Re: Darwin's false dichotomy fallacy.
- From: trader100 <StephanusR@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 10:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
On May 15, 6:57 pm, wf3h <w...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
and if scientific language EXCLUDES a term....like 'survival of theMr.Scientific doesn't exclude anything he doesn't exist.
fittest' then its 'pragmatics' (sic) are useless to science and are
Useless to mr.Science? Did you ask mr.Science , when did he tell you
it is useless. YOu can't keep on pulling your abstract authority
mr.Science out of the hat.
Whether Darwin or anybody else used the phrase is of no consequence.
SoF with what intent?
who knows? who cares? it's like asking what is the relevance of banana
splits to science. it's irrelevant.
Yes, you don't care who said what when and where. Who said that
gravity is 10m/s.s ? IT doesn't really matter because I can test it,
attempt to falsify it with a stopwatch. But when you say monkey
transformed into a human, what am I supposed to disprove, how does one
disprove this. I have no idea and thus you must tell me who says a
monkey turned into a human or who says a monkey didn't turn into a
- Prev by Date: Re: RNA origins...
- Next by Date: Re: Loss of information?
- Previous by thread: Re: Darwin's false dichotomy fallacy.
- Next by thread: Re: Darwin's false dichotomy fallacy.