Unless you are in denial of the relationship between genotype and phenotype, and that genetics is fundamentally about inheritable phenotypes, then I am faiuling to see your point in tracing and retracing the
DEFINITION of fitness.
Strawman. No such presumption is made, except in the bullshit version of evolution you have created for the sole purpose of claiming you have invalidated the actual theory of evolution.
What you're bitching about half the time (when you find it convenient) is something like, "Evolution says "fitness" means "fitness," and that's a "question-begging" arguement. The thing is, "fitness" is not presented as an argument; it's not an "argument" at all.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding (or more likely a DELIBERATE misunderstanding) of the conditions under a tautolgy is illegitimate (question-begging). In formal logic (rather than rhetoric), tautologies are ALWAYS valid.
DEFINITIONS are inherently tautological AND formally valid. They LITERALLY use different words to say the same thing. They HAVE TO!
A
THEORY is something else entirely.
"FITNESS" is not the theory you say it is. While fitness is certainly "a central concept of natural selection," fitness IS NOT natural selection. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? I mean, after all, the definition of "fitness" is fully applicable in the Creationist notions of design--organisms are "designed" to be fit--that is to say, the "Creator/Designer/God/Leprechaun designed organisms to successfully reproduce and pass their genetic material to their progeny.
I told you before that you had to decide what you want, a
DEFINITION or a
THEORY. You have chosen BOTH so you can illegitimately and dishonestly switch your usage to meet the convenience of your argument. Just like every other member of your intellectually dishonest, superstitious tribe of retards.
Fitness is NOT A
THEORY. Fitness is not the same thing as NATURAL SELECTION you equivocating douche-bag.
There is no question-begging involved, except in the STRAWMAN version of evolution you created where "fitness" is the EXACT SAME THING as "natural selection."
This is consistent with the
DEFINITION of "fitness."
This also is consistent with the
DEFINITION of "fitness."
You are wrong. So woefully wrong. So purposefully wrong.
Bethell is just fatuously arguing that
DEFINITION are tautologies, and that in the case of evolution the use of
DEFINITION for terms makes the whole theory an illegitimate tautology.
You and Bethell are BOTH retarded.
Seriously. Once you get past the fact that FITNESS is not the same thing as NATURAL SELECTION, what you and Bethell are actually expressing denial of, is the well established relationship between genotype and phenotype. You are expressing a denial that so many of the functional structures and processes exhibited by living things are determined solely by the genetics of that living thing--and those functional structures and processes have peceptable effect on that organism's survival, and that they are inheritable.
And the explanation you offer as an alternative to the reality you deny is literally ...
MAGIC!
I am aware of this ... I have been pointing out that you have no evidence for your Creator/Designer/God/Leprechaun that doesn't ultimatley rely upon first believing your Creator/Designer/God/Leprechaun is real in order to accept that the "evidence" submitted validates the existence of your Creator/Designer/God/Leprechaun.
Aside from the fact that the variations within a gene-pool are not random, no this is not a strawman.
This is consistent with the
DEFINITION of fitness.
I just cannot wait for you to get to yout point.
Strawman. You are not told that at all, except in the bullshit version of evolution you created for the sole purpose of claiming you have invalidated the actual theory of evolution.
Why do I have to provide validation for your retarded notions?
If by "we" you mean "you" and your "neat story" about your invisible superfriend, then yes.
If anything qualifies for a "just so" story about anything, it's your story about how your personal imaginary friend just magics everything to be just the way you believe it is.
No. No one but your strawman evolutionists bases their conclusions "on these typically lame examples."
So what? The theory of evolution (or any other scientific theory) is not a tool to "prove" anything.
Real scientists do not conform to the bullshit paradigm of superstitious retards who are desperately trying to
PROVE that their imaginary superfriends are real.
"Our simulations show that such mutational events, coupled with a selective pressure, leads to growth of pathways. These results indicate that pathways could be driven toward complexity via simple evolutionary mechanisms and that complexity can arise without any specific selective pressure for it. Furthermore, we find that the level of complexity that pathways evolve toward depends on the selection criteria. In general, we find that final pathway size tends to be lower when pathways evolve under stringent selection criteria. This leads to the counterintuitive conclusion that simple response requirements on a pathway would facilitate its evolution toward higher complexity." (
Soyer and Bonhoeffer 2006).
Does the actual theory of evolution predict single cell organisms sould not exist now, or is it just your strawman version that predicts this?
I suppose the answer could be magic, but I'll stand by the notion that every microbe that ever lived did not exists under the exact same conditions, and did not magically experience the exact same mutations at exactly the same time ... or anything even close.
Yes to both.
Wrong. Under your personally engineered, strawman theory of evolution, the answer is a resounding NO!
Why do I have to explain or validate your strawman?
Between us, I'm not engaging in semantic tricks.
But you would if you found it convenient. I'll bet that you will, just as soon as you find it convenient. You have no principled refutation for evolution ... you just grasp at any opportunity--even if it means contradicting yourself.
Nonsense.
Nope. Not even in principle.
Not at all surprising. I have pointed this out to you before, and I will point it out to you once again, without any fear that you will refuse to understand what is being explained to you.
Science
ideally seeks unconditional certainty or "proof", but scientists never really claim such absolute certainty--they claim rather specifically qualified certainties. None of the conclusions made are asserted with unconditional certainty. Every single explanation made by scientists in their respective fields remains susceptible to scrutiny and invalidation in the light of better evidence and better understanding of the evidence. While every single explanation that posits some supernatural "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing is asserted on faith, with the conviction of unconditional certainty in the of the reality of the "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing--and unqualified certainty in the of the truth of the explanations of reality derived from that certainty. There is no uncertainty in the faith that is the foundation of religion, because faith does not express uncertainty.
Scientists--real scientists, practicing actual valid science--allow for the possibility that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything they observe; applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence simply does not currently point to that conclusion. However, there is no ontological barrier that would prevent a real scientist--practicing actual valid science--from concluding that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything he observes if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.
Christian Creationists, on the other hand, having already presumed the absolute certainty of the existence of this invented Creator of theirs, simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts their baseless preconceptions, on the basis that such evidence does not support their baseless conclusions. Christian Creationists have imposed upon themselves an intellectually dishonest denial of the significant validity of select evidence and logically valid arguments that do not conform to, validate, or support their conclusions. Christian Creationists have sanctimoniously, without basis in any valid reasoning, for the purposes of promoting the illusion of their intellectual/spiritual/moral superiority, imposed upon themselves an ontological barrier preventing them from concluding that a Christian Creator is not necessary for the existence of everything they observe; especially if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.
Science simply does not share the paradigm of starting from a position of unconditional certainty that religion or superstition does. The uncertainties understood in scientific explanations, working hypotheses, and speculations (expressed in, and as, assumptions) can obviously not be construed as faith. And while there may be no universally satisfying and agreed upon scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence. Science actually still allows for the existence of a creator who may be responsible for all of the universe as we understand it; the valid logic, applied objectively to the current evidence simply does not require, or point to such a creator. Yet religion, your religion maybe, the Christian religion as practiced by Creationists certainly, has a fundamental problem with this position--as it has with any position that does not agree with or advance the preconceived and very specific conclusions asserted as facts of reality on faith. Christian Creationists, without any basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, simply refuse to accept ANY theory that does not include the
superstitious requirement of the existence of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing" of theirs.
of life?
