Creationists

[daws101]

You should feel sad for yourself, because you are so lost. You've admitted already you are searching for something to fill your void but Christianity didn't cut it. You were waiting to get a "feeling" before you followed Christianity, but what you so hopelessly missed was you have to follow Christ first in order for the peace and joy to enter your life. That gnawing sensation in your soul isn't going away, my friend.

Now you've embraced atheism. How's that working out for you? I'm sure you are totally content and sleeping like a baby at night just like me, huh?

So funny that a made up book, when followed, can result in the most freedom and contentment and joy the human soul is capable of. There is freedom in Christ. When followed, God's teachings result in a totally fulfilled life.

It's so funny that, a good feeling doesn't mean that god actually exists, at all. It simply means the concept of god makes you feel good. That's all. You associate the reward of good feeling with veracity about the supernatural claims, but that is fallacious. You're increased good feeling can be explained naturally.

You know nothing of me. ^

How dare you. You know nothing about me, or why I feel and think the way I do. Mental illness is not the product of lack of faith. It is the product of, for me, of bad formative social experiences that produced trauma and have caused my model of human relationships to be out of whack. The "hole" I find is a result of me being a social animal, and unable to fulfill that need whatsoever. I can not receive love or affection anymore, and do not trust people. I have massive social anxiety. This can be explained naturally within the timeline of my life and there have been times in my life when this was not the case, and it had nothing to do with god, but with relationships being better that are important to me, and my perception about reality being more clear. It is actually contained in the description of borderline personality disorder, that one feels "empty." So, you're prepared to make a scientific claim that this feeling in those with this disorder is caused by a lack of Jesus in their life?! Wow. You're ridiculous man. You can't be that ******* arrogant to say something like you did based on so little information about me. You're an ass.

Actually, atheism has saved my life, in a sense. It caused me to look at my issues rationally, and I've made GIANT leaps since "recommitting to my atheism" in the last few months (shedding any lingering religious attachments or notions I've had). I have committed myself to logical, critical thinking, and evidence, and applying this to my maladaptive beliefs and thought patterns have more more progress than I ever did when I was attempting to find god. It was religion and superstitious thinking that kept me in my mental anguish for so long. So, go **** yourself...

I think I will leave that chore for my wife. If you are going to continue to engage in public forums, you will need to learn not take everything so personally. It sounds like some evil was done to you at some time in your life.

Actually, under the worldview you have chosen, evil doesn't exist. Neither does "good". It sounds like some human animals who couldn't help the programming in their flawed dna brains acted in some survival modes towards you in an attempt to prevent your from passing your dna on to the next generation and the really screwed up your normal adaptive response to stimuli. Under your worldview, who cares about you stupid problems? In less than 100 years you will be dead. In less than 200 years there won't even be a memory of you because everyone who knew you will be dead. It was all part of the cosmic joke. Under materialism your existence is meaningless so who gives a flying flip whether you live or die?

Ah, but under Theism, You have value!! You are one of God's children and he cares about you and he will remember you in life and death. And you will be see your loved ones again. This earth, with all its pain and suffering, is not the final chapter. Your life will have mattered because it matters to God. The Bible says even a sparrow can't fall to the ground without God caring so how much more does he care for us.

I really think you are just running from God. You've found that denying him makes it easier to rationalize your unwanted behaviors.

where's the remote ?

 

[LOki]

Your Darwinism isn't falsifiable either, so I am failing to see the contrast you are hopelessly failing at. Still waiting on that testable, agreed upon, definition of fitness. Let me know when you come up with something.

Try this.

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

An organism's ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

The state of being suitably adapted to an environment.​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

Also called Darwinian fitness. Biology .

a. the genetic contribution of an individual to the next generation's gene pool relative to the average for the population, usually measured by the number of offspring or close kin that survive to reproductive age.
b. the ability of a population to maintain or increase its numbers in succeeding generations.​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

It can be defined either with respect to a genotype or to a phenotype in a given environment. In either case, it describes the ability to both survive and reproduce,​

If you had actually bothered to look, you'd have discovered that fitness can be measured quantitatively as well as qualitatively.

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

the capacity of an organism to survive and transmit its genotype to reproductive offspring as compared to competing organisms; also : the contribution of an allele or genotype to the gene pool of subsequent generations as compared to that of other alleles or genotypes​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

A biological condition in which a competing variant is increasing in frequency relative to other competing variants in a population.​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

Biology. The extent to which an organism is adapted to or able to produce offspring in a particular environment.​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

Biology an organism’s ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

(Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) Biology

a. the degree of adaptation of an organism to its environment, determined by its genetic constitution
b. the ability of an organism to produce viable offspring capable of surviving to the next generation​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

The average number of offspring produced by individuals with a certain genotype, relative to the number produced by individuals with other genotypes.​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

the contribution an individual makes to the gene pool of the next generation relative to the contributions of other individuals.​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

fitness: The success of an entity in reproducing; hence, the average contribution of an allele or genotype to the next generation or to succeeding generations. Relative fitness is the average contribution of an allele or genotype compared with that of another allele or genotype.​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

Absolute fitness is the potential for individuals of a given genotype to survive and reproduce in the face of natural selection.​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

Average fitness
[is t]he mean absolute fitness value exhibited by all the members of a population.​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

Relative fitness
[is t]he potential for individuals of a given genotype to survive and reproduce in the face of natural selection, as compared to the average fitness exhibited by the population in which this individual is a member.​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

Allelic or genotypic fitness describes the relative contribution of one allele or geno-type to the next generation as compared to that of possible alternate alleles or genotypes. ​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

Direct fitness is a measure of how many alleles, on average, a genotype contributes to the subsequent generation's gene pool by reproducing.​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

Indirect fitness is a measure of how many alleles identical to its own it helps to enter the gene pool.​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

From an evolutionary perspective, fitness - the relative competitive ability of one cell type versus others in the population - is the fundamental parameter that determines which organisms increase their numbers in a population.​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

In the crudest terms, fitness involves the ability of organisms— or, more rarely, populations or species— to survive and reproduce in the environment in which they find themselves​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

Absolute fitness is a statistic that is usually assigned to a genotype and it typically refers to a genotype’s expected total fitness, that complex mix of viability, mating success, fecundity, etc. As such, absolute fitness, symbolized W, is a quantity that can be greater than or equal to zero​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

The relative fitness of a genotype, symbolized w, equals its absolute fitness normalized in some way. In the most common normalization, the absolute fitness of each genotype is divided by the absolute fitness of the fittest genotype, such that the fittest genotype has a relative fitness of one.​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

fitness of a biological trait describes how successful an organism has been at passing on its genes. The more likely that an individual is able to survive and live longer to reproduce, the higher is the fitness of that individual.​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

The relative probability of survival and reproduction for a genotype B as compared to a genotype A​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

In population genetics, fitness refers to differential reproduction. "Fitness" does not refer to whether an individual is "physically fit" – bigger, faster or stronger – or "better" in any subjective sense. It refers to a difference in reproductive rate from one generation to the next.​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

Relative Fitness
A measure of biological fitness expressed as the ratio of the absolute fitness of an individual (or of a genotype or of a phenotype) and the absolute fitness of a reference individual (or of genotype or of phenotype).​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

Absolute Fitness
A measure of biological fitness expressed as the total number of gene copies transmitted to the subsequent generation or the total number of surviving offspring that an individual produces during its lifetime.​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

In essence, the “fitness” of a trait is its propensity to affect, positively or negatively, the reproductive success of an organism.​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

Well, I guess you're just a little retarded then.

