On 3/12/24 9:50 AM, DB Cates wrote:
> On 2024-03-11 6:01 PM, erik simpson wrote:
>> On 3/11/24 3:33 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:08:01 -0700, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> On 3/11/24 2:46 PM, Richmond wrote:
>>>>> erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/11/24 12:24 PM, Richmond wrote:
>>>>>>> JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     Pro Plyd wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://phys.org/news/2024-03-life-evidence-rna-world.html ...
>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>> how did all of this begin? In the origins of life, long before
>>>>>>>>> cells and proteins and DNA, could a similar sort of evolution have
>>>>>>>>> taken place on a simpler scale? Scientists in the 1960s, including
>>>>>>>>> Salk Fellow Leslie Orgel, proposed that life began with the "RNA
>>>>>>>>> World," a hypothetical era in which small, stringy RNA molecules
>>>>>>>>> ruled the early Earth and established the dynamics of Darwinian
>>>>>>>>> evolution.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Darwinian Evolution," besides making things difficult when
>>>>>>>> everyone
>>>>>>>> later claims that they're not "Darwinists," is just plain
>>>>>>>> wrong. Darwin believed that if an animal ran a lot, their leg
>>>>>>>> muscles would grow and produce "Bigger, running-around-a-lot"
>>>>>>>> Gemmules which would flow to the gonads and be passed on the the
>>>>>>>> next generation, who would be born with the bigger, running
>>>>>>>> around a
>>>>>>>> lot muscles.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As i pointed out many times, and will point out many more times
>>>>>>>> because, let's face it, the last thing anyone in this group ever
>>>>>>>> wanted was science but...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Darwin REJECTED evolution. He didn't believe in it. Oh, he did
>>>>>>>> eventually use that word but this is the internet.  We're all quite
>>>>>>>> accustomed to people misusing terms, and Darwin was a pioneer. In
>>>>>>>> fact, later, in the Communist world, Stalin and then Mao banned
>>>>>>>> evolution, and in it's place promoted Darwin's ideas. Renamed, of
>>>>>>>> course. But they were all copying the exact same source material,
>>>>>>>> Lamarcksim...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Darwin was an idiot. And he certainly never invented or discovered
>>>>>>>> evolution. Evolution was already quite old by the time that Darwin
>>>>>>>> sabotaged science with his inability to grasp it. No, sorry,
>>>>>>>> evolution was always part of "Common Descent," and if you do the
>>>>>>>> Google you'll find sources pushing THAT idea back into the
>>>>>>>> thousands
>>>>>>>> of years..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Darwin's single biggest impact on science -- REAL science, as
>>>>>>>> opposed to the British aristocracy glorifying itself -- was HOLDING
>>>>>>>> BACK science in the English speaking world for 20 years by becoming
>>>>>>>> the face of Naturalism and throwing aside Mendel.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, it took that long -- 20 years -- for some Brit with a stick up
>>>>>>>> his ass to pretend that he made Mendel's discoveries...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is important. It's not a small error. When someone spews an
>>>>>>>> oxymoron like "Darwinian Evolution" it's not because they're so
>>>>>>>> meticulous in their work. No. It's because they are hitting
>>>>>>>> buckets. They're communicating.  They are invoking things that the
>>>>>>>> layman will recognize as familiar. They are, as the saying goes,
>>>>>>>> "Putting lipstick on a pig."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "I said DARWINIAN evolution! That's cus I is edu ma kated. I know
>>>>>>>> stuff."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again, not a small error. It makes the piece as being meant for
>>>>>>>> "The
>>>>>>>> un edu ma kated"... the only people who might find "Darwinian"
>>>>>>>> evolution sciency!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Demand accuracy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don't you think you're worth it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don't you think the promotion of science is worth it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Demand accuracy. Don't tolerate being dummed down by your
>>>>>>>> efforts to
>>>>>>>> learn and grow. It's not an unreasonable request, demanding
>>>>>>>> publications that are accurate.  >> Darwin didn't know about genes,
>>>>>>>> but then his book was published >> before >> Mendel, so you can't
>>>>>>>> really blame him for that. As for rejecting >> evolution, well the
>>>>>>>> last line in 'The Origin of Species' is: >> ", from so simple a
>>>>>>>> beginning endless forms most beautiful and most >> wonderful have
>>>>>>>> been, and are being, evolved."  >> I demand accuracy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> JTEM has for many years trolled many newsgroups. Whether he is a
>>>>>> genuine fool or just plays one on the net is probably impossible to
>>>>>> tell. Almost everything is this gem is rubbish.
>>>>>
>>>>> But what's the point in replying to it just to say it is rubbish? I
>>>>> wouldn't have even noticed it if no one had replied to it.
>>>>>
>>>> Sometimes he just ticks people off.  Thunderbird has a little trash can
>>>> icon that I use to reply to him.
>>>>
>>> Even better to never see his posts at all; my "Special
>>> Childrens' File" sees to that quite nicely, so I only need
>>> to ignore responses to him, which cuts the time I waste on
>>> him by quite a bit.
>>>>
>> Thunderbird also has filters that can eliminate obnoxious posters, but
>> I've found that sometimes it effectively clogs the pipe to the
>> newsgroup.  If I delete the filters, lots of stuff shows up
>> immediately.   Has anybody else observed this?
>>
> I use Thunderbird and extensive filtering and have had no problems at
> all. But I don't have a lot of 'filters', the one named 'kill' has about
> 40 individual relationships to filter on with the 'filter on *all* of
> the following' checked, so that is one filter that catches 40 posts.
> Then I have a few single entry filters that use more than one
> relationship to activate.
Aha! Fewer filters, but more comprehensive. I'll try it, thanks.

