My favorite cogdis of the Mormons.

[_EAllusion]

I don't disagree with you at all, as a matter of fact. I only made the argument back 2006 in response to someone's comments concerning the notion of "survival of the fittest." Of course, Huxley was fond of the expression, and for many decades it did represent a popular "summation of the theory of evolution." Of course, it's since been largely abandoned by Darwinist ideologues. Why? Well, because it IS clearly a tautology. That is my only point. Period. "Survival of the fittest" has no real meaning whatsoever. Those species who "survive" are those who reproduce most successfully. Like Muslims in Europe.

You wrote, "Still, it is a fact that for quite some time the Darwin-proposed mechanism of "survival of the fittest" (coupled with the corollary of mutations) was not seriously examined," before going on to argue it is a tautology.

Since you are talking about the mechanism Darwin proposed, you clearly are talking about natural selection. It just so happens that "survival of the fittest" is a pop catchphrase meant to refer to that evolutionary mechanism. As for why that isn't a tautology, even in oversimplified catchphrase form, see my prior post.

[_William Schryver]

I don't disagree with you at all, as a matter of fact. I only made the argument back 2006 in response to someone's comments concerning the notion of "survival of the fittest." Of course, Huxley was fond of the expression, and for many decades it did represent a popular "summation of the theory of evolution." Of course, it's since been largely abandoned by Darwinist ideologues. Why? Well, because it IS clearly a tautology. That is my only point. Period. "Survival of the fittest" has no real meaning whatsoever. Those species who "survive" are those who reproduce most successfully. Like Muslims in Europe.

You wrote, "Still, it is a fact that for quite some time the Darwin-proposed mechanism of "survival of the fittest" (coupled with the corollary of mutations) was not seriously examined," before going on to argue it is a tautology.

Since you are talking about the mechanism Darwin proposed, you clearly are talking about natural selection. It just so happens that "survival of the fittest" is a pop catchphrase meant to refer to that evolutionary mechanism. As for why that isn't a tautology, even in oversimplified catchphrase form, see my prior post.

Feel free to describe the mechanism(s) of "natural selection." Help us all understand who gets "selected," and on what basis. Then we'll see whether or not you're dealing in tautology.

[_AlmaBound]

Feel free to describe the mechanism(s) of "natural selection." Help us all understand who gets "selected," and on what basis.

Those who have blood formed in their bodies are "selected."

[_AlmaBound]

Adam and Eve's resurrected and glorified bodies were placed into the Garden.

So wait, their resurrected and glorified bodies were placed in the Garden, and then they fell again so that they could work their way towards becoming resurrected and glorified bodies again?

Um.

Ok.

[_EAllusion]

Feel free to describe the mechanism(s) of "natural selection." Help us all understand who gets "selected," and on what basis. Then we'll see whether or not you're dealing in tautology.

Let's try to distill this:

You: Natural selection is a tautology. Survival of the fittest just means survival of the survivors.

Me: That's not what "fitness" is. Rather survival of the fittest really means those who have traits more conducive to reproductive success in a given environmental context are statistically more likely to propagate through time in that environmental context. The fittest aren't those that survive, but rather those that have traits that are more functionally efficient at reproductive success compared against others in a population. That doesn't guarantee success anymore than being the baseball team with the highest regular season on base % and lowest WHIP means you'll win the world series. It's just increases the odds.

You: ?

While I'm confident I can give a quick rundown of what natural selection is and how it works, I'm not the one claiming it is a tautologous concept.

But really, I'm quite satisfied in showing that the same understanding of evolutionary science that leaves you unconvinced that humans evolved from other animal forms is the same one that leads you to think natural selection is a tautology.

Precisely.

[_The Dude]

He's arguing that the concept of "fitness" is a tautology.

in my opinion you give him way too much credit. He knows the phrase "survival of the fittest", not real concepts like fitness landscapes. How can he attack the real deal when he cannot even descrive it? Simple as that.

The Big Arrogance shows his true colors once again.

Yes, it's so difficult to "descrive" these complex arguments when one's brain is so clouded by the fog of superstition.

But apparently you are still willing to advocate some form of the principle "descrived" by the phrase "survival of the fittest." Please do so. Please "descrive" the "real deal" for us intellectual Lilliputians.

Yes, see what I mean, EA? Schryver can't digest a genuine discussion of fitness in evolutionary terms, like your Pennock quote that explains exactly what he's asking for here. Instead he would take shortcuts like name calling and ridiculing my misspellings than actually read what's you've posted.

And thanks for proving me right, Will. EA is stubborn and usually dead-on, but not this time in regards to your capabilities. (Well, his last post shows some reconsideration.)

[_Paracelsus]

...
Humans are APES people, not monkeys.

There are languages with no different word for ape and monkey.
They call apes as human like monkeys or something similar (anthropoid, higher). Biologists can exactly address their subjects in different languages they know.

Your sentence would appear as "Humans are human like monkeys, not monkeys".
Is it weird?

In English, (and in our language) there is no third person singular personal pronoun without gender. We can't address a member of humanity without gender: one of the people. Is it weird?

We are hostages of our language.

[_Paul Osborne]

Can't be trusting stupid science now, can we?

I'll trust scientists on some things to a point. But there are limits and they do make mistakes in their calculations because they aren't perfect. Understanding science is a process and has evolved over the centuries. Our current scientists are not perfect yet and don't have all the answers.

Surely we can agree on that.

Paul O

[_karl61]

Today - when we are in fear or in pain regarding medical issues we likely run to science. Sometimes with lights and sirens.

[_EAllusion]

And thanks for proving me right, Will. EA is stubborn and usually dead-on, but not this time in regards to your capabilities. (Well, his last post shows some reconsideration.)

I think you might've been misreading me there Dude. I wasn't trying to say I was imagining Will stroking his chin and puffing on his bubbles pipe contemplating fitness landscapes. I was saying that by "survival of the fittest" Will was talking about natural selection and implicating the concept of fitness as tautological.