Natural Selection is Deterministic?
-
Q- In what way is natural selection deterministic?
A- Whatever survives to reproduce determines what the next generation will be
Q- What survives to reproduce?
A- Whatever is good enough and/ or lucky enough to do so
Q- What about the fittest?
A- The fittest, wrt biology, are the individuals who leave behind the most offspring, you know those surviving reproducers
Q- So where does determinism come in?
A- Whatever surivives to reproduce is determined by a number of factors
Q- That's it?
A- Apparently
Q- And this is what gave rise to the diversity of life?
A- Yup, it's settled science
Q- What is "settled science"?
A- It's when "mainstream" scientists don't know what the fuck is going on and they are pretty sure no one ever will, so they make something up
Q- In what way is natural selection deterministic?
A- Whatever survives to reproduce determines what the next generation will be
Q- What survives to reproduce?
A- Whatever is good enough and/ or lucky enough to do so
Q- What about the fittest?
A- The fittest, wrt biology, are the individuals who leave behind the most offspring, you know those surviving reproducers
Q- So where does determinism come in?
A- Whatever surivives to reproduce is determined by a number of factors
Q- That's it?
A- Apparently
Q- And this is what gave rise to the diversity of life?
A- Yup, it's settled science
Q- What is "settled science"?
A- It's when "mainstream" scientists don't know what the fuck is going on and they are pretty sure no one ever will, so they make something up
posted by Joe G @ 9:30 AM
10 Comments:
At 3:09 AM,
Rich Hughes said…
“Wind back the tape of life to the early days of the Burgess Shale; let it play again from an identical starting point, and the chance becomes vanishingly small that anything like human intelligence would grace the replay.” - Stephen Jay Gould
At 12:32 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
What was your point?
At 4:10 PM,
Joe G said…
That evoTARDs are clueless...
At 5:08 PM,
Rich Hughes said…
Yeah, you might want to look up "deterministic" and "stochastic".
At 5:30 PM,
Joe G said…
Yeah, maybe, someday, you may actually make a case instead of spewing nonsense
At 1:46 PM,
Unknown said…
Are you taking an empirical position against Evolution?! Or what is your position? It sounds creation-like, but I don't think the creationist will enjoy the empirical view turned back on himself. The claim, "evoTARDS are clueless" is not a philosophical claim. In fact, it is ad hominem. Do you always use logical fallacies when presenting arguments? Your Q&A is misguided and undermines the entire discussion between biologists and philosophers. Try again buddy!
At 1:53 PM,
Joe G said…
Well "evolution" has several meanings. You wouldn't be trying to equivocate would you?
At 1:54 PM,
Unknown said…
Oh man, after reading about your mission a little further, I sure hope you respond to me. Design theory!? Suffers from, equally, I think, all the problems that evolution suffers from. Tell me more about your a priori justifications for design theory, that evolution entails (of which you disagree with), while imposing empirical restrictions on biology, but not on design theory. Yes, do tell us all! Maybe you can un-justify determinism for the Calvinist who are convinced that libertarian Christians have missed the logical point? Never mind the endless libertarian gaps within his own faith system, lets just attack NS. hahahahahahaha
At 1:56 PM,
Unknown said…
Well, let's work on that definition of evolution so that we may be clear, moving forward, what that definition is. If you did not realize it yourself, you failed to give such a definition to begin with. I'm just an evoTARD so please tell me, the true definition, that your creationist position understands, best!
At 2:29 PM,
Joe G said…
The post is about NATURAL SELECTION which is well-defined.
BTW what the fuck are you ranting about anyway?
Post a Comment
<< Home