 

[LOki]

Already been done several times with the reprint of Stephen Meyers scientific theory.

Refuted every time you post it.

It is currently the best explanation that an intelligent agent was the source of information in dna, and ultimately, the source for the micro machines that all had to be in place wholly functional for the contraption to work.

It is no explanation at all for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you posit as the source of life on this planet.

Yes, it presents a proof that an intelligent agent is responsible based on present observations.

Not at all. Not in any manner what so ever. Stephen Meyers' "theory" is nothing but question-begging, special-pleading creationist woo-woo.

 

[Hollie]

Try this.

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

An organism's ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment​

The state of being suitably adapted to an environment.​

Also called Darwinian fitness. Biology .

a. the genetic contribution of an individual to the next generation's gene pool relative to the average for the population, usually measured by the number of offspring or close kin that survive to reproductive age.
b. the ability of a population to maintain or increase its numbers in succeeding generations.​

It can be defined either with respect to a genotype or to a phenotype in a given environment. In either case, it describes the ability to both survive and reproduce,​

If you had actually bothered to look, you'd have discovered that fitness can be measured quantitatively as well as qualitatively.

the capacity of an organism to survive and transmit its genotype to reproductive offspring as compared to competing organisms; also : the contribution of an allele or genotype to the gene pool of subsequent generations as compared to that of other alleles or genotypes​

A biological condition in which a competing variant is increasing in frequency relative to other competing variants in a population.​

Biology. The extent to which an organism is adapted to or able to produce offspring in a particular environment.​

Biology an organism’s ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment​

(Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) Biology

a. the degree of adaptation of an organism to its environment, determined by its genetic constitution
b. the ability of an organism to produce viable offspring capable of surviving to the next generation​

The average number of offspring produced by individuals with a certain genotype, relative to the number produced by individuals with other genotypes.​

the contribution an individual makes to the gene pool of the next generation relative to the contributions of other individuals.​

fitness: The success of an entity in reproducing; hence, the average contribution of an allele or genotype to the next generation or to succeeding generations. Relative fitness is the average contribution of an allele or genotype compared with that of another allele or genotype.​

Absolute fitness is the potential for individuals of a given genotype to survive and reproduce in the face of natural selection.​

Average fitness
[is t]he mean absolute fitness value exhibited by all the members of a population.​

Relative fitness
[is t]he potential for individuals of a given genotype to survive and reproduce in the face of natural selection, as compared to the average fitness exhibited by the population in which this individual is a member.​

Allelic or genotypic fitness describes the relative contribution of one allele or geno-type to the next generation as compared to that of possible alternate alleles or genotypes. ​

The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​

The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​

The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​

Direct fitness is a measure of how many alleles, on average, a genotype contributes to the subsequent generation's gene pool by reproducing.​

Indirect fitness is a measure of how many alleles identical to its own it helps to enter the gene pool.​

Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​

Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​

Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​

From an evolutionary perspective, fitness - the relative competitive ability of one cell type versus others in the population - is the fundamental parameter that determines which organisms increase their numbers in a population.​

In the crudest terms, fitness involves the ability of organisms— or, more rarely, populations or species— to survive and reproduce in the environment in which they find themselves​

Absolute fitness is a statistic that is usually assigned to a genotype and it typically refers to a genotype’s expected total fitness, that complex mix of viability, mating success, fecundity, etc. As such, absolute fitness, symbolized W, is a quantity that can be greater than or equal to zero​

The relative fitness of a genotype, symbolized w, equals its absolute fitness normalized in some way. In the most common normalization, the absolute fitness of each genotype is divided by the absolute fitness of the fittest genotype, such that the fittest genotype has a relative fitness of one.​

fitness of a biological trait describes how successful an organism has been at passing on its genes. The more likely that an individual is able to survive and live longer to reproduce, the higher is the fitness of that individual.​

The relative probability of survival and reproduction for a genotype B as compared to a genotype A​

In population genetics, fitness refers to differential reproduction. "Fitness" does not refer to whether an individual is "physically fit" – bigger, faster or stronger – or "better" in any subjective sense. It refers to a difference in reproductive rate from one generation to the next.​

Relative Fitness
A measure of biological fitness expressed as the ratio of the absolute fitness of an individual (or of a genotype or of a phenotype) and the absolute fitness of a reference individual (or of genotype or of phenotype).​

Absolute Fitness
A measure of biological fitness expressed as the total number of gene copies transmitted to the subsequent generation or the total number of surviving offspring that an individual produces during its lifetime.​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

In essence, the “fitness” of a trait is its propensity to affect, positively or negatively, the reproductive success of an organism.​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

Well, I guess you're just a little retarded then.

Oh my. After that slash and burn, there won't be enough left of yeah, couldn't find anything to sweep up into a dust pan.

 

[daws101]

It's so funny that, a good feeling doesn't mean that god actually exists, at all. It simply means the concept of god makes you feel good. That's all. You associate the reward of good feeling with veracity about the supernatural claims, but that is fallacious. You're increased good feeling can be explained naturally.

You know nothing of me. ^

How dare you. You know nothing about me, or why I feel and think the way I do. Mental illness is not the product of lack of faith. It is the product of, for me, of bad formative social experiences that produced trauma and have caused my model of human relationships to be out of whack. The "hole" I find is a result of me being a social animal, and unable to fulfill that need whatsoever. I can not receive love or affection anymore, and do not trust people. I have massive social anxiety. This can be explained naturally within the timeline of my life and there have been times in my life when this was not the case, and it had nothing to do with god, but with relationships being better that are important to me, and my perception about reality being more clear. It is actually contained in the description of borderline personality disorder, that one feels "empty." So, you're prepared to make a scientific claim that this feeling in those with this disorder is caused by a lack of Jesus in their life?! Wow. You're ridiculous man. You can't be that ******* arrogant to say something like you did based on so little information about me. You're an ass.

