# Breaking the Locke

**URL:** https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/t/breaking-the-locke/2186
**Category:** General Discussion
**Created:** [23 October 2022 11:56 UTC](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/t/breaking-the-locke/2186 "2022-10-23T11:56:13Z")
**Posts on this page:** 3
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![jabowery](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/user_avatar/scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/jabowery/32/5478_2.png) [@jabowery](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/u/jabowery)
#### Post date: [31 October 2022 18:13 UTC](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/t/breaking-the-locke/2186/21 "2022-10-31T18:13:59Z")

</div>

[You are using “adapation” in a way that appears to be nonstandard relative to evolution](https://pediaa.com/difference-between-adaptation-and-evolution/).

Could you explain the difference between “adaptation”, in the sense you mean, and “evolution” in a way that doesn’t reduce to the difference between kinematical law and dynamical law?

By kinematical law I mean, for example, [Ptolemaic description of epicycles](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Figure-A11-Ptolemaic-kinematic-model-for-the-motion-of-Mercury-planet-B-is-the-equant_fig7_322398123) vs, for example dynamical laws of motion that explain the kinematic paths with Newtonian orbital mechanics.

PS: This distinction is also behind the current fallacy dominating the fields not only of machine learning but of social science’s reliance on statistics to infer causation – and it is why I continually try to get people to stop thinking of Solomonoff Induction’s importance as being primarily in artificial intelligence. It is really a model selection law that revolutionizes science and could free the social sciences from captivity to pseudoscientific disputes over “causation vs correlation”.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Devereaux](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/user_avatar/scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/devereaux/32/285_2.png) [@Devereaux](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/u/Devereaux)
#### Post date: [1 November 2022 19:54 UTC](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/t/breaking-the-locke/2186/22 "2022-11-01T19:54:53Z")

</div>

_Adaption_ is change in a species to aid it in the environment it finds itself. So we have blacks in Africa and pale whites in the northern parts of the world (norther Swedes, Norwegians eg.).

_Evolution_ would be the emergence of a specifically _different species_ from a previous one. So, for instance, dogs are dogs, despite a wide variety of appearance caused by breeding _for_ certain characteristics. Humans too show a variety of characteristics. So Mediteranians seem to have a significant increase in thalassemia, _technically_. a genetic blood defect but in point of fact a defense mechanism against malaria.

The fossil record is full of organisms but it shows _no EVOLUTIONARY evidence_. Another thing it fails to show is _evidence of failures, which Evolutionary Theory absolutely **requires** _. And there ought to be a plethora of it.

Furthermore there is the whole issue of _data_. DNA is a very complex coding system, but _any_ such system needs definite data _input_ in order to create a new creature. While there is evidence of new creation, there is no evidence whence such _information_ came from. The laws, codes (DNA) merely describe the characteristics - they do NOT consist of _input_. So I would ask from. when comes _the data_ necessary to make - corn (never mind cats, humans, fish, dolphins, etc).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![jaj](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/user_avatar/scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/jaj/32/954_2.png) [@jaj](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/u/jaj)
#### Post date: [1 November 2022 20:28 UTC](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/t/breaking-the-locke/2186/23 "2022-11-01T20:28:22Z")

</div>

I wish I had something intelligent to say to this because I think it’s a really important subject, but I don’t feel like I really do. The only thing I can think of is that I’m a surprised that some people on the right are going along with the idea that property is bad.

I tend to think of these things like an accountant, which means, for example, that if all property were to be nationalized, there would be one balance sheet with one entity holding the equity… perhaps it would be called “the people’s equity.” We all wouldn’t have our own balance sheets anymore.

Related, I found this list on Wikipedia of countries that nationalized various aspects of property. [List of nationalizations by country - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nationalizations_by_country)

[Previous page](https://scanalyst.fourmilab.ch/t/breaking-the-locke/2186.md?page=1)
