Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Statements About Evolution
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mark Quayle" data-source="post: 76864750" data-attributes="member: 410020"><p>As you state these 5, I have no objections, (though your #5 still smells of a blanket statement), until your next paragraph. Hence, my reservations. </p><p></p><p>With those 5, I agree as you state them here. But in past posts, you drew conclusions from those 5, for example: while in the paragraph above you say "if an animal is able to reproduce slightly more than the average because it has genes which result in it having some advantage in reproduction..." while in past posts, what came across was (my paraphrase) "thus they are able to reproduce more", assuming facts not in evidence. I hope in your paragraph above you meant only "if". </p><p></p><p>Oh, and an example of better genetics resulting in more offspring isn't going to do the job. Your generalization isn't going to rest on one (or even a few) example(s). Mules are better in some ways than horses and donkeys, including (from what I remember hearing), hardiness. So by your reasoning (yes, I know you don't mean to be talking about mules here) they should have more opportunities to breed. But they don't breed. (Ha! Yes I know, the defeat of a generalization isn't going to rest on just one example either.) </p><p></p><p>And I'm still not sure if your generalization is meant to be within one species or not.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mark Quayle, post: 76864750, member: 410020"] As you state these 5, I have no objections, (though your #5 still smells of a blanket statement), until your next paragraph. Hence, my reservations. With those 5, I agree as you state them here. But in past posts, you drew conclusions from those 5, for example: while in the paragraph above you say "if an animal is able to reproduce slightly more than the average because it has genes which result in it having some advantage in reproduction..." while in past posts, what came across was (my paraphrase) "thus they are able to reproduce more", assuming facts not in evidence. I hope in your paragraph above you meant only "if". Oh, and an example of better genetics resulting in more offspring isn't going to do the job. Your generalization isn't going to rest on one (or even a few) example(s). Mules are better in some ways than horses and donkeys, including (from what I remember hearing), hardiness. So by your reasoning (yes, I know you don't mean to be talking about mules here) they should have more opportunities to breed. But they don't breed. (Ha! Yes I know, the defeat of a generalization isn't going to rest on just one example either.) And I'm still not sure if your generalization is meant to be within one species or not. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Statements About Evolution
Top
Bottom