Pro Plyd wrote:

> https://phys.org/news/2024-03-life-evidence-rna-world.html

> ....
> But how did all of this begin? In the origins of
> life, long before cells and proteins and DNA,
> could a similar sort of evolution have taken
> place on a simpler scale? Scientists in the
> 1960s, including Salk Fellow Leslie Orgel,
> proposed that life began with the "RNA World,"
> a hypothetical era in which small, stringy RNA
> molecules ruled the early Earth and established
> the dynamics of Darwinian evolution.

> New research at the Salk Institute now provides
> fresh insights on the origins of life, presenting
> compelling evidence supporting the RNA World
> hypothesis. The study, published in Proceedings
> of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS),
> unveils an RNA enzyme that can make accurate
> copies of other functional RNA strands, while
> also allowing new variants of the molecule to
> emerge over time. These remarkable capabilities
> suggest the earliest forms of evolution may have
> occurred on a molecular scale in RNA.

> The findings also bring scientists one step
> closer to re-creating RNA-based life in the
> laboratory. By modeling these primitive
> environments in the lab, scientists can
> directly test hypotheses about how life may
> have started on Earth, or even other planets.
> ....

> https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2321592121
> RNA-catalyzed evolution of catalytic RNA

> Abstract
> An RNA polymerase ribozyme that was obtained
> by directed evolution can propagate a functional
> RNA through repeated rounds of replication and
> selection, thereby enabling Darwinian evolution.
> Earlier versions of the polymerase did not have
> sufficient copying fidelity to propagate
> functional information, but a new variant with
> improved fidelity can replicate the hammerhead
> ribozyme through reciprocal synthesis of both
> the hammerhead and its complement, with the
> products then being selected for RNA-cleavage
> activity. Two evolutionary lineages were
> carried out in parallel, using either the prior
> low-fidelity or the newer high-fidelity
> polymerase. The former lineage quickly lost
> hammerhead functionality as the population
> diverged toward random sequences, whereas the
> latter evolved new hammerhead variants with
> improved fitness compared to the starting RNA.
> The increase in fitness was attributable to
> specific mutations that improved the
> replicability of the hammerhead,
> counterbalanced by a small decrease in
> hammerhead activity. Deep sequencing analysis
> was used to follow the course of evolution,
> revealing the emergence of a succession of
> variants that progressively diverged from the
> starting hammerhead as fitness increased. This
> study demonstrates the critical importance of
> replication fidelity for maintaining heritable
> information in an RNA-based evolving system,
> such as is thought to have existed during the
> early history of life on Earth. Attempts to
> recreate RNA-based life in the laboratory must
> achieve further improvements in replication
> fidelity to enable the fully autonomous
> Darwinian evolution of RNA enzymes as complex
> as the polymerase itself.

Some complaints have been lodged about a prior response
to this post. Generally I would disregard things from that
author but as I read this first I have a slightly different
take. Specifically, if I were given the above as a referee
I would have asked them to substitute "enabling natural
selection" for "enabling Darwinian evolution."

If you ask "why?", I respond it should be obvious. Natural
selection is a more obvious reference to a process of refinement
by differential reproductive success. That in context 'Darwinian
evolution' must of course mean the same thing is true, but
experience tells me that it is also a term where many misreading
begin, supported by the evidence in this thread.

In fact I recoiled at a few other points in the science journalism
reporting on the article as well, even if they are minor.
(Darwinian evolution is used in the original).

Of course science journalism is hard, and there should be
a place for articles targeted towards a more sensible audience.
Having to write 'defensively' all the time would be a heavy
burden. But ultimately that's all the better reason to avoid
getting sloppy in the primary literature and littering it with
less appropriate terminology like __Darwinian_Evolution__.

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> I don't know about Mao, but Stalin had no problem with evolution.

Omg, the depths you'll sink to...

Stalin banned it. Evolution was a criminal offense until the death
of Stalin! What they put in it's place was the same nonsense that
Darwin believed: A paraphrased version of Lamarckism.

>In
> 1959 (100 years after The Origin; 150 years after Darwin's birth) I was
> at the same school as Darwin, many years after him. The Academy of
> Sciences of the USSR sent the school a commemorative medal.

That was SIX YEARS AFTER Stalin died!

So even though I have every reason to doubt you sanity, forget
about sincerity, you don't even seem to be able to grasp the
issue here!

Yes. AFTER STALIN DIED they did allow evolution to be taught
and studied in the Soviet Union. AFTER HE DIED.

BEFORE Stalin died, evolution was banned and instead they
taught the same pseudo science that Darwin believed in. There
were very slight differences, most people couldn't even tell,
focusing on different words instead of meaning -- concepts.

--
http://jtem.tumblr.com

On 3/12/24 3:13 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2024-03-11 19:48:01 +0000, JTEM said:
>
>>   Richmond wrote:
>>
>>> Darwin didn't know about genes
>>
>> Darwin was exposed to Mendel's work --THE Mendel, the
>> guy who worked out inheritance -- and he was exposed
>> to it BEFORE he completed his "Pangenesis" vomit.
>>
>>> but then his book was published before
>>> Mendel
>>
>> Again, "Pangenesis."
>>
>> Mendel worked it all out, Darwin was exposed to it AND
>> THEN Darwin came out with the "Pangenesis" bullshit.
>>
>>> As for rejecting
>>> evolution, well the last line in 'The Origin of Species' is:
>>
>> Omg. I'll repeat it:
>>
>> Stalin. Mao.
>
> I don't know about Mao, but Stalin had no problem with evolution. In
> 1959 (100 years after The Origin; 150 years after Darwin's birth) I was
> at the same school as Darwin, many years after him. The Academy of
> Sciences of the USSR sent the school a commemorative medal. (Don't
> bother to tell me that Stalin had died by then: I know.) Interest in
> Darwinism was at low ebb in England in 1959, and the anniversaries
> passed almost unnoticed.