Actually, atheism has saved my life, in a sense. It caused me to look at my issues rationally, and I've made GIANT leaps since "recommitting to my atheism" in the last few months (shedding any lingering religious attachments or notions I've had). I have committed myself to logical, critical thinking, and evidence, and applying this to my maladaptive beliefs and thought patterns have more more progress than I ever did when I was attempting to find god. It was religion and superstitious thinking that kept me in my mental anguish for so long. So, go **** yourself...

I think I will leave that chore for my wife. If you are going to continue to engage in public forums, you will need to learn not take everything so personally. It sounds like some evil was done to you at some time in your life.

Actually, under the worldview you have chosen, evil doesn't exist. Neither does "good". It sounds like some human animals who couldn't help the programming in their flawed dna brains acted in some survival modes towards you in an attempt to prevent your from passing your dna on to the next generation and the really screwed up your normal adaptive response to stimuli. Under your worldview, who cares about you stupid problems? In less than 100 years you will be dead. In less than 200 years there won't even be a memory of you because everyone who knew you will be dead. It was all part of the cosmic joke. Under materialism your existence is meaningless so who gives a flying flip whether you live or die?

Ah, but under Theism, You have value!! You are one of God's children and he cares about you and he will remember you in life and death. And you will be see your loved ones again. This earth, with all its pain and suffering, is not the final chapter. Your life will have mattered because it matters to God. The Bible says even a sparrow can't fall to the ground without God caring so how much more does he care for us.

I really think you are just running from God. You've found that denying him makes it easier to rationalize your unwanted behaviors.

Yes, I do take things too personally. I realize this. I have anger issues. But, when you tell me I am lost without a god you can not demonstrate with any evidence or logic, you sound completely ridiculous, and you are being insanely obnoxious.

Religion and the concept of god actually depresses me, because I think it is so delusional, and requires such gullibility. I am not running from anything. Again, you are being obnoxious saying I am running from something that can't even be demonstrated to exist. It's laughable to me that you would say that. The judaeo-christian god I am positive, does not exist. It is an internally contradictory concept of a god.

HEY NP don't waste your energy being offended by UR or YWC. the shit they post is farce, made even more humorous by asinine quotes like this: "Your life will have mattered because it matters to God" he might as well have said without god your life doesn't matter.
the fact is life is just life , you make your own meaning.
a concept foreign to Jesus junkies like YWC & UR Who from my pov have fucked up so bad in there lives that they found god to escape taking responsibility for their actions.
it's been my experience that ass hats like them who spend so much time denying fact and preaching nonsense are desperately attempting to fill a bottomless void in their lives .

 

[daws101]

That doesn't make any sense. I'm guessing the logic is that if life evolves then it doesn't have free will? You lost me.

nothing UR says makes any sense ...he never lets that simple fact get in his way .....when answering UR and YWC'S POST remember they have zero evidence.

I have shown the absudity you believe and you have no rebuttal to it.

keep telling yourself that lie.

 

[daws101]

Do you know how life began daws ?

no, and neither do you....

Thank you for finally admitting both our views are based on faith.

thanks for showing you bias and ignorance.
I stated fact "no one really knows how life started."
I freely admit that.
you, lying piece of shit will say you do based on your faith but since faith proves nothing but faith..you have no evidence corroborating that faith so in reality you don't really know and won't admit it.
making you a dishonest slapdick.
btw I have no faith by your defintion..

 

[daws101]

This is nothing less than a complete vindication of what creationists have been saying about radiometric dating. It is also an excellent example of just how good evolutionists are at rationalizing away problems. The funny thing is that Talk Origins is clearly totally blind to how well this illustrates the truth of what creationists say about the process of radiometric dating.

Here they have dates all over the place, not only by different methods, but by the same methods. Given this, it was the fossils that led the way. In the end they came up with three dates that agreed with each other and the fossils, all of which had also given erroneous results. Simply put, what happened here is that evolutionists kept making measurements until they found results that they liked.

Do you find it at all strange that your article (from creation wiki), references Marvin Lubenow?

creation.com/marvin-lubenow Marvin Lubenow is Professor of Bible/Apologetics at Christian Heritage College in San Diego California.

I see. A professor of bible apologetics is your source?

Chuckle.

You are a troll with no objectivity at all.

Radiometric dating is flawed. No one knows how old rocks are.

You're dismissed.

sombody's dodging and it ain't HOLLIE.

 

[daws101]

Do you find it at all strange that your article (from creation wiki), references Marvin Lubenow?

creation.com/marvin-lubenow Marvin Lubenow is Professor of Bible/Apologetics at Christian Heritage College in San Diego California.

I see. A professor of bible apologetics is your source?

Chuckle.

You are a troll with no objectivity at all.

When I obsess over Hollie late at night, I kind of picture her as a troll. Big hairy feet, scraggly hair, and one of those chick mustaches that should be waxed. Oh and really thick man hands that have a Rugged Touch.

I read that kind of fantasy hurts more then helps sexually dysfunctional men like yourself .
on the other hand it's spot on proof that at 48 you still have not matured past puberty..
too bad god doesn't exist or you'd be sucking Satan's cock just for thinking that .

 

[daws101]

Progressive creationism is built on assumptions not facts just like many scientific theories. What was the point of God handing down judgment on adam if things were already dying.

I still have not seen any scriptures that would make me consider an old earth view. People can believe as they wish but for me my doctrine comes from the bible. Are all my beliefs in line with what the scrptures say ? I believe they are I don't believe doctrine that I don't see in the scrptures.

I don't make my beliefs fit what man thinks my beliefs have to fit what the creator say's.

I always find it tragically comic that fundies will make comments such as: "I don't make my beliefs fit what man thinks my beliefs have to fit what the creator say's"

The fact is, all of the alleged "holy texts" are undeniably written by men.

It’s quite simple, really: A book is simply that, a book. There is no solid reason to connect any supernatural entity with the authorship of a book. Never, ever, in all of the history of humanity has any god made their existence extant. Never in human history has any one of the 14,000 or so alleged gods presented themselves in a fashion understandable to humans, And in fact, all of the alleged gods have eventually been superseded and/or replaced by the more currently in-vogue gods. It’s just a fact that the bible was written by men, edited, revised and compiled by many men. That is not conjecture or assumption on my part, it’s just a fact. I care about these inventions of supernatural entities because religions and supernatural beliefs can have the effect of keeping humanity in bondage, both mentally and physically. I’m forced to acknowledge these various religious beliefs because countless billions of people are made to live their lives in trembling fear of an asserted supernatural entity who will bring forth such things as hell and plagues and various "wraths", "curses" and "spells". Faith, then, is ultimately a confused marriage of blind, uncritical trust, and wishful thinking. No matter how fervently one believes in an improbability or an outright contradiction, it will not suddenly spring into being merely because people wish it so. As Anatole France said, "If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

Many of the writings confirm a superior being inspired the writings. There are things mentioned in the writings that man did know at that time. These writings had to be inspired from someone superior to man.

not this steaming pile of shit again.
those many writings only confirm a bias not fact.
your belief that "they had to be" is unprovable and nonsense ...asshat!

