10' is not a fixed point, but an implicit, generic, absolute.

If there is an absolute, generic "10", then why are animals with primitive eyespots still in existence? Shouldn't they all have been replaced witht the vertebrate pinhole and camera eye? After all, that is as close to "absolute" as we have now. It is the current "10".

Now, you have said that seals could be a "10" in their ecology. But in that case, there is no absolute "10", is there? "10" is relative to the ecology.

BTW, an "absolute" is a "fixed point". That you tell us that "10" is "not a fixed point, but an implicit, generic absolute" tells us that you know, deep down, that "10" is relative. Otherwise, you would not have the contradiction within the same sentence.

Mr Poe, your post lacks a lot: chiefly substance.

This is ad hominem. The post had substance, enough substance that you needed to respond. What you are trying to say is that the points were not valid. The new rules have you restraining from ad hominem. I have told the evolutionists that they cannot use ad hominem. Sauce for the goose.

Now, since I refuted all your points, I could say the same about your post. Wouldn't you consider that ad hominem? It's the consistency test.

 

[lucaspa]

this is what I thought. of course, polar bears are only a 1 if you throw them in the water. where they are, they are a 10.

Well, you and I understand his OP in the same way. I suspect that Colossians would tell us that we are both wrong!

However, if we are, then his scheme makes no sense, because it is bolts and apples! 1 is the environment and 5 is the arm? The 2 can't belong in the same sequence!

So, we get to the relative part of the scheme. Colossians has his sequence 1 - 10 of characteristics going from less functional or efficient to the most functional or efficient.

Now, if that is applied across evolutionary lineages such as the human arm, then 10 has to be the most functional or efficient of all possible designs. Thus, the raccoon arm would be a "1" but the chimp arm a "9". In terms of the polar bear, a predator that can't go in the water at all would be the "0" and an orca the "10" (assuming we are staying in mammals, otherwise maybe a "10" is a shark). So, the polar bear with a few functions and efficiency at being a predator in salt water would be a "1". But then the intermediate stages do not go extinct and evolution doesn't go to the absolute!

However, if Colossians argues that a polar bear is a "10" in regard to its environment and an orca is a "10" in regard to its environment, then there is no absolute "10", but "10" is relative to the environment. Of course, since orcas are a "10", then dolphins would be less than a "10". And we still have intermediate stages that don't go to the absolute!

I'm afraid it's a lose-lose situation for Colossians.

 

[funyun]

If it does not exist, then what is it within your psyche that motivates you to prove it does not exist?

Huh? Is this the same old tired argument as "atheists are on a Christian debate forum because it is the spirit of god motivating them"?

10 is no different than any other number. The reason we use it as a base is because it is part of our system of mathematics. 10 is not a universal magic number for counting. If conditioned from an early age, you could have the same view with 3, or 8.

For example: ‘4’ might be a man’s arm. ‘1’ might be the ability to bend it upwards. ‘5’ might be using such ability to pick up a rock. ‘10’ might be throwing the rock on you.

This doesn't make any sense. You are using random numbers as proxies for anything you can make up. You can't have the numbers be different things. You can't use them for multiple applications. If you wanted, this would make more sense:

1- Something
2- Something
3- Something
4- Something
5- Something
6- Something
7- Something
8- Something
9- Something

Then say 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9 (45) is the end result. That would make some sense. But 10 does not.

Not really: you are overly stringent. '10' is simply an ultimate purpose. Don't try to pin everything on my rock-throwing arm analogy. The analogy assumed that that was the ultimate purpose of the arm. As such it was only an illustration.

The problem here is, there is no purpose! Evolution has no eventual purpose! The saying "peak of evolution" is a mistake, because such a thing is nonexistant. Evolution does not work to build a certain kind of organism over a period of time which will be "higher on the chain". It works to adapt an existing organism for the reason of survival (Natural selection- this doesn't take into account things like mutations).

You militate against yourself here: your perception of evolution is necessarily defined from the perspective of utility, and ultimate utility at that.To delete such from your cognitive repertoire, leaves you without any impetus or relativity to spark of your idea in the first place.
Your anchoring point, ('10'), is by definition that which has sparked off the need within you to create your theory.

1) You are in no position to be criticizing others perceptions of evolution. Trust me on that.
2) There is no ultimate utility.
3) The last sentence is really grasping. Are you going to stick to one assertion at a time, or are you going to bounce all over the place, simply looking to make a jab whenever you have the chance? 10 is no ones "anchoring point" but your own. Let's get that straight. You made this analogy.

So far all your argument seems to boil down to is "I'm right; you are blind. And if you can't see that, well, it's just because your too blind to see it in the first place-- which is what I said in the first place!"

False dichotomy. What is, is only understood to be what it is, in light of its perceived utility. This is why we have the phenomenon that nouns can be verbs (“book him!” ) , and verbs can be nouns (“smoking is prohibited” ) .

Very teleological, but the quirks of grammar are a poor analogy for science. Take it from an English teacher.

^ Too important to take out, in light of Colossians last remark.

More of your empty fluff and bluff. The point stands. There are no marks for witty sayings.
The quirks of grammar are inextricably linked to reality: they are symptomatic and indicative of the presence of both state and action. As such, they constitute one of the best ideology-verifying mechanisms available. It comes as no surprise that your peculiar ideology seeks to isolate itself from such universal substance.

You think you sound clever, but you really dont. To be frank, you are talking out of your ***. You're making a false analogy. Words are what we want them to be. They are in no way "inextricably linked to reality". To try and show a truth in the understanding of natural processes through showing a truth in the understanding of a man-made system, and then comparing notes, is not a good way to go about doing things.

Not according to your books. The very existence of 4 is due to the advantage it contains over 3.