JTEM has his own vocabulary. By "evolution" he means the modern
synthesis, also called (which JTEM would detest) neoDarwinism. What he
seeks to attach Darwin's name to is Lysenkoism or neoLamarckism. If you
make all those switches what he says is more or less correct.

Not sure whether Mao or the CCP adopted Lysenkoism, but it doesn't seem
out of the question.

>> They banned evolution. They saw is as Capitalist
>> propaganda -- justification for everything from racism into
>> classism and onto economic exploitation. So they banned
>> evolution. And what they put in it's place was Darwin's ideas,
>> what Darwin believed it.
>
> Insofar as there is any sense at all in what you say, you're probably
> confusing Darwin with Mendel.
>>
>> Yes, you're right, Darwin was a raging idiot who had no clue
>> what he meant, much less what he was talking about. That was
>> already established.
>
>

On 3/12/24 3:13 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2024-03-11 19:48:01 +0000, JTEM said:
>
>>   Richmond wrote:
>>
>>> Darwin didn't know about genes
>>
>> Darwin was exposed to Mendel's work --THE Mendel, the
>> guy who worked out inheritance -- and he was exposed
>> to it BEFORE he completed his "Pangenesis" vomit.
>>
>>> but then his book was published before
>>> Mendel
>>
>> Again, "Pangenesis."
>>
>> Mendel worked it all out, Darwin was exposed to it AND
>> THEN Darwin came out with the "Pangenesis" bullshit.
>>
>>> As for rejecting
>>> evolution, well the last line in 'The Origin of Species' is:
>>
>> Omg. I'll repeat it:
>>
>> Stalin. Mao.
>
> I don't know about Mao,

I didn't either, so I looked it up. Here's the first page (no abstract)
of Li Peishan. 1988. Genetics in China: The Qingdao Symposium of 1956.
Isis 79:227-236

CHINESE BIOLOGISTS have considered the Qingdao Symposium of August 1956
a turning point in the history of biology in the People's Republic of
China. From 1949 to 1956 the prevailing policy in China was "learning
from the Soviet Union." Russian help contributed greatly in that period
to the reconstruction of a country torn by war, but there was a price to
pay, in biology as elsewhere. T. D. Lysenko's biological views were
promoted with every resource available. Doctrines identified with the
teachings of Thomas H. Morgan, especially genetics, were officially
criticized and forbidden. In August 1956 that policy was clearly seen to
change. At the conference on genetics held at Qingdao, Shandong, in
eastern China, scientists of both schools expressed their opinions
freely, and the reputation of Morgan's school was officially
rehabilitated. Historians inside and outside China have been curious
about the events underlying this dramatic reversal and about the
influence of the Qingdao Symposium on the later development of genetics
and on academic life in China more generally. This article aims at
providing pertinent historical data and at making some analyses.

I. BEFORE 1956

The victory of Lysenko and the treatment of classical genetics and the
"Morganist" geneticists in the Soviet Union spread rapidly to China
after 1949 and soon became a major component of the policy of "learning
from the Soviet Union." The Chinese translation of Lysenko's report at
the 1948 Biological Conference of the Lenin Academy of Agricultural
Science, entitled The Situation in Biological Science, was published in
1949 and considered a required text for departments of biology in
universities and relevant institutes. In the 1950s the only Soviet
biologists invited to China were Lysenko's followers. Their lectures
denied the achievements of Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), August Weismann
(1834-1914), and ...

but Stalin had no problem with evolution. In
> 1959 (100 years after The Origin; 150 years after Darwin's birth) I was
> at the same school as Darwin, many years after him. The Academy of
> Sciences of the USSR sent the school a commemorative medal. (Don't
> bother to tell me that Stalin had died by then: I know.) Interest in
> Darwinism was at low ebb in England in 1959, and the anniversaries
> passed almost unnoticed.
>
>> They banned evolution. They saw is as Capitalist
>> propaganda -- justification for everything from racism into
>> classism and onto economic exploitation. So they banned
>> evolution. And what they put in it's place was Darwin's ideas,
>> what Darwin believed it.
>
> Insofar as there is any sense at all in what you say, you're probably
> confusing Darwin with Mendel.
>>
>> Yes, you're right, Darwin was a raging idiot who had no clue
>> what he meant, much less what he was talking about. That was
>> already established.
>
>

On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 11:36:16 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

>jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 21:46:02 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>>erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 3/11/24 12:24 PM, Richmond wrote:
>>>>> JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Pro Plyd wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://phys.org/news/2024-03-life-evidence-rna-world.html ... But
>>>>>>> how did all of this begin? In the origins of life, long before
>>>>>>> cells and proteins and DNA, could a similar sort of evolution have
>>>>>>> taken place on a simpler scale? Scientists in the 1960s, including
>>>>>>> Salk Fellow Leslie Orgel, proposed that life began with the "RNA
>>>>>>> World," a hypothetical era in which small, stringy RNA molecules
>>>>>>> ruled the early Earth and established the dynamics of Darwinian
>>>>>>> evolution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Darwinian Evolution," besides making things difficult when everyone
>>>>>> later claims that they're not "Darwinists," is just plain
>>>>>> wrong. Darwin believed that if an animal ran a lot, their leg
>>>>>> muscles would grow and produce "Bigger, running-around-a-lot"
>>>>>> Gemmules which would flow to the gonads and be passed on the the
>>>>>> next generation, who would be born with the bigger, running around a
>>>>>> lot muscles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As i pointed out many times, and will point out many more times
>>>>>> because, let's face it, the last thing anyone in this group ever
>>>>>> wanted was science but...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Darwin REJECTED evolution. He didn't believe in it. Oh, he did
>>>>>> eventually use that word but this is the internet. We're all quite
>>>>>> accustomed to people misusing terms, and Darwin was a pioneer. In
>>>>>> fact, later, in the Communist world, Stalin and then Mao banned
>>>>>> evolution, and in it's place promoted Darwin's ideas. Renamed, of
>>>>>> course. But they were all copying the exact same source material,
>>>>>> Lamarcksim...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Darwin was an idiot. And he certainly never invented or discovered
>>>>>> evolution. Evolution was already quite old by the time that Darwin
>>>>>> sabotaged science with his inability to grasp it. No, sorry,
>>>>>> evolution was always part of "Common Descent," and if you do the
>>>>>> Google you'll find sources pushing THAT idea back into the thousands
>>>>>> of years..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Darwin's single biggest impact on science -- REAL science, as
>>>>>> opposed to the British aristocracy glorifying itself -- was HOLDING
>>>>>> BACK science in the English speaking world for 20 years by becoming
>>>>>> the face of Naturalism and throwing aside Mendel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, it took that long -- 20 years -- for some Brit with a stick up
>>>>>> his ass to pretend that he made Mendel's discoveries...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is important. It's not a small error. When someone spews an
>>>>>> oxymoron like "Darwinian Evolution" it's not because they're so
>>>>>> meticulous in their work. No. It's because they are hitting
>>>>>> buckets. They're communicating. They are invoking things that the
>>>>>> layman will recognize as familiar. They are, as the saying goes,
>>>>>> "Putting lipstick on a pig."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I said DARWINIAN evolution! That's cus I is edu ma kated. I know
>>>>>> stuff."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, not a small error. It makes the piece as being meant for "The
>>>>>> un edu ma kated"... the only people who might find "Darwinian"
>>>>>> evolution sciency!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Demand accuracy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't you think you're worth it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't you think the promotion of science is worth it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Demand accuracy. Don't tolerate being dummed down by your efforts to
>>>>>> learn and grow. It's not an unreasonable request, demanding
>>>>>> publications that are accurate. >> Darwin didn't know about genes,
>>>>>> but then his book was published >> before >> Mendel, so you can't
>>>>>> really blame him for that. As for rejecting >> evolution, well the
>>>>>> last line in 'The Origin of Species' is: >> ", from so simple a
>>>>>> beginning endless forms most beautiful and most >> wonderful have
>>>>>> been, and are being, evolved." >> I demand accuracy.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> JTEM has for many years trolled many newsgroups. Whether he is a
>>>> genuine fool or just plays one on the net is probably impossible to
>>>> tell. Almost everything is this gem is rubbish.
>>>
>>>But what's the point in replying to it just to say it is rubbish? I
>>>wouldn't have even noticed it if no one had replied to it.
>>
>>
>> If all Erik said was just to say it is rubbish, you would have raised
>> a good question.
>
>I wasn't talking about Erik in particular, there were two other replies.
>
>> However, even if he had, that shouldn't stop you
>> from posting something more substantial.
>
>Well I did, but I wasn't going to spend all day on it.
>
>>For example, you could have
>> pointed out that just about any mechanism for passing on traits would
>> still lead to evolution. The fact that Darwin's speculations about
>> that mechanism are wrong doesn't inform that his actual theory of the
>> origin of species by means of natural selection remains valid.

And so you did. Fair enough, I withdraw my comment.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On 13/03/2024 02:21, John Harshman wrote:
> On 3/12/24 3:13 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2024-03-11 19:48:01 +0000, JTEM said:
>>
>>>   Richmond wrote:
>>>
>>>> Darwin didn't know about genes
>>>
>>> Darwin was exposed to Mendel's work --THE Mendel, the
>>> guy who worked out inheritance -- and he was exposed
>>> to it BEFORE he completed his "Pangenesis" vomit.
>>>
>>>> but then his book was published before
>>>> Mendel
>>>
>>> Again, "Pangenesis."
>>>
>>> Mendel worked it all out, Darwin was exposed to it AND
>>> THEN Darwin came out with the "Pangenesis" bullshit.
>>>
>>>> As for rejecting
>>>> evolution, well the last line in 'The Origin of Species' is:
>>>
>>> Omg. I'll repeat it:
>>>
>>> Stalin. Mao.
>>
>> I don't know about Mao, but Stalin had no problem with evolution. In
>> 1959 (100 years after The Origin; 150 years after Darwin's birth) I
>> was at the same school as Darwin, many years after him. The Academy of
>> Sciences of the USSR sent the school a commemorative medal. (Don't
>> bother to tell me that Stalin had died by then: I know.) Interest in
>> Darwinism was at low ebb in England in 1959, and the anniversaries
>> passed almost unnoticed.
>
> JTEM has his own vocabulary. By "evolution" he means the modern
> synthesis, also called (which JTEM would detest) neoDarwinism. What he
> seeks to attach Darwin's name to is Lysenkoism or neoLamarckism. If you
> make all those switches what he says is more or less correct.
>
> Not sure whether Mao or the CCP adopted Lysenkoism, but it doesn't seem
> out of the question.