 

[UltimateReality]

Oh you poor fundie. Are you finding that a degree from the ICR is not embraced by employers who snicker when they find your job skills are limited to....well... nothing

Better than your degree from Haran Yahya online university.

There is no such degree. I suppose you're furious that the ICR suffered a humiliating setback in their attempts to offer degree programs in Texas. Take a cue and phony-up your credentials as many fundies do. You're in appropriate company.

You mean like your phony diploma from Haran Yahya online university?

 

[UltimateReality]

Try this.

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

An organism's ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment​

The state of being suitably adapted to an environment.​

Also called Darwinian fitness. Biology .

a. the genetic contribution of an individual to the next generation's gene pool relative to the average for the population, usually measured by the number of offspring or close kin that survive to reproductive age.
b. the ability of a population to maintain or increase its numbers in succeeding generations.​

It can be defined either with respect to a genotype or to a phenotype in a given environment. In either case, it describes the ability to both survive and reproduce,​

If you had actually bothered to look, you'd have discovered that fitness can be measured quantitatively as well as qualitatively.

the capacity of an organism to survive and transmit its genotype to reproductive offspring as compared to competing organisms; also : the contribution of an allele or genotype to the gene pool of subsequent generations as compared to that of other alleles or genotypes​

A biological condition in which a competing variant is increasing in frequency relative to other competing variants in a population.​

Biology. The extent to which an organism is adapted to or able to produce offspring in a particular environment.​

Biology an organism’s ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment​

(Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) Biology

a. the degree of adaptation of an organism to its environment, determined by its genetic constitution
b. the ability of an organism to produce viable offspring capable of surviving to the next generation​

The average number of offspring produced by individuals with a certain genotype, relative to the number produced by individuals with other genotypes.​

the contribution an individual makes to the gene pool of the next generation relative to the contributions of other individuals.​

fitness: The success of an entity in reproducing; hence, the average contribution of an allele or genotype to the next generation or to succeeding generations. Relative fitness is the average contribution of an allele or genotype compared with that of another allele or genotype.​

Absolute fitness is the potential for individuals of a given genotype to survive and reproduce in the face of natural selection.​

Average fitness
[is t]he mean absolute fitness value exhibited by all the members of a population.​

Relative fitness
[is t]he potential for individuals of a given genotype to survive and reproduce in the face of natural selection, as compared to the average fitness exhibited by the population in which this individual is a member.​

Allelic or genotypic fitness describes the relative contribution of one allele or geno-type to the next generation as compared to that of possible alternate alleles or genotypes. ​

The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​

The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​

The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​

Direct fitness is a measure of how many alleles, on average, a genotype contributes to the subsequent generation's gene pool by reproducing.​

Indirect fitness is a measure of how many alleles identical to its own it helps to enter the gene pool.​

Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​

Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​

Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​

From an evolutionary perspective, fitness - the relative competitive ability of one cell type versus others in the population - is the fundamental parameter that determines which organisms increase their numbers in a population.​

In the crudest terms, fitness involves the ability of organisms— or, more rarely, populations or species— to survive and reproduce in the environment in which they find themselves​

Absolute fitness is a statistic that is usually assigned to a genotype and it typically refers to a genotype’s expected total fitness, that complex mix of viability, mating success, fecundity, etc. As such, absolute fitness, symbolized W, is a quantity that can be greater than or equal to zero​

The relative fitness of a genotype, symbolized w, equals its absolute fitness normalized in some way. In the most common normalization, the absolute fitness of each genotype is divided by the absolute fitness of the fittest genotype, such that the fittest genotype has a relative fitness of one.​

fitness of a biological trait describes how successful an organism has been at passing on its genes. The more likely that an individual is able to survive and live longer to reproduce, the higher is the fitness of that individual.​

The relative probability of survival and reproduction for a genotype B as compared to a genotype A​

In population genetics, fitness refers to differential reproduction. "Fitness" does not refer to whether an individual is "physically fit" – bigger, faster or stronger – or "better" in any subjective sense. It refers to a difference in reproductive rate from one generation to the next.​

Relative Fitness
A measure of biological fitness expressed as the ratio of the absolute fitness of an individual (or of a genotype or of a phenotype) and the absolute fitness of a reference individual (or of genotype or of phenotype).​

Absolute Fitness
A measure of biological fitness expressed as the total number of gene copies transmitted to the subsequent generation or the total number of surviving offspring that an individual produces during its lifetime.​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

In essence, the “fitness” of a trait is its propensity to affect, positively or negatively, the reproductive success of an organism.​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

Well, I guess you're just a little retarded then.

Wow, you wasted a half hour re-quoting your circular reasoning. These species were fit because they survived. Are all Darwinists researchers Captain Obvious wannabe's like you? Think about what you are saying. The fit species survived and passed along their genes and the non-fit species didn't. This is evolutions main claim!!! You are basically saying evolution is true because evolution is true. I can't believe your are too blind, or too stupid, to see the absurdity of this circular argument. You are using your assumption to prove your assumption. Hello? McFly?

What you didn't like to was an actual agreed upon and testable definition of fitness. Without this, there is no way to do a scientific test for, much less prove, that evolution exists.

 

[UltimateReality]

...he might as well have said without god your life doesn't matter...

Yes, I'm saying that too. Prove that under materialism and naturalism that statement is not true. If this planet and humankind are accidents, randomly generated, how does your life matter. When you die, it won't have mattered. When everyone who knew you is gone, it will have meant nothing.

