Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 12:22:58 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> Cc: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr>, Joshua Lee <yid@softhome.net>, dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <3D7CF512.ED0C4E8B@mindspring.com> References: <20020909114207.U9219-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Neal E. Westfall" wrote: > > Natural selection: The process by which individuals=92 inherited > > needs and abilities are more or less closely > > matched to resources available in their > > environment, giving those with greater > > "fitness" a better chance of survival and > > reproduction. > = > So what is the criteria for determining "fitness"? Those who > survive? But then this just leads us into a logical tautology, > whereby the mechanism for evolution amounts to "the survival of > the survivors." "The survival of those best suited to survive", actually. > > > *Who* does the "selection"? If nobody does the selection, why keep= > > > calling it selection? > > > > Because it's the technically correct word to use to describe the > > operation of a fitness function. > = > How is "fitness" determined? As an attribute of an organism, it is determined by suitability to its environment. > > > Why is the reification of nature justified in order to save > > > evolutionary theory? > > > > Nature *is* concrete, *not* abstract. There is no reifying of > > nature happening here. You can only reify an *abstract* thing. > = > Sorry. Wrong word. What I meant was "personify." You probably meant anthropormorphise, as in "endow it with attributes normally associated with humans". The answer is that nature is not anthropomorphised (or personified) by having the power to select, so long as it does not exhibit will in the process. > > > "Selection" implies intentionality, > > > > To people without a complex vocabulary. Perhaps it was a bad choice > > to use the compound word "natural selection", since it permits those > > people to make this mistake. > = > Actually it is an oxymoron invented by natural biologists to obscure > the fact (from themselves, as well as others) that evolutionary theory > implies an absurdity. Your internal logic is almost endearing. 8-). > > With theologians still able to claim that God controls chance, of > > course. > = > Actaully theologians would never admit to such an absurd concept. If > controlled by God, it is not random at all. Alternately, they would claim that everything was controlled by God, and that randomness is an absurdity. As you have done. 8-). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3D7CF512.ED0C4E8B>