I've spent less time than you on these matters
and on JTEM. If you're correct about their
current argument, the question of counting
an animal's legs, when you call a tail a leg,
comes to mind.
<https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/11/15/legs/>

I'm not satisfied that "Lysenkoism" was
a reformed Lamarckism. But as I say, it's not
my thing. And so far as Charles Darwin ever
considered Lamarckism, he replaced it with his
own ideas. I'm satisfied that he decided that
genetic variation produces different survival
outcomes - not the other way around.

JTEM is not speaking their own language,
they are just lying. This is unremarkable
and uninteresting.

John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> writes:

> JTEM has his own vocabulary. By "evolution" he means the modern
> synthesis, also called (which JTEM would detest) neoDarwinism. What he
> seeks to attach Darwin's name to is Lysenkoism or neoLamarckism. If
> you make all those switches what he says is more or less correct.
>
> Not sure whether Mao or the CCP adopted Lysenkoism, but it doesn't
> seem out of the question.
>

The phrase "survival of the fittest" has always seemed suspect to me. We
hear it repeated to justify capitalism. But there isn't any requirement
to be 'fit' as far as I can see. There is only a requirement (for genes)
to survive. For example the camel which sits on the calf of its rival
and crushes it to death, or the chimpanzee which kills and eats the
infant offspring of its rivals. In what way is it 'fit'? A biologist
would define it as merely fit to survive, but then the phrase becomes
redundant as survival of the survivor. And we see the same results in
captialism with corporations swallowing up rivals rather than competing
with them.

Richmond wrote:

> John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> writes:

>> JTEM has his own vocabulary. By "evolution" he means the modern
>> synthesis, also called (which JTEM would detest) neoDarwinism. What he
>> seeks to attach Darwin's name to is Lysenkoism or neoLamarckism. If
>> you make all those switches what he says is more or less correct.
>>
>> Not sure whether Mao or the CCP adopted Lysenkoism, but it doesn't
>> seem out of the question.
>>

> The phrase "survival of the fittest" has always seemed suspect to me. We
> hear it repeated to justify capitalism. But there isn't any requirement
> to be 'fit' as far as I can see. There is only a requirement (for genes)
> to survive. For example the camel which sits on the calf of its rival
> and crushes it to death, or the chimpanzee which kills and eats the
> infant offspring of its rivals. In what way is it 'fit'? A biologist
> would define it as merely fit to survive, but then the phrase becomes
> redundant as survival of the survivor. And we see the same results in
> captialism with corporations swallowing up rivals rather than competing
> with them.

You want to argue against a metaphor by considering it literally.
That is some mix of dishonest, foolish, and stupid. Note that is comment
applies to all cases of anyone arguing against a metaphor by taking it literally,
it's not to be uniquely applied to your attempt to do so.

Beyond that, you seem inclined to overlook the nature of stochastic processes
involved in understanding the metaphor in a figurative sense.

j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:

> Richmond wrote:
>
>> John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> JTEM has his own vocabulary. By "evolution" he means the modern
>>> synthesis, also called (which JTEM would detest) neoDarwinism. What he
>>> seeks to attach Darwin's name to is Lysenkoism or neoLamarckism. If
>>> you make all those switches what he says is more or less correct.
>>>
>>> Not sure whether Mao or the CCP adopted Lysenkoism, but it doesn't
>>> seem out of the question.
>>>
>
>> The phrase "survival of the fittest" has always seemed suspect to me. We
>> hear it repeated to justify capitalism. But there isn't any requirement
>> to be 'fit' as far as I can see. There is only a requirement (for genes)
>> to survive. For example the camel which sits on the calf of its rival
>> and crushes it to death, or the chimpanzee which kills and eats the
>> infant offspring of its rivals. In what way is it 'fit'? A biologist
>> would define it as merely fit to survive, but then the phrase becomes
>> redundant as survival of the survivor. And we see the same results in
>> captialism with corporations swallowing up rivals rather than competing
>> with them.
>
> You want to argue against a metaphor by considering it literally.

It's not a metaphor.

>That
> is some mix of dishonest, foolish, and stupid.

Oh please fuck off.

Richmond used his keyboard to write :
> j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:
>
>> Richmond wrote:
>>
>>> John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> JTEM has his own vocabulary. By "evolution" he means the modern
>>>> synthesis, also called (which JTEM would detest) neoDarwinism. What he
>>>> seeks to attach Darwin's name to is Lysenkoism or neoLamarckism. If
>>>> you make all those switches what he says is more or less correct.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure whether Mao or the CCP adopted Lysenkoism, but it doesn't
>>>> seem out of the question.
>>>>
>>
>>> The phrase "survival of the fittest" has always seemed suspect to me. We
>>> hear it repeated to justify capitalism. But there isn't any requirement
>>> to be 'fit' as far as I can see. There is only a requirement (for genes)
>>> to survive. For example the camel which sits on the calf of its rival
>>> and crushes it to death, or the chimpanzee which kills and eats the
>>> infant offspring of its rivals. In what way is it 'fit'? A biologist
>>> would define it as merely fit to survive, but then the phrase becomes
>>> redundant as survival of the survivor. And we see the same results in
>>> captialism with corporations swallowing up rivals rather than competing
>>> with them.
>>
>> You want to argue against a metaphor by considering it literally.
>
> It's not a metaphor.

It's a misquote, or rather a misattribution.

FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org> writes:

> Richmond used his keyboard to write : > j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com
>(LDagget) writes:
>>
>>> Richmond wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> writes: > JTEM has his own
>>>>vocabulary. By "evolution" he means the modern > synthesis, also
>>>>called (which JTEM would detest) neoDarwinism. What he > seeks to
>>>>attach Darwin's name to is Lysenkoism or neoLamarckism. If > you
>>>>make all those switches what he says is more or less correct. > Not
>>>>sure whether Mao or the CCP adopted Lysenkoism, but it > doesn't >
>>>>seem out of the question.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>> The phrase "survival of the fittest" has always seemed suspect to
>>>> me. We hear it repeated to justify capitalism. But there isn't any
>>>> requirement to be 'fit' as far as I can see. There is only a
>>>> requirement (for genes) to survive. For example the camel which
>>>> sits on the calf of its rival and crushes it to death, or the
>>>> chimpanzee which kills and eats the infant offspring of its
>>>> rivals. In what way is it 'fit'? A biologist would define it as
>>>> merely fit to survive, but then the phrase becomes redundant as
>>>> survival of the survivor. And we see the same results in captialism
>>>> with corporations swallowing up rivals rather than competing with
>>>> them. >>> You want to argue against a metaphor by considering it
>>>> literally.
>>
>> It's not a metaphor.
>
> It's a misquote, or rather a misattribution.

Misquote of whom? Darwin uses the phrase in the 1872 edition (it is even
a chapter title) although he attributes it to Herbert Spencer. Darwin
says "But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the
Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally
convenient"

On 16/03/2024 11:17, Richmond wrote:
> j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:
>
>> Richmond wrote:
>>
>>> John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>> JTEM has his own vocabulary. By "evolution" he means the modern
>>>> synthesis, also called (which JTEM would detest) neoDarwinism. What he
>>>> seeks to attach Darwin's name to is Lysenkoism or neoLamarckism. If
>>>> you make all those switches what he says is more or less correct.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure whether Mao or the CCP adopted Lysenkoism, but it doesn't
>>>> seem out of the question.
>>>>
>>
>>> The phrase "survival of the fittest" has always seemed suspect to me. We
>>> hear it repeated to justify capitalism. But there isn't any requirement
>>> to be 'fit' as far as I can see. There is only a requirement (for genes)
>>> to survive. For example the camel which sits on the calf of its rival
>>> and crushes it to death, or the chimpanzee which kills and eats the
>>> infant offspring of its rivals. In what way is it 'fit'? A biologist
>>> would define it as merely fit to survive, but then the phrase becomes
>>> redundant as survival of the survivor. And we see the same results in
>>> captialism with corporations swallowing up rivals rather than competing
>>> with them.
>>
>> You want to argue against a metaphor by considering it literally.
>
> It's not a metaphor.

Darwin's original phrase was Natural Selection - an analogy with
Artificial Selection. The phenomenon is differential reproductive
success causally correlated with hereditary traits. (As opposite to
differential reproductive success not correlated with hereditary traits,
which is genetic drift.)

As I understand, Darwin was frustrated that people failed to understand
the concept of Natural Selection, and hoped that perhaps people would
find Spencer's Survival of the Fittest more comprehensible. The issue
perhaps is that fittest has shades of meaning - Survival of the Best
Adapted would seem to closer to how Darwin understood it. See Selection
in Relation to Sex.

I'm not sure what literary classification to place Survival of the
Fittest in. It's not obviously an analogy like Natural Selection. It's
not a definition. (Lawyer Daggett's complaint may be that you were
treating it as a definition.) Perhaps it's a catchphrase or a sound
bite. One could certainly make a case for it being a metaphor - survival
of the fittest for persistence of adaptive traits. (Now I wonder how
contemporaries interpreted the trait - modern understanding has been
modified by the rhetoric of Creationists and Social Tennysonists (often
the same people).
>
>
>> That
>> is some mix of dishonest, foolish, and stupid.
>
> Oh please fuck off.
>

--
alias Ernest Major

Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:

> On 16/03/2024 11:17, Richmond wrote:
>> j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:
>>
>>> Richmond wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>> JTEM has his own vocabulary. By "evolution" he means the modern
>>>>> synthesis, also called (which JTEM would detest)
>>>>> neoDarwinism. What he seeks to attach Darwin's name to is
>>>>> Lysenkoism or neoLamarckism. If you make all those switches what
>>>>> he says is more or less correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure whether Mao or the CCP adopted Lysenkoism, but it doesn't
>>>>> seem out of the question.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>> The phrase "survival of the fittest" has always seemed suspect to
>>>> me. We hear it repeated to justify capitalism. But there isn't any
>>>> requirement to be 'fit' as far as I can see. There is only a
>>>> requirement (for genes) to survive. For example the camel which
>>>> sits on the calf of its rival and crushes it to death, or the
>>>> chimpanzee which kills and eats the infant offspring of its
>>>> rivals. In what way is it 'fit'? A biologist would define it as
>>>> merely fit to survive, but then the phrase becomes redundant as
>>>> survival of the survivor. And we see the same results in captialism
>>>> with corporations swallowing up rivals rather than competing with
>>>> them.
>>>
>>> You want to argue against a metaphor by considering it literally.
>> It's not a metaphor.
>
> Darwin's original phrase was Natural Selection - an analogy with
> Artificial Selection. The phenomenon is differential reproductive
> success causally correlated with hereditary traits. (As opposite to
> differential reproductive success not correlated with hereditary
> traits, which is genetic drift.)
>
> As I understand, Darwin was frustrated that people failed to
> understand the concept of Natural Selection, and hoped that perhaps
> people would find Spencer's Survival of the Fittest more
> comprehensible. The issue perhaps is that fittest has shades of
> meaning - Survival of the Best Adapted would seem to closer to how
> Darwin understood it. See Selection in Relation to Sex.
>
> I'm not sure what literary classification to place Survival of the
> Fittest in. It's not obviously an analogy like Natural Selection. It's
> not a definition. (Lawyer Daggett's complaint may be that you were
> treating it as a definition.) Perhaps it's a catchphrase or a sound
> bite. One could certainly make a case for it being a metaphor -
> survival of the fittest for persistence of adaptive traits. (Now I
> wonder how contemporaries interpreted the trait - modern understanding
> has been modified by the rhetoric of Creationists and Social
> Tennysonists (often the same people).