 

[UltimateReality]

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

An organism's ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment​

The state of being suitably adapted to an environment.​

Also called Darwinian fitness. Biology .

a. the genetic contribution of an individual to the next generation's gene pool relative to the average for the population, usually measured by the number of offspring or close kin that survive to reproductive age.
b. the ability of a population to maintain or increase its numbers in succeeding generations.​

It can be defined either with respect to a genotype or to a phenotype in a given environment. In either case, it describes the ability to both survive and reproduce,​

If you had actually bothered to look, you'd have discovered that fitness can be measured quantitatively as well as qualitatively.

the capacity of an organism to survive and transmit its genotype to reproductive offspring as compared to competing organisms; also : the contribution of an allele or genotype to the gene pool of subsequent generations as compared to that of other alleles or genotypes​

A biological condition in which a competing variant is increasing in frequency relative to other competing variants in a population.​

Biology. The extent to which an organism is adapted to or able to produce offspring in a particular environment.​

Biology an organism’s ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment​

(Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) Biology

a. the degree of adaptation of an organism to its environment, determined by its genetic constitution
b. the ability of an organism to produce viable offspring capable of surviving to the next generation​

The average number of offspring produced by individuals with a certain genotype, relative to the number produced by individuals with other genotypes.​

the contribution an individual makes to the gene pool of the next generation relative to the contributions of other individuals.​

fitness: The success of an entity in reproducing; hence, the average contribution of an allele or genotype to the next generation or to succeeding generations. Relative fitness is the average contribution of an allele or genotype compared with that of another allele or genotype.​

Absolute fitness is the potential for individuals of a given genotype to survive and reproduce in the face of natural selection.​

Average fitness
[is t]he mean absolute fitness value exhibited by all the members of a population.​

Relative fitness
[is t]he potential for individuals of a given genotype to survive and reproduce in the face of natural selection, as compared to the average fitness exhibited by the population in which this individual is a member.​

Allelic or genotypic fitness describes the relative contribution of one allele or geno-type to the next generation as compared to that of possible alternate alleles or genotypes. ​

The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​

The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​

The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​

Direct fitness is a measure of how many alleles, on average, a genotype contributes to the subsequent generation's gene pool by reproducing.​

Indirect fitness is a measure of how many alleles identical to its own it helps to enter the gene pool.​

Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​

Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​

Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​

From an evolutionary perspective, fitness - the relative competitive ability of one cell type versus others in the population - is the fundamental parameter that determines which organisms increase their numbers in a population.​

In the crudest terms, fitness involves the ability of organisms— or, more rarely, populations or species— to survive and reproduce in the environment in which they find themselves​

Absolute fitness is a statistic that is usually assigned to a genotype and it typically refers to a genotype’s expected total fitness, that complex mix of viability, mating success, fecundity, etc. As such, absolute fitness, symbolized W, is a quantity that can be greater than or equal to zero​

The relative fitness of a genotype, symbolized w, equals its absolute fitness normalized in some way. In the most common normalization, the absolute fitness of each genotype is divided by the absolute fitness of the fittest genotype, such that the fittest genotype has a relative fitness of one.​

fitness of a biological trait describes how successful an organism has been at passing on its genes. The more likely that an individual is able to survive and live longer to reproduce, the higher is the fitness of that individual.​

The relative probability of survival and reproduction for a genotype B as compared to a genotype A​

In population genetics, fitness refers to differential reproduction. "Fitness" does not refer to whether an individual is "physically fit" – bigger, faster or stronger – or "better" in any subjective sense. It refers to a difference in reproductive rate from one generation to the next.​

Relative Fitness
A measure of biological fitness expressed as the ratio of the absolute fitness of an individual (or of a genotype or of a phenotype) and the absolute fitness of a reference individual (or of genotype or of phenotype).​

Absolute Fitness
A measure of biological fitness expressed as the total number of gene copies transmitted to the subsequent generation or the total number of surviving offspring that an individual produces during its lifetime.​

In essence, the “fitness” of a trait is its propensity to affect, positively or negatively, the reproductive success of an organism.​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

Well, I guess you're just a little retarded then.

Oh my. After that slash and burn, there won't be enough left of yeah, couldn't find anything to sweep up into a dust pan.

Pretty obvious, as usual, you didn't actually click on the links. Many of them were to the same generic definition page.

And this one Loki linked actually says what I was claiming!!!!

[/URL].[/INDENT]

fitness: The success of an entity in reproducing; hence, the average contribution of an allele or genotype to the next generation or to succeeding generations. Relative fitness is the average contribution of an allele or genotype compared with that of another allele or genotype.

This was basically an article with more opinions about opinions.

"Philosophers do continue to seek an broad philosophical account of fitness, but agree that it is not tautological, and that it does describe a general tendency of a trait or organism, not — as EE prefers — a description of the actual performance of an organism. Thus, an individual can be fit (possess traits which ought to increase its reproductive success) but not reproduce. It could be struck by lightning, for instance. Treating fitness as a tendency eliminates any circularity, just as recognizing that salt tends to dissolve in water allows you to describe salt as soluble even if it never is placed in water. A gene can tend to be more fit without making each individual possessing that trait produce more offspring."

Proof that no one still can agree, much less comply with the scientific method to test for evolution. And so you cling to your Darwinian Myth. You are going to have to come up with some better material than this, Loki, if you want to be taken seriously on here.​

 

[Hollie]

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

An organism's ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment​

The state of being suitably adapted to an environment.​

Also called Darwinian fitness. Biology .

a. the genetic contribution of an individual to the next generation's gene pool relative to the average for the population, usually measured by the number of offspring or close kin that survive to reproductive age.
b. the ability of a population to maintain or increase its numbers in succeeding generations.​

It can be defined either with respect to a genotype or to a phenotype in a given environment. In either case, it describes the ability to both survive and reproduce,​

If you had actually bothered to look, you'd have discovered that fitness can be measured quantitatively as well as qualitatively.

the capacity of an organism to survive and transmit its genotype to reproductive offspring as compared to competing organisms; also : the contribution of an allele or genotype to the gene pool of subsequent generations as compared to that of other alleles or genotypes​

A biological condition in which a competing variant is increasing in frequency relative to other competing variants in a population.​

Biology. The extent to which an organism is adapted to or able to produce offspring in a particular environment.​

Biology an organism’s ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment​

(Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) Biology

a. the degree of adaptation of an organism to its environment, determined by its genetic constitution
b. the ability of an organism to produce viable offspring capable of surviving to the next generation​

The average number of offspring produced by individuals with a certain genotype, relative to the number produced by individuals with other genotypes.​

the contribution an individual makes to the gene pool of the next generation relative to the contributions of other individuals.​

fitness: The success of an entity in reproducing; hence, the average contribution of an allele or genotype to the next generation or to succeeding generations. Relative fitness is the average contribution of an allele or genotype compared with that of another allele or genotype.​

Absolute fitness is the potential for individuals of a given genotype to survive and reproduce in the face of natural selection.​

Average fitness
[is t]he mean absolute fitness value exhibited by all the members of a population.​

Relative fitness
[is t]he potential for individuals of a given genotype to survive and reproduce in the face of natural selection, as compared to the average fitness exhibited by the population in which this individual is a member.​

Allelic or genotypic fitness describes the relative contribution of one allele or geno-type to the next generation as compared to that of possible alternate alleles or genotypes. ​

The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​

The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​

The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​

Direct fitness is a measure of how many alleles, on average, a genotype contributes to the subsequent generation's gene pool by reproducing.​

Indirect fitness is a measure of how many alleles identical to its own it helps to enter the gene pool.​

Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​

Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​

Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​

From an evolutionary perspective, fitness - the relative competitive ability of one cell type versus others in the population - is the fundamental parameter that determines which organisms increase their numbers in a population.​

In the crudest terms, fitness involves the ability of organisms— or, more rarely, populations or species— to survive and reproduce in the environment in which they find themselves​

Absolute fitness is a statistic that is usually assigned to a genotype and it typically refers to a genotype’s expected total fitness, that complex mix of viability, mating success, fecundity, etc. As such, absolute fitness, symbolized W, is a quantity that can be greater than or equal to zero​

The relative fitness of a genotype, symbolized w, equals its absolute fitness normalized in some way. In the most common normalization, the absolute fitness of each genotype is divided by the absolute fitness of the fittest genotype, such that the fittest genotype has a relative fitness of one.​

fitness of a biological trait describes how successful an organism has been at passing on its genes. The more likely that an individual is able to survive and live longer to reproduce, the higher is the fitness of that individual.​

The relative probability of survival and reproduction for a genotype B as compared to a genotype A​

In population genetics, fitness refers to differential reproduction. "Fitness" does not refer to whether an individual is "physically fit" – bigger, faster or stronger – or "better" in any subjective sense. It refers to a difference in reproductive rate from one generation to the next.​

Relative Fitness
A measure of biological fitness expressed as the ratio of the absolute fitness of an individual (or of a genotype or of a phenotype) and the absolute fitness of a reference individual (or of genotype or of phenotype).​

Absolute Fitness
A measure of biological fitness expressed as the total number of gene copies transmitted to the subsequent generation or the total number of surviving offspring that an individual produces during its lifetime.​

In essence, the “fitness” of a trait is its propensity to affect, positively or negatively, the reproductive success of an organism.​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

Well, I guess you're just a little retarded then.

Wow, you wasted a half hour re-quoting your circular reasoning. These species were fit because they survived. Are all Darwinists researchers Captain Obvious wannabe's like you? Think about what you are saying. The fit species survived and passed along their genes and the non-fit species didn't. This is evolutions main claim!!! You are basically saying evolution is true because evolution is true. I can't believe your are too blind, or too stupid, to see the absurdity of this circular argument. You are using your assumption to prove your assumption. Hello? McFly?

What you didn't like to was an actual agreed upon and testable definition of fitness. Without this, there is no way to do a scientific test for, much less prove, that evolution exists.

I don't know of any single term that will send creationists into fits of denial like the term "evolution". Creationists typically have a strictly literal interpretation of the bible and the concept of Original Sin as conceived by Adam and Eve. Per Christian dogma, Original Sin is the reason all humans are born depraved sinners. By default, humanity is condemned to Hell, and is in need of Salvation and Jesus.

Without a literal Adam and Eve and Garden of Eden, one can reasonably ask the question, "what is the true source of Original Sin", and if there indeed is Original Sin at all. If there is no Original Sin, then Salvation, Jesus and Christianity suddenly become unnecessary.

The problem that plagues fundies is that if you take one passage of the bible metaphorically, then that puts you squarely in the slippery slope dilema, and each irrational or contradictory passage in the bible will then be taken metaphorically, and where does it all end? Fundies therefore must reject the idea that the bible contains ANY metaphors whatsoever.

Evolution tends to repulse creationists because the science surrounding the many, varied fields of science that supports evolution is not in question among the relevant science community. An ancient earth and a rather clearly defined fossil record simply doesn't leave any wiggle room for a 6000 year old earth. And this is what causes creationists to become so reactive.

 

[Hollie]

An organism's ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment​

The state of being suitably adapted to an environment.​

Also called Darwinian fitness. Biology .

a. the genetic contribution of an individual to the next generation's gene pool relative to the average for the population, usually measured by the number of offspring or close kin that survive to reproductive age.
b. the ability of a population to maintain or increase its numbers in succeeding generations.​

It can be defined either with respect to a genotype or to a phenotype in a given environment. In either case, it describes the ability to both survive and reproduce,​

If you had actually bothered to look, you'd have discovered that fitness can be measured quantitatively as well as qualitatively.

the capacity of an organism to survive and transmit its genotype to reproductive offspring as compared to competing organisms; also : the contribution of an allele or genotype to the gene pool of subsequent generations as compared to that of other alleles or genotypes​

A biological condition in which a competing variant is increasing in frequency relative to other competing variants in a population.​

Biology. The extent to which an organism is adapted to or able to produce offspring in a particular environment.​

Biology an organism’s ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment​

(Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) Biology

a. the degree of adaptation of an organism to its environment, determined by its genetic constitution
b. the ability of an organism to produce viable offspring capable of surviving to the next generation​

The average number of offspring produced by individuals with a certain genotype, relative to the number produced by individuals with other genotypes.​

the contribution an individual makes to the gene pool of the next generation relative to the contributions of other individuals.​

fitness: The success of an entity in reproducing; hence, the average contribution of an allele or genotype to the next generation or to succeeding generations. Relative fitness is the average contribution of an allele or genotype compared with that of another allele or genotype.​

Absolute fitness is the potential for individuals of a given genotype to survive and reproduce in the face of natural selection.​

Average fitness
[is t]he mean absolute fitness value exhibited by all the members of a population.​

Relative fitness
[is t]he potential for individuals of a given genotype to survive and reproduce in the face of natural selection, as compared to the average fitness exhibited by the population in which this individual is a member.​

Allelic or genotypic fitness describes the relative contribution of one allele or geno-type to the next generation as compared to that of possible alternate alleles or genotypes. ​

The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​

The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​

The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​

Direct fitness is a measure of how many alleles, on average, a genotype contributes to the subsequent generation's gene pool by reproducing.​

Indirect fitness is a measure of how many alleles identical to its own it helps to enter the gene pool.​

Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​

Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​

Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​

From an evolutionary perspective, fitness - the relative competitive ability of one cell type versus others in the population - is the fundamental parameter that determines which organisms increase their numbers in a population.​

In the crudest terms, fitness involves the ability of organisms— or, more rarely, populations or species— to survive and reproduce in the environment in which they find themselves​

Absolute fitness is a statistic that is usually assigned to a genotype and it typically refers to a genotype’s expected total fitness, that complex mix of viability, mating success, fecundity, etc. As such, absolute fitness, symbolized W, is a quantity that can be greater than or equal to zero​

The relative fitness of a genotype, symbolized w, equals its absolute fitness normalized in some way. In the most common normalization, the absolute fitness of each genotype is divided by the absolute fitness of the fittest genotype, such that the fittest genotype has a relative fitness of one.​

fitness of a biological trait describes how successful an organism has been at passing on its genes. The more likely that an individual is able to survive and live longer to reproduce, the higher is the fitness of that individual.​

The relative probability of survival and reproduction for a genotype B as compared to a genotype A​

In population genetics, fitness refers to differential reproduction. "Fitness" does not refer to whether an individual is "physically fit" – bigger, faster or stronger – or "better" in any subjective sense. It refers to a difference in reproductive rate from one generation to the next.​

Relative Fitness
A measure of biological fitness expressed as the ratio of the absolute fitness of an individual (or of a genotype or of a phenotype) and the absolute fitness of a reference individual (or of genotype or of phenotype).​

Absolute Fitness
A measure of biological fitness expressed as the total number of gene copies transmitted to the subsequent generation or the total number of surviving offspring that an individual produces during its lifetime.​

In essence, the “fitness” of a trait is its propensity to affect, positively or negatively, the reproductive success of an organism.​

Well, I guess you're just a little retarded then.

