Re: Darwin's false dichotomy fallacy.
- From: "David Hare-Scott" <secret@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 13:04:24 +1000
trader100 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
see http://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.
It doesn't matter if Darwin or Spencer intended "Survival of the fittest" to
mean "my icecream just melted", that the phrase exists says nothing about
the modern ToE to anybody except to you.
Please explain how the meaning, or lack of meaning, or confusion of meaning
of this phrase has any consequences for the validity of the modern ToE.
David
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Darwin's false dichotomy fallacy.
- From: trader100
- Re: Darwin's false dichotomy fallacy.
- References:
- Darwin's false dichotomy fallacy.
- From: backspace
- Re: Darwin's false dichotomy fallacy.
- From: David Hare-Scott
- Re: Darwin's false dichotomy fallacy.
- From: trader100
- Darwin's false dichotomy fallacy.
- Prev by Date: Re: Hair
- Next by Date: Re: Hair
- Previous by thread: Re: Darwin's false dichotomy fallacy.
- Next by thread: Re: Darwin's false dichotomy fallacy.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|