I think it is only an analogy if you take it in the general meaning of
the word fit, as in fit as a fiddle or fit and healthy, but in the
biological sense it merely means able to survive, and that is quite
precise. But when it is used to justify economic policy it is used in
the more general sense in an attempt to link the two idea of natural
selection and free market competition. So we are led to believe it will
lead to lean and efficient, like a cheetah, but it doesn't necessarily.

Richmond wrote:

> j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:

>> Richmond wrote:
>>
>>> John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>> JTEM has his own vocabulary. By "evolution" he means the modern
>>>> synthesis, also called (which JTEM would detest) neoDarwinism. What he
>>>> seeks to attach Darwin's name to is Lysenkoism or neoLamarckism. If
>>>> you make all those switches what he says is more or less correct.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure whether Mao or the CCP adopted Lysenkoism, but it doesn't
>>>> seem out of the question.
>>>>
>>
>>> The phrase "survival of the fittest" has always seemed suspect to me. We
>>> hear it repeated to justify capitalism. But there isn't any requirement
>>> to be 'fit' as far as I can see. There is only a requirement (for genes)
>>> to survive. For example the camel which sits on the calf of its rival
>>> and crushes it to death, or the chimpanzee which kills and eats the
>>> infant offspring of its rivals. In what way is it 'fit'? A biologist
>>> would define it as merely fit to survive, but then the phrase becomes
>>> redundant as survival of the survivor. And we see the same results in
>>> captialism with corporations swallowing up rivals rather than competing
>>> with them.
>>
>> You want to argue against a metaphor by considering it literally.

> It's not a metaphor.

Let's quote a fellow named Darwin:

[quote]
Several writers have misapprehended or objected to the term
Natural Selection. Some have even imagined that natural selection
induces variability, whereas it implies only the preservation
of such variations as arise and are beneficial to the being
under its conditions of life. No one objects to agriculturists
speaking of the potent effects of man’s selection; and in this
case the individual differences given by nature, which man
for some object selects, must of necessity first occur.
Others have objected that the term selection implies conscious
choice in the animals which become modified; and it has even
been urged that, as plants have no volition, natural selection
is not applicable to them! In the literal sense of the word,
no doubt, natural selection is a false term; but who ever
objected to chemists speaking of the elective affinities of
the various elements?—and yet an acid cannot strictly be said
to elect the base with which it in preference combines.
It has been said that I speak of natural selection as an
active power or Deity; but who objects to an author speaking
of the attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of the
planets? Every one knows what is meant and is implied by such
metaphorical expressions; and they are almost necessary
for brevity. So again it is difficult to avoid personifying
the word Nature; but I mean by Nature, only the aggregate
action and product of many natural laws, and by laws the sequence
of events as ascertained by us. With a little familiarity
such superficial objections will be forgotten.
[end quote] look up 6 lines "metaphorical expressions"
<https://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/the-origin-of-species-by-means-of-natural-selection/ebook-page-54.asp>

or if you prefer

[quote]
It may metaphorically be said that natural selection is daily
and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, the slightest
variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and
adding up all that are good; silently and insensibly working,
whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement
of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic
conditions of life. We see nothing of these slow changes in
progress, until the hand of time has marked the lapse of ages,
and then so imperfect is our view into long-past geological ages,
that we see only that the forms of life are now different from
what they formerly were.
[end quote]
<https://charles-darwin.classic-literature.co.uk/the-origin-of-species-by-means-of-natural-selection/ebook-page-56.asp>

Darwin, Charles Robert. The Origin of Species.

I think that Darwin saying that it is a metaphor is more compelling than
you asserting it isn't.

>>That
>> is some mix of dishonest, foolish, and stupid.

> Oh please fuck off.

I find that as compelling as your denial that it's a metaphor,
and of similar intellectual rigour.