Oh my. After that slash and burn, there won't be enough left of yeah, couldn't find anything to sweep up into a dust pan.

Pretty obvious, as usual, you didn't actually click on the links. Many of them were to the same generic definition page.

And this one Loki linked actually says what I was claiming!!!!

[/URL].[/INDENT]

fitness: The success of an entity in reproducing; hence, the average contribution of an allele or genotype to the next generation or to succeeding generations. Relative fitness is the average contribution of an allele or genotype compared with that of another allele or genotype.

This was basically an article with more opinions about opinions.

"Philosophers do continue to seek an broad philosophical account of fitness, but agree that it is not tautological, and that it does describe a general tendency of a trait or organism, not — as EE prefers — a description of the actual performance of an organism. Thus, an individual can be fit (possess traits which ought to increase its reproductive success) but not reproduce. It could be struck by lightning, for instance. Treating fitness as a tendency eliminates any circularity, just as recognizing that salt tends to dissolve in water allows you to describe salt as soluble even if it never is placed in water. A gene can tend to be more fit without making each individual possessing that trait produce more offspring."

Proof that no one still can agree, much less comply with the scientific method to test for evolution. And so you cling to your Darwinian Myth. You are going to have to come up with some better material than this, Loki, if you want to be taken seriously on here.​

Oh you poor fundie. It was you who didn't read the link. The portion you referenced identified "philosophers" as having difficulty defining fitness for survival. Scientists have no such dilemma.

To the back of the line you go with your gods and other supernatural things that go bump in the night.​

 

[LOki]

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

An organism's ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment​

The state of being suitably adapted to an environment.​

Also called Darwinian fitness. Biology .

a. the genetic contribution of an individual to the next generation's gene pool relative to the average for the population, usually measured by the number of offspring or close kin that survive to reproductive age.
b. the ability of a population to maintain or increase its numbers in succeeding generations.​

It can be defined either with respect to a genotype or to a phenotype in a given environment. In either case, it describes the ability to both survive and reproduce,​

If you had actually bothered to look, you'd have discovered that fitness can be measured quantitatively as well as qualitatively.

the capacity of an organism to survive and transmit its genotype to reproductive offspring as compared to competing organisms; also : the contribution of an allele or genotype to the gene pool of subsequent generations as compared to that of other alleles or genotypes​

A biological condition in which a competing variant is increasing in frequency relative to other competing variants in a population.​

Biology. The extent to which an organism is adapted to or able to produce offspring in a particular environment.​

Biology an organism’s ability to survive and reproduce in a particular environment​

(Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) Biology

a. the degree of adaptation of an organism to its environment, determined by its genetic constitution
b. the ability of an organism to produce viable offspring capable of surviving to the next generation​

The average number of offspring produced by individuals with a certain genotype, relative to the number produced by individuals with other genotypes.​

the contribution an individual makes to the gene pool of the next generation relative to the contributions of other individuals.​

fitness: The success of an entity in reproducing; hence, the average contribution of an allele or genotype to the next generation or to succeeding generations. Relative fitness is the average contribution of an allele or genotype compared with that of another allele or genotype.​

Absolute fitness is the potential for individuals of a given genotype to survive and reproduce in the face of natural selection.​

Average fitness
[is t]he mean absolute fitness value exhibited by all the members of a population.​

Relative fitness
[is t]he potential for individuals of a given genotype to survive and reproduce in the face of natural selection, as compared to the average fitness exhibited by the population in which this individual is a member.​

Allelic or genotypic fitness describes the relative contribution of one allele or geno-type to the next generation as compared to that of possible alternate alleles or genotypes. ​

The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​

The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​

The probability that the line of descent from an individual with a specific trait will not die out.​

Direct fitness is a measure of how many alleles, on average, a genotype contributes to the subsequent generation's gene pool by reproducing.​

Indirect fitness is a measure of how many alleles identical to its own it helps to enter the gene pool.​

Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​

Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​

Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest.​

From an evolutionary perspective, fitness - the relative competitive ability of one cell type versus others in the population - is the fundamental parameter that determines which organisms increase their numbers in a population.​

In the crudest terms, fitness involves the ability of organisms— or, more rarely, populations or species— to survive and reproduce in the environment in which they find themselves​

Absolute fitness is a statistic that is usually assigned to a genotype and it typically refers to a genotype’s expected total fitness, that complex mix of viability, mating success, fecundity, etc. As such, absolute fitness, symbolized W, is a quantity that can be greater than or equal to zero​

The relative fitness of a genotype, symbolized w, equals its absolute fitness normalized in some way. In the most common normalization, the absolute fitness of each genotype is divided by the absolute fitness of the fittest genotype, such that the fittest genotype has a relative fitness of one.​

fitness of a biological trait describes how successful an organism has been at passing on its genes. The more likely that an individual is able to survive and live longer to reproduce, the higher is the fitness of that individual.​

The relative probability of survival and reproduction for a genotype B as compared to a genotype A​

In population genetics, fitness refers to differential reproduction. "Fitness" does not refer to whether an individual is "physically fit" – bigger, faster or stronger – or "better" in any subjective sense. It refers to a difference in reproductive rate from one generation to the next.​

Relative Fitness
A measure of biological fitness expressed as the ratio of the absolute fitness of an individual (or of a genotype or of a phenotype) and the absolute fitness of a reference individual (or of genotype or of phenotype).​

Absolute Fitness
A measure of biological fitness expressed as the total number of gene copies transmitted to the subsequent generation or the total number of surviving offspring that an individual produces during its lifetime.​

In essence, the “fitness” of a trait is its propensity to affect, positively or negatively, the reproductive success of an organism.​

Yeah, couldn't find anything.

Well, I guess you're just a little retarded then.

Wow, you wasted a half hour re-quoting your circular reasoning.

WTF are you talking about?

These species were fit because they survived.

1) WHAT species are you talking about?
2) Regardless of what species you think I mentioned ... your cart before the horse strawman is patently invalid.

