Re: Natural selection and favorable traits how were they measured

backspace wrote:
On Feb 10, 5:51 pm, Gene Poole <gene.po...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
backspace wrote:
On Feb 10, 2:34 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Differences in population means from one year to another are the result of natural selection (though
drift plays some role).
Thus natural selection is the cause because it results in something.
But here you told us something differently:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/9dcb854...
backspace:
And as I
have pointed out you simply can't use the word *selection* - it is
forbidden given your premises because who did the selecting - the
nature selection force?
Harshman:
There is no such thing as "the natural selection force".
Sounds like some kind of mystical power, and I don't believe in
midichlorians. Natural selection is merely the result of all the various
influences present in the environment.
And here you told us that natural selection is the result. So is NS
the cause or effect ? And there are always influences in the
environment which means your statement is unfalsifiable because no
matter what happens it will always be the truth that there are
influences in the environment.
If you put the same amount of effort you waste on these silly rhetorical
word games into actually trying to understand Natural Selection, you
might actually learn something.

Which begs the question: Where is the formal definition of Natural
Selection ?


So, your retort to my accusation of you playing silly word games is to play a silly word game?

Touché.

.

Relevant Pages
Loading