On 3/16/24 7:59 AM, Richmond wrote:
> Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On 16/03/2024 11:17, Richmond wrote:
>>> j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:
>>>
>>>> Richmond wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>> JTEM has his own vocabulary. By "evolution" he means the modern
>>>>>> synthesis, also called (which JTEM would detest)
>>>>>> neoDarwinism. What he seeks to attach Darwin's name to is
>>>>>> Lysenkoism or neoLamarckism. If you make all those switches what
>>>>>> he says is more or less correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not sure whether Mao or the CCP adopted Lysenkoism, but it doesn't
>>>>>> seem out of the question.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The phrase "survival of the fittest" has always seemed suspect to
>>>>> me. We hear it repeated to justify capitalism. But there isn't any
>>>>> requirement to be 'fit' as far as I can see. There is only a
>>>>> requirement (for genes) to survive. For example the camel which
>>>>> sits on the calf of its rival and crushes it to death, or the
>>>>> chimpanzee which kills and eats the infant offspring of its
>>>>> rivals. In what way is it 'fit'? A biologist would define it as
>>>>> merely fit to survive, but then the phrase becomes redundant as
>>>>> survival of the survivor. And we see the same results in captialism
>>>>> with corporations swallowing up rivals rather than competing with
>>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> You want to argue against a metaphor by considering it literally.
>>> It's not a metaphor.
>>
>> Darwin's original phrase was Natural Selection - an analogy with
>> Artificial Selection. The phenomenon is differential reproductive
>> success causally correlated with hereditary traits. (As opposite to
>> differential reproductive success not correlated with hereditary
>> traits, which is genetic drift.)
>>
>> As I understand, Darwin was frustrated that people failed to
>> understand the concept of Natural Selection, and hoped that perhaps
>> people would find Spencer's Survival of the Fittest more
>> comprehensible. The issue perhaps is that fittest has shades of
>> meaning - Survival of the Best Adapted would seem to closer to how
>> Darwin understood it. See Selection in Relation to Sex.
>>
>> I'm not sure what literary classification to place Survival of the
>> Fittest in. It's not obviously an analogy like Natural Selection. It's
>> not a definition. (Lawyer Daggett's complaint may be that you were
>> treating it as a definition.) Perhaps it's a catchphrase or a sound
>> bite. One could certainly make a case for it being a metaphor -
>> survival of the fittest for persistence of adaptive traits. (Now I
>> wonder how contemporaries interpreted the trait - modern understanding
>> has been modified by the rhetoric of Creationists and Social
>> Tennysonists (often the same people).
>
> I think it is only an analogy if you take it in the general meaning of
> the word fit, as in fit as a fiddle or fit and healthy, but in the
> biological sense it merely means able to survive, and that is quite
> precise. But when it is used to justify economic policy it is used in
> the more general sense in an attempt to link the two idea of natural
> selection and free market competition. So we are led to believe it will
> lead to lean and efficient, like a cheetah, but it doesn't necessarily.
>
The subject of "biological fitness" has a distinguished(?) history, and
misconceptions abound. Here's a reference (with many included
references) to the subject. Not an easy read:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2753274/

On 16/03/2024 18:39, erik simpson wrote:
> On 3/16/24 7:59 AM, Richmond wrote:
>> Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> On 16/03/2024 11:17, Richmond wrote:
>>>> j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Richmond wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> JTEM has his own vocabulary. By "evolution" he means the modern
>>>>>>> synthesis, also called (which JTEM would detest)
>>>>>>> neoDarwinism. What he seeks to attach Darwin's name to is
>>>>>>> Lysenkoism or neoLamarckism. If you make all those switches what
>>>>>>> he says is more or less correct.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not sure whether Mao or the CCP adopted Lysenkoism, but it doesn't
>>>>>>> seem out of the question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The phrase "survival of the fittest" has always seemed suspect to
>>>>>> me. We hear it repeated to justify capitalism. But there isn't any
>>>>>> requirement to be 'fit' as far as I can see. There is only a
>>>>>> requirement (for genes) to survive. For example the camel which
>>>>>> sits on the calf of its rival and crushes it to death, or the
>>>>>> chimpanzee which kills and eats the infant offspring of its
>>>>>> rivals. In what way is it 'fit'? A biologist would define it as
>>>>>> merely fit to survive, but then the phrase becomes redundant as
>>>>>> survival of the survivor. And we see the same results in captialism
>>>>>> with corporations swallowing up rivals rather than competing with
>>>>>> them.
>>>>>
>>>>> You want to argue against a metaphor by considering it literally.
>>>> It's not a metaphor.
>>>
>>> Darwin's original phrase was Natural Selection - an analogy with
>>> Artificial Selection. The phenomenon is differential reproductive
>>> success causally correlated with hereditary traits. (As opposite to
>>> differential reproductive success not correlated with hereditary
>>> traits, which is genetic drift.)
>>>
>>> As I understand, Darwin was frustrated that people failed to
>>> understand the concept of Natural Selection, and hoped that perhaps
>>> people would find Spencer's Survival of the Fittest more
>>> comprehensible. The issue perhaps is that fittest has shades of
>>> meaning - Survival of the Best Adapted would seem to closer to how
>>> Darwin understood it. See Selection in Relation to Sex.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what literary classification to place Survival of the
>>> Fittest in. It's not obviously an analogy like Natural Selection. It's
>>> not a definition. (Lawyer Daggett's complaint may be that you were
>>> treating it as a definition.) Perhaps it's a catchphrase or a sound
>>> bite. One could certainly make a case for it being a metaphor -
>>> survival of the fittest for persistence of adaptive traits. (Now I
>>> wonder how contemporaries interpreted the trait - modern understanding
>>> has been modified by the rhetoric of Creationists and Social
>>> Tennysonists (often the same people).
>>
>> I think it is only an analogy if you take it in the general meaning of
>> the word fit, as in fit as a fiddle or fit and healthy, but in the
>> biological sense it merely means able to survive, and that is quite
>> precise. But when it is used to justify economic policy it is used in
>> the more general sense in an attempt to link the two idea of natural
>> selection and free market competition. So we are led to believe it will
>> lead to lean and efficient, like a cheetah, but it doesn't necessarily.
>>
> The subject of "biological fitness" has a distinguished(?) history, and
> misconceptions abound.  Here's a reference (with many included
> references) to the subject.  Not an easy read:
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2753274/
>

Chapter 10 of Dawkin's The Extended Phenotype is entitled "An Agony in
Five Fits" and discusses the lack of uniformity in concepts of fitness.
Perhaps it might be more accessible*. (Though, if memory serves me, I
thought it was the weakest chapter in the book.)

A review

http://bactra.org/reviews/extended-phenotype/

(Apparently Dawkins was not a great fan of the term.)

* The Extended Phenotype was written for biologists rather than
laypeople, but I found it quite readable.

--
alias Ernest Major