Further persuasive argument.
How did genes make them fit to survive if a meteor can kill them?
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Teaching Evolution to Evolutionists
- Thread starter Montalban
- Start date
Further persuasive argument.
How did genes make them fit to survive if a meteor can kill them?
Oh, so survival of the fittest now mean indestructible? Individual (im)mortality is not the same thing as reproduction on a population scale. Some species were able to survive the Dinosaur-killer better than dinosaurs - why?
Talk about persuasive arguments . . .
Talk about persuasive arguments . . .
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Actually, it's more 'talk about straw-man'. But thanks anyway.
But in answer to your question, they were 'fit' to survive.
Those that survived, survived
Upvote
0
juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Actually, it's more 'talk about straw-man'. But thanks anyway.
But in answer to your question, they were 'fit' to survive.
Those that survived, survived
It has one external factor: environmental change.
It suggested that environment controlled who will survive.
This present a big problem: the change of environment is limited. So, the variation of life forms should also be limited. The fact is that the variation of life forms is much wider in range than that of environmental change.
Upvote
0
You mean something in 'nature'? Isn't that the part of the first part of NATURAL Selection?
Yes, some are more ready to face different challenges. But at the present time those challenges may be absent so all are 'fit', under the current circumstances
Upvote
0
Assyrian
Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
I think most of our posts here have been a mystery to you. If you want to be able to argue against evolution, you really need to understand it, but you have been so busy trying to push your failed argument that you haven't been able to see the problem. You had the opportunity to learn about evolution from a world class evolutionary biologist, but you just threw it away. Even if you disagree with evolution you need to know what you are disagreeing with. At least if you want to be able to argue rationally against it. Of course the problem is, when you learn about evolution you find out your arguments don't actually hold up, and you can't have that can you?
Upvote
0
Indeed. Why you guys would want to continually deny Darwin used a phrase, or that it's a tautology is amazing.
Why you'd continually straw-man is equally so, as here....
I've not argued against evolution here. But from someone who keeps saying they read my posts you continually miss responding to what I write!
You made a sweeping statement about a meaning of a word and I showed you were wrong (your post #31). That's fine, I can accept you don't admit mistakes.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
shernren
you are not reading this.
- Feb 17, 2005
- 8,463
- 515
- 38
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Do you realize that your definition of fitness is not only very strange, but completely useless? Two twins could have identical genotype and phenotype but once one of them gets hit by a car, they have completely different fitness - or rather Montofitness, I should call it, since it is uniquely and pointlessly your definition of fitness that I would have to use to arrive at this conclusion.
Yes, survival of the Montofittest is a tautology so trivial I hate to imagine what kind of fool must have dreamed it up. It certainly wasn't an intelligent Australian like you, was it?
Back in the real world of evolutionary biology, on the other hand, survival of the fittest is not only non-tautological but testable, and indeed falsifiable for certain genes such as the GULOP gene.
Upvote
0
Another one!
I've already dealt with random incidents. Your now the fourth person to raise something I've already addressed.
Try reading the posts.
Upvote
0
It seems that people are so incensed about this that they enter to kill the heretic without reading what's been written.
The 'random event' issue was raised pages ago. Someone asked me what would happen if I were killed by a truck.
My posts #47 and #56 have discussed a meteor strike.
Around and around we go.
In theory I could be wrong in my addressing these circumstances, but at least I've addressed them. For people to simply enter the thread and come up with a random event without addressing what I've written on this very matter is rather silly.
The 'random event' issue was raised pages ago. Someone asked me what would happen if I were killed by a truck.
My posts #47 and #56 have discussed a meteor strike.
Around and around we go.
In theory I could be wrong in my addressing these circumstances, but at least I've addressed them. For people to simply enter the thread and come up with a random event without addressing what I've written on this very matter is rather silly.
Upvote
0
Assyrian
Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Has anybody here continued to deny Darwin used the phrase? A few people didn't realise Darwin used Spencer's phrase in later edition so Origin, but none of them have continued to deny he used it.
Because as we have shown you repeatedly, it isn't one
You would need to show the straw man first.
You don't want to be able argue against evolution? That isn't the purpose behind the thread?
No I made a statement about how a word was used in a particular context and you showed you didn't know how to use a thesaurus. In fact you ignored most of my first reply on how you used the thesaurus and all of my second reply. Who is the one who doesn't admit mistakes?
Upvote
0
Montalban wrote:
You are simply, clearly, and demonstrably wrong.
