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.
I don't know why I bother going to school when I can just stay on these forums and learn biology from YECs who have no formal training on the subject!
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 . . .
I'm also open to talking about Abiogenesis, if anyone wants to know about it
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
You mean something in 'nature'? Isn't that the part of the first part of NATURAL Selection?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.
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?Then how it relates to what I wrote is a mystery.
But then that's most of your posts
Indeed. Why you guys would want to continually deny Darwin used a phrase, or that it's a tautology is amazing.I think most of our posts here have been a mystery to you.
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!If you want to be able to argue against evolution,
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.Further persuasive argument.
How did genes make them fit to survive if a meteor can kill them?
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.
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.Indeed. Why you guys would want to continually deny Darwin used a phrase,
Because as we have shown you repeatedly, it isn't oneor that it's a tautology is amazing.
You would need to show the straw man first.Why you'd continually straw-man is equally so, as here....
You don't want to be able argue against evolution? That isn't the purpose behind the thread?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!
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?You made a sweeping statement about a meaning of a word and I showed you were wrong. That's fine, I can accept you don't admit mistakes.
Originally Posted by Papias
And that's exactly why it's not a tautology - because outside criteria can be applied that predict whether or not the trait will be beneficial. This has been shown in actual research too. You've answered your own point.
The outside criteria is, if it surives it was fit to survive.
Maybe you think it's more than an analogy and that nature has a mind and actually chooses those animals it prefers?
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.
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.
At best you have a situation where 'natural selection' co-exists with these random acts and therefore what is not 'fit' survives because natural selection didn't take any action which in no way negates that natural selection is about that which survives survives.
More accurately none of those who said he didn't use it have acknowledged that they were wrong, but have left the thread.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.
I accept you continually repeat that it's not. You've not shown any outside criteria that takes away from that which survives survivesBecause as we have shown you repeatedly, it isn't one
I've not here argued AGAINST evolution.You would need to show the straw man first.
So you just assumedYou don't want to be able argue against evolution? That isn't the purpose behind the thread?
No you didn't. You stated an absolute about the use always.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.
So you keep saying. Then you refer to your scientists doing something somewhere to back you upMontalban wrote:
You are simply, clearly, and demonstrably wrong.
Personal observations! Wow! I appreciate you don't have time to read all the posts. I apologise for pointing this out.Wooo, drop the persecution complex.
I've covered this too about what is ultimately meaninglessCan you see that you are making nonsense of your own ideas?
If "survival of the fittest" is tautological then it is always true.
Like you haven't acknowledged you misunderstood the thesaurus?More accurately none of those who said he didn't use it have acknowledged that they were wrong, but have left the thread.
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.I accept you continually repeat that it's not. You've not shown any outside criteria that takes away from that which survives survives
That is odd because the claim survival of the fittest is a tautology is a popular creationist argument against evolution.I've not here argued AGAINST evolution.
And you haven't denied...So you just assumed
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.No you didn't. You stated an absolute about the use always.
You were wrong.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?