tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5472929943767602697.post7179557238608596317..comments2024-01-03T06:15:15.919-05:00Comments on Everyone Is a Sith: Evolution: A Glimpse at TruthUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5472929943767602697.post-51228718209316615492008-07-08T07:32:00.000-04:002008-07-08T07:32:00.000-04:00oh, man.. the link in that YAD is GREAT.oh, man.. the link in that YAD is GREAT.Roscoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06178646301982282439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5472929943767602697.post-1797165191983572442008-07-08T07:27:00.000-04:002008-07-08T07:27:00.000-04:00did this come about becuase of the topic of today'...did this come about becuase of the topic of today's YAD? or is that coincidence?Roscoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06178646301982282439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5472929943767602697.post-19849573702380015772008-07-07T16:21:00.000-04:002008-07-07T16:21:00.000-04:00No, becuase the structure of the langauge TELLS us...No, becuase the structure of the langauge TELLS us the two sentences say different things, because of the comma placement.<BR/><BR/>And yet, you're not showing how the selected sentence is NOT precise. What you're missing, Jay, is the context. The selection IS precise and correct, as presented. It can only cease to be so when further context is presented to raise the question.<BR/><BR/>If the problem is in presentation and anthromopization of Evolution.. then.. shouldn't you precisely stop refering to it as a proper noun?<BR/><BR/>it's a process, not a designer, correct?Roscoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06178646301982282439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5472929943767602697.post-62887386976049632932008-07-07T16:09:00.000-04:002008-07-07T16:09:00.000-04:00"A reasonable person, I like to think, would never..."<I>A reasonable person, I like to think, would never draw such a conclusion from that sentence,</I>"<BR/><BR/>Right. But you see what occurs. Two people read those words and think they say two different things.<BR/><BR/>So then we have to try and figure out what they meant. And we can say "a reasonable person would read it X", but the foundation of that is simply what we think reasonble.<BR/><BR/>Go run John.<BR/>Go run, John.<BR/><BR/>Do we assume a comma into that first sentence? Do we assume the comma out of that second sentence?<BR/><BR/>To aid in a correct interpretation we need to be precise in how we construct sentences. And with things like Evolution and Abortion we need to be as precise as possible lest idiots say stupid shit and quote us as evidence for their dumb._J_https://www.blogger.com/profile/03761591852824457348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5472929943767602697.post-44449171836670621442008-07-07T15:57:00.001-04:002008-07-07T15:57:00.001-04:00Perhaps, but you're intentionalizing, and demandin...Perhaps, but you're intentionalizing, and demanding something that your own statements don't ask for.<BR/><BR/>Your selection doesn't claim that evolution is random, OR that it's guided. It's agnostic on the subject. It doesn't raise the subject at all. Either your choice of selection was imperfect, or you're not looking for precision, as much as you are looking for a different understanding of evolution, one that is NOT imparted by language, but by expectation.<BR/><BR/>in which case, your entire rant is something of a misfire, becuase it was primed and aimed at the wrong topic.Roscoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06178646301982282439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5472929943767602697.post-18556115237482928582008-07-07T15:57:00.000-04:002008-07-07T15:57:00.000-04:00Ok, that I understand. You are at odds not with t...Ok, that I understand. You are at odds not with the sentence itself, but instead with the implications that would be drawn from it by a person with no scientific background.<BR/><BR/>A reasonable person, I like to think, would never draw such a conclusion from that sentence, and this may be why I took issue with your frustration by it, as I could not see the implication that you have drawn from it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13095451400961707644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5472929943767602697.post-13774613261360861182008-07-07T15:53:00.000-04:002008-07-07T15:53:00.000-04:00"Reproduction is necessarily dependent upon surviv..."<I>Reproduction is necessarily dependent upon survivability. One can not reproduce without surviving. For this reason they can be included together.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Acknowledging the separation helps us to reinforce the fact that these are all separate, random mutations which are not working together to achieve some end. It's all random mutation. Certain mutations can have harmony and therefore provide longevity for a given species. But they do not mutate together as a result of some pre-existing plan.<BR/><BR/>When we shorthand them together it sounds like wangs and fangs and claws all happen together cause Evolution decided that they needed to._J_https://www.blogger.com/profile/03761591852824457348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5472929943767602697.post-44098829021820624072008-07-07T15:51:00.000-04:002008-07-07T15:51:00.000-04:00it doesn't work without a comma, seperating the cl...it doesn't work without a comma, seperating the clause, J.<BR/><BR/>And.. No, it's not really missing the point of the rant. <BR/><BR/>The rant's point isn't about evolution, it's only triggered by it.Roscoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06178646301982282439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5472929943767602697.post-78735604557380356582008-07-07T15:41:00.001-04:002008-07-07T15:41:00.001-04:00"when we talk about Evolution as if it were a thin..."when we talk about Evolution as if it were a thing which intentions we fundamentally..."<BR/><BR/>Change it to be "when we talk about Evolution as if it were a thing which runs we fundamentally.."<BR/><BR/>Works with "run" works with "intention".