Does Evolution Beg the Question on Survival of the Fittest? - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14881754
Hindsite wrote:God, as the Creator of all these things, knew about the invisible things long before man discovered them.

Oh? He just neglected to mention them...? How about the structure of the universe, which God told man was like a bowl inverted over a plate?
God is not required to tell man everything, especially when man did not follow His commands during the very beginning.

But why give so much misleading information?
Besides, God knows that man has a desire to discover thing on his own, because God made man that way.

LOL! Yes, God made man in such a way that man can discover there never was any God...
#14881888
Addressing the topic, and not the deviation to religious fuckery...

Survival of the Fittest?
A majority of the general public may be able to describe natural selection as "survival of the fittest". When pressed for a further explanation of that term, however, the majority will answer incorrectly. To a person not familiar with what natural selection really is, "fittest" means the best physical specimen of the species and only those in the best shape and best health will survive in nature.

This is not always the case. The individuals that survive are not always the strongest, fastest, or smartest. Therefore, "survival of the fittest" may not be the best way to describe what natural selection really is as it applies to evolution. Darwin did not mean it in these terms when he used it in his book after Herbert first published the phrase. Darwin meant "fittest" to mean the one best suited for the immediate environment. This is the basis of the idea of natural selection.

The individual of the population only needs to have the most favorable traits to survive in the environment. It should follow that individuals who have the favorable adaptations will live long enough to pass down those genes to their offspring. Individuals lacking the favorable traits, in other words, the "unfit", will most likely not live long enough to pass down the unfavorable traits and eventually those traits will be bred out of the population. The unfavorable traits may take many generations to decline in numbers and even longer to disappear completely from the gene pool. This is evident in humans with the genes of fatal diseases are still in the gene pool even though they are unfavorable for the survival of the species.

https://www.thoughtco.com/survival-of-t ... st-1224578

Luck plays a part in survival, so sometimes genes are passed on that are not the best for survival. You can find this in humans, with colourblindness and other genetic problems. Some simply don't interfere with survival.
#14882459
Hindsite wrote:There is no law of evolution that is why it is only called the theory of evolution.

I've heard this silly canard from religious know-nothings like Zakir Naik. The Germ Theory is an indisputable FACT, even though there is no "Germ Law." The Atomic Theory is an indisputable FACT even though there is no "Atomic Law." The Theory of Evolution is likewise an indisputable FACT even though there is no "Law of Evolution." The only difference is that the ancient myths that certain gullible people take for absolute truth didn't explicitly guess wrong about germs and atoms.
User avatar
By Hindsite
#14882491
Truth To Power wrote:I've heard this silly canard from religious know-nothings like Zakir Naik. The Germ Theory is an indisputable FACT, even though there is no "Germ Law." The Atomic Theory is an indisputable FACT even though there is no "Atomic Law." The Theory of Evolution is likewise an indisputable FACT even though there is no "Law of Evolution." The only difference is that the ancient myths that certain gullible people take for absolute truth didn't explicitly guess wrong about germs and atoms.

However, the general theory of evolution is disputable and is often called a religious view because much of it must be based on faith, not fact. When it comes to biological evolution only micro-evolution is not disputed, except to refer to it as variations in species. Macro-evolution is highly disputed and there is yet to be any proof for it.
#14882538
Evolution has, literally, tons of evidence supporting it. Only religious quacks think otherwise and go by any sort of pseudoscience or lies they can dredge up, to try to dismiss hard, solid science.

Regarding your uneducated statement about law vs theories, @Hindsite :

Theory vs Law
Now that we understand the distinction between an English theory and a scientific theory, we can discuss the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law. As previously stated, a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. A scientific law is simply an observation of the phenomenon that the theory attempts to explain. For example, suppose that you were lying under an apple tree and observed an apple fall from a branch to the ground. The observation of this phenomena can be called the law of gravity. The law of gravity states that every time you drop an apple, it will fall to the ground. The theory of gravity is the explanation as to why the apple falls to the ground. A law is an observation. A theory is an explanation.

Just A Theory
Understanding the difference between a theory and a law makes evident the ignorance of statements like “oh, that’s just a theory” when attempting to diminish the integrity of a scientific theory like evolution. This argument doesn’t make sense, as a theory is the highest honor achievable in a scientific field. Acknowledging the theory of evolution as a scientific theory is acknowledging it as the greatest thing that humans, through science, are capable of creating. The theory of evolution is the best explanation of the observed phenomena of evolution. The current theory is Darwinian evolution through natural selection, and an enormous amount of evidence supports the theory. Scientists would encourage you to challenge and be skeptical of the current theory of evolution, as doing so helps refine existing theories into better ones. It does not, however, make sense to refute the massive amount of scientific evidence for evolution like the existence of fossils of human ancestors. We should dispute why what happens happens, but not the fact that it is happening.

