Re: A scientific theory against God and morality


nando_ronteltap@xxxxxxxxx kirjoitti:

Breathing has got nothing to do with not-breathing. Photosynthesis has
got nothing to do with no photsynthesis, etc.

Nothing? As far as I know, all breathers become non-breathers
eventually, and all photosynthesizing plants become
non-photosynthesizing plants sooner or later, so they have plenty to do
with each other. It's just a function of time.

That you make comparisons
between breathers and non-breathers only shows that Darwinism is
insane.

Hardly. Darwinism didn't discover the distinction between breathers and
non-breathers. It was known millennia before Darwin's greatgrandfather,
and inspired much speculation in several religions.

Again, the ONLY right interpretation of natural selection is to consider that

Natural selection can be expressed in many different words and no one
formulation has the honor of being the ONLY right interpretation.
Certainly not on your authority


broadly, reproduction preserves a form from certain
extinction through death.

It does indeed.

That logic we know is certainly true, and
explains all sufficiently.

The problem with your logic is: you deny the importance of differential
reproductive success. But it's implicit even in the above formulation.
It can't be denied, it's there. Sorry. But you see, if you have one
child, some of your genes are preserved in the next generation and
there's a chance that they'll carry on. But your child might not
reproduce for some reason or other, and your genes will die with him
(form, if you prefer, although I don't like the wording much since in
sexual reproduction the child is not a genetic clone and its phenotype
or form is different from the parents'). Now, if you had ten children,
the chances are much better that some of them will manage to have
children of their own and preserve your form. This is not evil
Darwinist philosophy, it's just maths that is implicit in the idea of
natural selection, however it is phrased.

We have never found any comparison to exist
in nature.

You can't be serious, this is beginning to stretch credulity. Who is
we? Apparently someone who hasn't ever looked at nature very closely.
You have never found that one animal lives longer and healthier than
another? You have never come across an animal has more offspring than
another animal? (I bet you have examples in your own family.) You have
never realized that not all plants produce an equal number of seeds?
You have never come across a lifeform that died in its youth while
others managed to live and breed? These are nature's comparisons. You
don't expect the trees and bacteria to count their offspring and crow
if they've got more than their next-door neighbour, do you?

A struggle for differential reproductive success has never
been experienced, or observed, it is merely a logical theorem.

I'm sure no animal would describe its daily life in those terms if you
asked but nevertheless some struggle quite a lot to be able to
reproduce. Take the salmon, for instance. Its life begins in a river
somewhere, it migrates to the open sea and grows in nice open
surroundings with lots of food available. Then, for some strange reason
it starts a difficult journey up the river it was born. Sometimes
thousands of kilometres and several rapids later it spawns and then,
exhausted, dies. They're definitely struggling to return back to their
birthplace. If they're not doing it to reproduce, then why on earth are
they doing it?

Computersimulations of natural selection don't calculate comparisons
between variants,

Rubbish. Have you ever looked at one? If you do a computer simulation
in which you don't calculate comparisons (i. e. all simulated objects
live equally long and breed equally much) it's not a computer
simulation of natural selection, it's something else altogether.

there simply is no struggle for reproductive success
in nature, it doesn't exist.

Well, I guess it must be so if you say so.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Origin of sex - not why but who and when?
    ... You are pond life and it is early in the season and you've got to fill ... animal equivalent of what most plants do. ... advocate sex for any long term benefits, so I guess this case favours ... cell lines which reproduce sometimes asexually and sometimes sexually. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Origin of sex - not why but who and when?
    ... You are pond life and it is early in the season and you've got to fill ... animal equivalent of what most plants do. ... advocate sex for any long term benefits, so I guess this case favours ... As you say, the small things can reproduce asexually, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Origin of sex - not why but who and when?
    ... You are pond life and it is early in the season and you've got to fill ... animal equivalent of what most plants do. ... advocate sex for any long term benefits, so I guess this case favours ... As you say, the small things can reproduce asexually, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Origin of sex - not why but who and when?
    ... much 'room' there is for gene copies, regardless of sex vs. no sex. ... You are pond life and it is early in the season and you've got to fill ... animal equivalent of what most plants do. ... Many of them reproduce asexually. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: No Such Thing As "Macro" Evolution
    ... What about all the plants and animals ... there are nevertheless distinct species. ... >> reproduce asexually. ...
    (talk.origins)