Scientists can, and have, made independent predictions, based on the genes (actually the phenotype), which traits will survive. Thus, "fittness" was determined before it was seen which would survive. So of course it can't be circular. For example, comparing two beaks, one deeper than the other, one can predict, before any exposure to the real world, that those with the deeper beaks will survive better if the environment produces larger seeds - before that environment changes that way.
Montalban, are you aware of the actual research that has done this, thus showing your point to be a parroting of Gish's PRATT, or are you arguing from ignorance?
Why do you think consciousness (a "mind") is needed to select one thing or another, or to give a result? Watson just won on jeopardy, "selecting" answers, without consciousness (a "mind"). The real world of nature is certainly very complex, like Watson is.
Papias
Originally Posted by Papias
The outside criteria is, if it surives it was fit to survive.
You are simply, clearly, and demonstrably wrong.
Scientists can, and have, made independent predictions, based on the genes (actually the phenotype), which traits will survive. Thus, "fittness" was determined before it was seen which would survive. So of course it can't be circular. For example, comparing two beaks, one deeper than the other, one can predict, before any exposure to the real world, that those with the deeper beaks will survive better if the environment produces larger seeds - before that environment changes that way.
Montalban, are you aware of the actual research that has done this, thus showing your point to be a parroting of Gish's PRATT, or are you arguing from ignorance?
Why do you think consciousness (a "mind") is needed to select one thing or another, or to give a result? Watson just won on jeopardy, "selecting" answers, without consciousness (a "mind"). The real world of nature is certainly very complex, like Watson is.
Papias
Upvote
0
shernren
you are not reading this.
- Feb 17, 2005
- 8,463
- 515
- 38
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Another one!
I've already dealt with random incidents. Your now the fourth person to raise something I've already addressed.
Try reading the posts.
Wooo, drop the persecution complex. I was busy between my first post on this thread (#16) and my most recent one (#70), and I didn't have time to follow up on where the thread was going. I'm sorry for missing your posts #47 and #56 on this issue. I would argue that it is entirely understandable that your #61, taken by itself, elicited the terse response that it did from me. Now that I have a bit more time, though, I see that you said this in your #56:
Can you see that you are making nonsense of your own ideas?
If "survival of the fittest" is tautological then it is always true.
"It will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow" is tautological. It is also always true. There is no possible world in which the statement "It will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow" is not true.
You have claimed that "the fittest survive" is similarly a tautological statement. But that can only be true if there is no possible world in which the fittest do not survive. But, you have claimed precisely that it is possible for the fittest to not survive, namely when "natural selection" does not take action.
And again, are you reading what you yourself write? If natural selection is tautological, then it must always be applicable. The law of the unmarriedness of bachelors (i.e. "All bachelors are unmarried") is tautological: a definitional tautology, to be precise. Precisely because it is tautological, it never fails to apply. If natural selection were similarly tautological, then it would never fail to apply, and you would never be able to show a case in which it is false. But you yourself have said that sometimes "natural selection" does not take action.
I do not begrudge your naivete in biology; I have never taken biology classes past high school level myself. But if you want to call something tautological, I expect you to understand basic logic, and I find that understanding lacking in you.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
More accurately none of those who said he didn't use it have acknowledged that they were wrong, but have left the thread.
I accept you continually repeat that it's not. You've not shown any outside criteria that takes away from that which survives survives
I've not here argued AGAINST evolution.
So you just assumed
No you didn't. You stated an absolute about the use always.
You were wrong.
Upvote
0
So you keep saying. Then you refer to your scientists doing something somewhere to back you up
Upvote
0
Personal observations! Wow! I appreciate you don't have time to read all the posts. I apologise for pointing this out.
I've covered this too about what is ultimately meaningless
Sorry for pointing this out too.
All knives are knives is a meaningless statement in that it offers no understanding of what a knife is, albeit it 'true'.
Upvote
0
Assyrian
Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)
Like you haven't acknowledged you misunderstood the thesaurus?
We have already discussed plenty of criteria with you, but you have redefined 'fit' for yourself as simply meaning those who survive, which does make survival of the fittest a tautology, but it isn't what biology means by fit, which refers to traits that confer a greater rate of reproductive success but do not necessarily mean an individual survives. The fact we can talk about lions being stronger of resistant to viruses shows there is more to the concept of fitness than the mere fact of survival, hence the statement is not a tautology.
That is odd because the claim survival of the fittest is a tautology is a popular creationist argument against evolution.
And you haven't denied...
I said tautologies are trivial, not meaningless. And you tried to show trivial was the same as meaningless. You failed. Of course you still haven't address your use of thesaurus.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Locked