Conclusion
The scientific method allows us to formulate ideas and back them with evidence. They are then shared with a community of other scientists that rigorously try to disprove them. If no one can disprove a hypothesis, it becomes the current working theory. If someone eventually does, the theory is changed or replaced. This process continues and results in better and better ideas being formulated over time.Although the scientific method is not guaranteed to give us the absolutely correct answer, it does help us get closer to that answer. It helps us improve our existing model of the universe and learn from our mistakes.

#14882639
Godstud wrote:Evolution has, literally, tons of evidence supporting it. Only religious quacks think otherwise and go by any sort of pseudoscience or lies they can dredge up, to try to dismiss hard, solid science.


Religious quacks, scientific quacks, same difference, except that the latter are more dangerous.

Direct knowledge can only be religious. Scientific knowledge is limited by it's inability to transcend the knower/known duality. Thus, what we call scientific knowledge is an interpretation of theories of the world in the service of the powers-that-be. People just believe what's most profitable to them. That's how social Darwinism turns into fascism. The interpretation of evolution as the "survival of the fittest" needs to be replaced by an interpretation of evolution as cooperation between communities.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#14882644
Hindsite wrote:However, the general theory of evolution is disputable and is often called a religious view because much of it must be based on faith, not fact. When it comes to biological evolution only micro-evolution is not disputed, except to refer to it as variations in species. Macro-evolution is highly disputed and there is yet to be any proof for it.

All of what you say here is correct, so far as it goes. Every scientific 'truth' is contingent in the sense that is based on assumptions, one of which is that the world is self-consistent in the way that it changes over time, so that it can be amenable at all to rational analysis. We also assume that the abstract rational 'laws' which can be used to describe the way it changes over time do not themselves change over time. These are metaphysical assumptions every bit as unprovable as the assertion that God exists (or does not exist). What you are asking from science is that it must be an absolute truth rather than a contingent truth. It cannot be an absolute truth, but is contingent. It's our best guess about how things work. But it's good enough to get us to the Moon and back. It doesn't need to be an absolute truth. Only religion claims to be absolute truth; if it didn't then it wouldn't be religion. Science merely claims to be a contingent truth; if it didn't then it wouln't be science.
#14882649
Atlantis wrote:Religious quacks, scientific quacks, same difference, except that the latter are more dangerous.

Direct knowledge can only be religious. Scientific knowledge is limited by it's inability to transcend the knower/known duality. Thus, what we call scientific knowledge is an interpretation of theories of the world in the service of the powers-that-be. People just believe what's most profitable to them. That's how social Darwinism turns into fascism. The interpretation of evolution as the "survival of the fittest" needs to be replaced by an interpretation of evolution as cooperation between communities.
:lol: You're taking a piss! Did you not read what I posted about scientific theory? Obviously not, or you wouldn't say such stupid things. :knife:

Your "profitable" bullshit is childish conspiracy theory nonsense. :moron: :moron: :moron:

The profit falls under the purview of people denying science for ideological and economic gain.
#14882726
Hindsite wrote:However, the general theory of evolution is disputable and is often called a religious view because much of it must be based on faith, not fact.

False. It is as fact based as our theory of stellar evolution.
When it comes to biological evolution only micro-evolution is not disputed, except to refer to it as variations in species. Macro-evolution is highly disputed and there is yet to be any proof for it.

No, it is not disputed, as that would require presentation of contrary facts. It is only denied by gullible people who take false and absurd ancient myths as absolute truth. There is as much proof for the theory of evolution as for the germ theory and the atomic theory.
#14882729
Atlantis wrote:Religious quacks, scientific quacks, same difference, except that the latter are more dangerous.

That is a false, absurd, and ignorant comment.
Direct knowledge can only be religious.

You misspelled, "delusion."
Scientific knowledge is limited by it's inability to transcend the knower/known duality.

That's a feature, not a bug.
Thus, what we call scientific knowledge is an interpretation of theories of the world in the service of the powers-that-be.

Marxist claptrap.
People just believe what's most profitable to them.

What is profitable about believing that pi is irrational?
That's how social Darwinism turns into fascism.

Fascism is associated with religion, not Darwinism.
The interpretation of evolution as the "survival of the fittest" needs to be replaced by an interpretation of evolution as cooperation between communities.

But in fact, it isn't -- no matter how profitable it might be to you to believe it is.

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]