Re: Darwin's false dichotomy fallacy.

On May 15, 12:34 pm, trader100 <Stephan...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 15, 2:40 am, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Survival of the fittest" is in no way a definition of evolution or of
natural selection or a representation of evolutionaty theory or any of the
principles involved.  Whether it is a tautology or not doesn't matter..

You just don't get it do you? How many times must we go through this
seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics"you have a green light"
example. It all depends who says SoF and what was the intent. What did
Spencer mean by SoF , because you are referring to him right? Because
there is no language without a motive, no tautologies no nothing
without intent.

Pragmatics deal with meaning as it is relayed through context. Given
context it doesn't matter who said what. All that matters is that
there is enough context to convey the intended meaning. Everyone else
in the world can do this eaxsily. Perhaps it is you who doesn't get
it.

Whether Darwin or anybody else used the phrase is of no consequence.

SoF with what intent?

The context will tell you. Try reading for comprehension. Do you
realize how insane you look?


Whether it is embedded in the popular psyche or actually says anything at
all is irrelevant.

Whos concept is embedded? The patrick matthews or DArwin concept or
James hUtton .

See above.

It can be viewed as a definition of "fittness" or just as  a verbal quirk.  

What is the concept with fitness?  And who is the person that has this
concept and when was he awarded his Nobel for solving the problem:

Its in the dictionary. Look it up.


http://tinyurl.com/o6oggq

Welcome back Noss. I see you have gotten a couple new equations.  But
some of us are still waiting for the justification of your assertion
that in order to know anything about what's happening in a population
of moths, we have to look at amino acids or DNA base-pair changes.
Please explain why you think that in this case- the one I described
earlier- phenotype is not a reliable indicator of genotype. Why is it
that the predictions we can make using the formulae for natural
selection are not science, especially given the fact that they are
quite accurate as long as you have good estimates of the relative
reproductive success rates of the various phenotypes?
Thanks.
Chris

You don't have to do anything, but if you want to do real science,
show me
a transition matrix connecting DNA/pAA sequence and survival
probability.
For any trait. It's a Nobel Prize for the first one ( at least ) so
get to
work.

nss

Its not even fun dealing with you anymore. Its like torturing an ant.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Mendel refutes evolution
    ... Natural selection is a tautology and ... not a means to increased complexity, no matter how many years go by. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: zero to the power zero
    ... >> Technically, Wolfram is wrong, since only limit expressions can possibly ... > I'm not sure if Mathematica supports an 'undefined'. ... If you know it is 1 in the particular context you are using it ... no matter how rare those circumstances are. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Inconsistent = all sentences provable?
    ... although I will grant that the matter ... then the meaning of some utterances include what ... instance of it within the context of the reductio; ... logic does not make a distinction "of level" between tautologies; ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Can any Darwinist in this Forum....
    ... since in an unchanging ... IOW, evolution (natural selection) ... But the usual reference to "gravity" in this context refers ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: To my government type persons
    ... people who matter, those in power, got their wish. ... no bearing except perhaps to people who have no knowledge of WWII ... irrelevant how many people WERE happy about killing Japanese civilians. ... The original context was about US servicemen who were there. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
Loading