<BR/><BR/>And, really, I don't want to talk about it because it's missing the fucking point of the rant in such a drastic way that it is physically painful._J_https://www.blogger.com/profile/03761591852824457348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5472929943767602697.post-85615711591325979642008-07-07T15:41:00.000-04:002008-07-07T15:41:00.000-04:00You are missing my point. Reproduction is necessa...You are missing my point. Reproduction is necessarily dependent upon survivability. One can not reproduce without surviving. For this reason they can be included together. A car requires wheels and an axle to roll. They are both separate entities within the car, and both have properties which could be altered. But in order for the car to work it must have both. It would not be wrong the include both together in referencing a car's suspension. The same goes for species survivability which is what natural selection relies upon.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13095451400961707644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5472929943767602697.post-4607272550978124922008-07-07T15:37:00.000-04:002008-07-07T15:37:00.000-04:00This is where context comes in.Both reproductive t...This is where context comes in.<BR/><BR/>Both reproductive traits and survival traits are needed to reproduce, though, at least up until the point of reproductions' completion.<BR/><BR/>So, contextually, both are work there, especially when the sentence in question refers to neither reproductive nor survival influencing traits specfically, but to advantageous traits.<BR/><BR/>.... Are you actually bringing MORE outside context to bear on this selection, if your purpose is precision in one's statements?<BR/><BR/>Becuase.. if so, you're actually totally screwing up your argument, by claiming the selection says something that it doesn't.Roscoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06178646301982282439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5472929943767602697.post-54383175078104572092008-07-07T15:34:00.000-04:002008-07-07T15:34:00.000-04:00Your sentencce doesn't make that clear, Jay.The me...Your sentencce doesn't make that clear, Jay.<BR/><BR/>The meaning behind it.. hmn. .. still doesn't work.<BR/><BR/>a thing THAT intentions works, if it's a verb.. but not which.<BR/><BR/>Which intentions WHAT? it needs a direct object of somesort.Roscoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06178646301982282439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5472929943767602697.post-83480377187162446322008-07-07T15:32:00.000-04:002008-07-07T15:32:00.000-04:00I'm using "intentions" as a verb. I liked how Hei...I'm using "intentions" as a verb. I liked how Heidegger did that sort of thing so I adopted the habit.<BR/><BR/>"<I>Hilariously to me, if I'm reading this correctly, J's rant is a imprecise call for precision in language.</I>"<BR/><BR/>I work in Irony the way others work in oils.<BR/><BR/>"<I>Combining survival and reproduction is not problematic.</I>"<BR/><BR/>It is problematic because they are two different things. Certain characteristics may lead to the survival of the individual. Other characteristics may lead to ability to reproduce. Some characteristics may aid both reproduction and individual survival.<BR/><BR/>But we need to be precise in which any particular trait <I>is</I> rather than just lump them all together._J_https://www.blogger.com/profile/03761591852824457348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5472929943767602697.post-42701972198286982592008-07-07T13:58:00.000-04:002008-07-07T13:58:00.000-04:00it is for what he's discussing, though.. namely, h...it is for what he's discussing, though.. namely, how the language we use shapes how we understand a concept.<BR/><BR/>Hilariously to me, if I'm reading this correctly, J's rant is a imprecise call for precision in language.<BR/><BR/>and I could be talking out my ass here... but the bigger point seems to be striving to get everyone on the same page.. which is where prescision comes in....Roscoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06178646301982282439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5472929943767602697.post-30252575885211874442008-07-07T13:55:00.000-04:002008-07-07T13:55:00.000-04:00Combining survival and reproduction is not problem...Combining survival and reproduction is not problematic. In order to reproduce a creature must be able to survive to a point in which said creature can reproduce. If a creature were born with all of the reproductive advantages in existence, but couldn't survive to mate, then they are all for nothing and the advantages are not passed on.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13095451400961707644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5472929943767602697.post-23131484041906835212008-07-07T13:46:00.000-04:002008-07-07T13:46:00.000-04:00also.. talk about burying your lede.. I dare say y...also.. talk about burying your lede.. I dare say you've done a better job at that task than I can do..... which says something.Roscoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06178646301982282439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5472929943767602697.post-66703296271615077892008-07-07T13:43:00.000-04:002008-07-07T13:43:00.000-04:00Oh, oh, ow. ow. ow. ow.This is really a discussion...Oh, oh, ow. ow. ow. ow.<BR/><BR/>This is really a discussion of language and precision....<BR/><BR/>and you've written terribly.<BR/><BR/>Ironies, thy name be Bloggerpost.<BR/><BR/>(natural selection conflating reproduction and survival makes sense because both are required for the system to work, but that's not spelled out in your selection, yes)<BR/><BR/>a much faster and clearer way of saying what you want to in the beginning? Use the word implication in place "becomes" and "allows for"...Roscoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06178646301982282439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5472929943767602697.post-33194589220461969782008-07-07T13:37:00.000-04:002008-07-07T13:37:00.000-04:00Oh, ye gods, this needs commas everywhere.It's lik...Oh, ye gods, this needs commas everywhere.<BR/><BR/>It's like you gave your supply to Mikey, since you were stuck in town, and now you've none to use....Roscoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06178646301982282439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5472929943767602697.post-32355824944870780092008-07-07T13:35:00.000-04:002008-07-07T13:35:00.000-04:00trying to read as I "work".. and.. well..you've a ...trying to read as I "work".. and.. well..<BR/><BR/>you've a classic "Classics Major" sentence, as Banta might say, there in the second line. One needing probably a comma or two.. <BR/>and likely a typo?<BR/><BR/>...Evolution as if it were a thing <I>which</I> intentions we fundamentally skew...?<BR/><BR/>you mean with? or does the sentence need more extensive rewriting to convey a thought?Roscoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06178646301982282439noreply@blogger.com