But what is 3? You keep re-assigning the numbers to be whatever you want them to be. Any number could be anything, from an organism itself to a gene frequency, to an action, to an advantage. THIS IS WHY YOUR ARGUMENT FAILS.

It is when it is. And that is the situation in view. And such is that which your camp proudly alludes to when referring to "advantage". Ad nauseum.

You don't know what you're talking about anymore, and neither do I.

Which are necessarily DESIGNED. (You may not appropriate a word which inherently implies intelligent impetus, to that which implies it not.) This is one of your camp’s tricks (you do the same with “incentive” and other words). It serves a purpose, but not an honest one.

Designed by actions! Not by intelligence. You are the one twisting the meanings of words. Design does not necessarily mean "intelligence done it".

"Design" is a noun. "Designed" a participle. The root semantic in each is consistent with that in the other. You may not allow the word "design" to be applied to that which cannot also be said to be "designed". Your argument is a prime example of the arrogance of your camp: you choose to redefine the semantic borders of words, rather than submit to them.
My point stands. It is you who wish to make words mean something tangential to their default semantic.

Jeez, would you stop dodging with the freaking semantics? You really don't know what you're talking about. Designed is not a participle in "The world was designed." It is, however, a participle in "The designed world was created." Nowhere did he twist a word's "semantic borders".

If your beliefs are correct, you should be able to articulate them without any resort whatsoever to words that are inextricably linked to cognition.

But this is exactly, exactly, exactly, exactly what you are doing. EXACTLY!

Your eccentric use of the word is simply a construct designed to support your ideas. And also that which is designed to hood-wink the public. (Note that you will not here consider my last use of "designed" as that which refers to a random, accidental occurence.)

Of course. Because the person you were directing it towards was an intelligent entity. A being capable of intelligence. You could not converse with any other kind of thing. Your point is vacuous. You're guilty of what you just claimed others guilty of: using words linked to cognition.

Who said it is or has?
But in declaring that all might expire, one necessarily militates against the concept that that which ‘drives’ evolution, is “benefit”. Tell us, what benefit drives extinction? And if there is no benefit in such, then how is it you even cite benefit at all as a concept? Is not benefit only extant by virtue of an implied absolute – (your ‘10’ ) ?

10 is YOUR implied absolute. No one else is implying any absolute at all, certainly not one involving the number 10.

"Benefit" is not what drives evolution. Survival is.
False dichotomy.

Do you even know what the word dichotomy means?

Obviously you understand the semantic of “upward” in this context. Such attests to your ‘10’. Attempting to disengage yourself from such a concept, does nothing other than attest to the fact that you are aware of what it is you are disengaging yourself from: ‘10’.

1) Shut up with the "semantics" dodging. You know what he means.
2) IT IS NO ONES 10 BUT YOUR OWN. This is simply another strawman which you are defending by calling it someone else's strawman.

Again, you simply do not respond to that which you can't. Instead you post denial. Denial is good for people like Sadam Hussein (a last resort). Presumably this is the same reason you are using it.

Same old argument. "You're blind and if you can't see that, it's because you're blind." It'd be best, Colossians, if you did not rely so heavily on tautological arguments to make a point.

Your acknowledgment of the concept of “perfection”, is yet another example of your ‘10’, and of your unwitting subordinancy to a scheme of purpose within a framework which implies an absolute. Such comprises the necessary redundany of your argument.

Would you please bring some information to the debate, Colossians? All you do is say "nuh-uh" when someone points out the flaws in what you are saying, rather than add something constructive which may help us all see your point. You come in with preconceived notions of what other people say and build strawmen on that constantly. Then when we tear them down, you tell us we never did it, and that we are wrong because you say so and you say so because we are wrong.

It is annoying to no end.

More fluff in the absence of the ability to out-argue the point. You should not be so transparent.

There is no point. You have no point. You argument is built on strawmen which are built on more strawmen which are built on logical fallacies which are built on logical inconsistancie which are built on strawmen.

Don't quit your day job.

What does biological evolution have to do with the philosophical focus of this thread?
(But nice try to try to narrow the borders.)
The point stands: your desire to argue over abiogenesis is attestation to the presence in your mind of '10'.

Abiogenesis? I thought we were talking about evolution.

Your understanding is simply a tautology: you claim that what exists, does so because there was a benefit in existing. Your ‘10’ is the benefit of existing, itself inseparable from the utility of what exists.

1) That's not what he's saying at all. You misunderstand (or purposefully misrepresent) evolution.
2) It is your 10, not ours.

That's the third time you've said "YOUR" '10,' in refence to the analogy you yourself made up. Are you trying to distance yourself from a flawed argument?

Again you come up with another peace of substanceless entertainment, characteristic of your camp. The rule seems to be: "when you can't argue intelligently, try to at least appear intelligent by creating a witty remark which will hopefully distract the opponent from the fact that you have not attended to the point".

DODGE. Answer his question. BTW, looking over your posts, you are guilty of all the things you claim he is doing.

Any goal is, in absence of a greater goal, a ‘10’. For it is in such case, an absolute by default.

No. Wrong, wrong, wrong. This is most deceptive of you, Colossians, as I KNOW you know the difference. It is a "final result" by default, possibly. It is not a "finished result" or an "absolute" by default at all. You keep trying to slither some logic into these claims, but it just isn't working.

Fine, 10 today, 11 tomorrow. 4,577 in a few million years. Your point?
It is to be expected that those proponents of a doctrine which have difficulty in evaluating abstracts, will not understand generic principles.
If '10' today is replaced by '17' tommorow, then '17' is simply your new '10'. You haven't grasped the fact that '10' is not a fixed point, but an implicit, generic, absolute.

Unfortunately, when you do that, the rest of the numbers in the 1-9 scenario collapse. You cannot make "17 the new 10" if 5 is still equal to what it was before.