Are all Darwinists researchers Captain Obvious wannabe's like you? Think about what you are saying. The fit species survived and passed along their genes and the non-fit species didn't.

You consider this observation invalid?

This is evolutions main claim!!!

Claim? As in evolutionists recognize that organisms that die before they reproduce contribute no genetic information to subsequent generations? You have an alternative notion regarding the non-random persistence of specific genetic information? Is it magic? WOOOoooooOOO!

You are basically saying evolution is true because evolution is true.

WTF are you talking about?

I can't believe your are too blind, or too stupid, to see the absurdity of this circular argument.

WHAT ******* ARGUMENT?

The observation that organisms that die before they reproduce contribute no genetic information to subsequent generations?

That's not an argument ... it's an observation.

You are using your assumption to prove your assumption. Hello? McFly?

You're making no ******* sense what-so-ever.

What you didn't like to was an actual agreed upon and testable definition of fitness.

WHAT THE **** ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

You have to decide what you want. Do you want something testable? That would be a hypothesis or a theory.

Do want a definition? Well then, there won't be any test, because definitions are ... ******* DEFINITIVE!

Without this, there is no way to do a scientific test for, much less prove, that evolution exists.

You're making no ******* sense what-so-ever.

 

[UltimateReality]

Well, I guess you're just a little retarded then.

Says the pot calling the kettle black.

WTF are you talking about?

I am talking about the time you took to type out this post with numerous useless links, some of which support my position, but in the end, do nothing more than present your same stupid, circularly reasoned argument that the types of animals that survive and reproduce are the types of animals that survive and reproduce.

1) WHAT species are you talking about?

ANY of the species your links refer to.

2) Regardless of what species you think I mentioned ... your cart before the horse strawman is patently invalid.

Whatever. Your fallacy is fallacious.

You consider this observation invalid?

Yes. You attempt to prove this assumption with your assumption. Evolution claims that only fit species pass along their dna over time, and that is what we are supposed to be able to test to support the theory of evolution. Yet, instead of trying to test the theory to determine if fitness is really responsible for natural selection, you make the same circular argument above. This is the last time I a going to explain this to you, pumpkin.

Claim? As in evolutionists recognize that organisms that die before they reproduce contribute no genetic information to subsequent generations?

No cheesecake, that only species with more "fitness" survive long enough to pass on their dna.

Is it magic? WOOOoooooOOO!

Yes, the theory of evolution would appear as such.

WTF are you talking about?

I won't believe you are this stupid.

WHAT ******* ARGUMENT?

The argument that evolution can be tested, donut.

WHAT THE **** ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

I asked you to provide me with a testable definition of fitness largely accepted by the scientific community. You epically failed. All of your links employ the same basic flawed reasoning, i.e., the current species we have are the most fit ones because if they weren't the most fit they wouldn't be here. But you can't prove this is true and therefore you can't even begin to say there is evidence for evolution. Why are you having such a difficult time following the argument? Did you go off your meds again?

Do you want something testable? That would be a hypothesis or a theory.

You mean like the theory of evolution we have been talking about for the last 500 pages??

Do want a definition? Well then, there won't be any test, because definitions are ... ******* DEFINITIVE!

NO! We need to define what constitutes fitness, and that isn't your "just so" stories or circular proof, before you can began to claim that some trait was kept because it made the organism more fit. If you don't have a workable definition, how can you make your silly claims that the giraffe survived because its longer neck allowed it to reach higher fruit or run faster or whatever. Your whole "fact" of evolution is based on guesses as to what traits contribute to an organisms fitness. Your pseudo science starts from the assumption that evolution has to be true (not setting out to prove it is true) so you look at the giraffe and observe it has a long neck. There is no other reason for his long neck other than evolution. The theory of evolution tells us the long neck HAD to contribute to the giraffe's fitness in it's environment. Otherwise, it wouldn't have a long neck. The assumption of evolution is present prior to the observation. Survival of the fittest has to be true because the organisms alive today must have been the fittests or they wouln't have survived. This is not falsifiable!!! And it definitely isn't testable under any REAL scientific method I am aware of. This birth's the "just so" stories that are presented as fact in school textbooks.

And we are back to square one after all your hand waving and link pasting and that is: The long-running and much-debated claim that natural selection, as an explanation of the evolutionary origin of species, is tautological — it cannot be falsified because it attempts no real explanation. It tells us: the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce are the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce.

"And in 1975, the geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote that no biologist “can judge reliably which ‘characters’ are useful, neutral, or harmful in a given species.”

“What is required is an experimental program of unpacking ‘fitness.’ This involves determining experimentally how different genotypes juxtapose different aspects of the external world, how they alter that world and how those different environments that they construct affect their own biological processes and the biological processes of others.”[22] I doubt whether anyone has even pretended to do this unpacking in a way adequate to demonstrate the randomness of mutations relative to fitness."

"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the Loki."

 

[UltimateReality]

Oh my. After that slash and burn, there won't be enough left of yeah, couldn't find anything to sweep up into a dust pan.

Pretty obvious, as usual, you didn't actually click on the links. Many of them were to the same generic definition page.

And this one Loki linked actually says what I was claiming!!!!

[/URL].[/INDENT]

fitness: The success of an entity in reproducing; hence, the average contribution of an allele or genotype to the next generation or to succeeding generations. Relative fitness is the average contribution of an allele or genotype compared with that of another allele or genotype.

This was basically an article with more opinions about opinions.

"Philosophers do continue to seek an broad philosophical account of fitness, but agree that it is not tautological, and that it does describe a general tendency of a trait or organism, not — as EE prefers — a description of the actual performance of an organism. Thus, an individual can be fit (possess traits which ought to increase its reproductive success) but not reproduce. It could be struck by lightning, for instance. Treating fitness as a tendency eliminates any circularity, just as recognizing that salt tends to dissolve in water allows you to describe salt as soluble even if it never is placed in water. A gene can tend to be more fit without making each individual possessing that trait produce more offspring."

Proof that no one still can agree, much less comply with the scientific method to test for evolution. And so you cling to your Darwinian Myth. You are going to have to come up with some better material than this, Loki, if you want to be taken seriously on here.​

Oh you poor fundie. It was you who didn't read the link. The portion you referenced identified "philosophers" as having difficulty defining fitness for survival. Scientists have no such dilemma.

To the back of the line you go with your gods and other supernatural things that go bump in the night.​

Hollie, you are in way over your head on this one. Why don't you leave this for the folks with a college education.​

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hollie how many times must I post the evidence that was not confirmed until modern day science but was written about in the scriptures long before technology allowed us to confirm the writings.

Humor me, give me one example.

Now you've done it. You've invited him to copy/paste vomit his 101 examples of Texas-Sharpshooting that have been thoroughly refuted on these forums and elsewhere.

In your dreams.