Theory of Evolution -- Perceptions
- Thread starter Woody
- Start date
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
I can make distorted polls too, but I am mature enough not to indulge in such fatuous behaviour.
If you had wanted to conduct a genuine survey on this Woody you would have consulted a few 'evolutionists', reaching agreement on the form and character of the questions.
I will be charitable and assume the format you have chosen reflects ineptness and ignorance, rather than dishonesty and poll rigging. The effect is the same.
I wont lower myself to vote.
If you had wanted to conduct a genuine survey on this Woody you would have consulted a few 'evolutionists', reaching agreement on the form and character of the questions.
I will be charitable and assume the format you have chosen reflects ineptness and ignorance, rather than dishonesty and poll rigging. The effect is the same.
I wont lower myself to vote.
If you're going to come back with conclusions and try to rig polls to support those conclusions, you should stay away.
Try this, woody: try to falsify the conclusions you have. Honestly try every thing you can to falsify them. Enlist the help of others. If your conclusions (hypotheses, really) can stand up to the scrutiny, then you might be on to something. But what happens is, you start with a conclusion, make some incomplete and obviously skewed poll so you can make a point later, and then we all pick it apart and bash it -effectively falsifying anything and everything you say.
Then you get pissed and leave. Just stay gone if you don't want truth. But if that little thing doesn't bother you, please stay. The rest of us need the entertainment and distraction.
Try this, woody: try to falsify the conclusions you have. Honestly try every thing you can to falsify them. Enlist the help of others. If your conclusions (hypotheses, really) can stand up to the scrutiny, then you might be on to something. But what happens is, you start with a conclusion, make some incomplete and obviously skewed poll so you can make a point later, and then we all pick it apart and bash it -effectively falsifying anything and everything you say.
Then you get pissed and leave. Just stay gone if you don't want truth. But if that little thing doesn't bother you, please stay. The rest of us need the entertainment and distraction.
Q says:
"In order for evolution to work all organisms must die, so aging helps meet this necessary purpose"
That one is really funny, Woody. How could you possibly have come to that conclusion?
Woody says: Why don't you look at the poll and see who voted "yes"? I'm not on the list.
"In order for evolution to work all organisms must die, so aging helps meet this necessary purpose"
That one is really funny, Woody. How could you possibly have come to that conclusion?
Woody says: Why don't you look at the poll and see who voted "yes"? I'm not on the list.
Audible said: "hey dont start picking fault with woody, he has an high IQ, well it's high than one."
Woody says; Coming from someone that count past one, or complete a sentence with correct grammar -- that sounds more like a complement.
Woody says; Coming from someone that count past one, or complete a sentence with correct grammar -- that sounds more like a complement.
Last edited:
I selected the last option... although in retrospect it made no sense. This poll really doesn't have very good questions. I suspect that any answers received are just as incoherent as the questions.
If Woody is consistent with his posting habits from last year, the questions are strawman in style.
I think he means good or bad with respect to the basic premise of Darwinian evolution, that is that the organism best suited to the environment will have the highest probability of reproductive success. Hence, "good" would be any trait that tends toward increasing the probability of reproductive success, and a "bad" trait the opposite. So, we then see that virility, disease resistance, and longevity would all be considered "good" traits, however not in any kind of moral sense. All three traits contribute to increasing the probability of reproductive success in any organism.
The first option is obviously true, since any animal best suited or "fittest" to the environment it inhabits will have the highest reproductive success, thus carrying out the process of Natural Selection.
The last answer might be considered true if you were looking at the terms "good" and "bad" in moral senses. However, from the way I read it, Woody didn't mean them in the moral sense, thus I perceive the answer to be false, based on my reasoning for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th options.
The fifth option is cleverly worded, set up as a trap. What one might be tempted to say is that, yes, death is necessary for evolution to work, otherwise natural selection would not take place, as there would be no need to reproduce. However, that is false, along with the second half of the question. For Natural Selection to take place, it isn't necessary that "all" animals die, only some, or most. If, say, even one single solitary animal was immortal, that wouldn't stop the evolutionary process. At any rate, the second half of the question makes the whole of it false, since there is not considered any "purpose" to the evolutionary process (at least in Darwinian perspective), it is merely a process that takes place. Nothing more, nothing less.
Anyway, the 5th option was the most convoluted and confusing.
The first option is obviously true, since any animal best suited or "fittest" to the environment it inhabits will have the highest reproductive success, thus carrying out the process of Natural Selection.
The last answer might be considered true if you were looking at the terms "good" and "bad" in moral senses. However, from the way I read it, Woody didn't mean them in the moral sense, thus I perceive the answer to be false, based on my reasoning for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th options.
The fifth option is cleverly worded, set up as a trap. What one might be tempted to say is that, yes, death is necessary for evolution to work, otherwise natural selection would not take place, as there would be no need to reproduce. However, that is false, along with the second half of the question. For Natural Selection to take place, it isn't necessary that "all" animals die, only some, or most. If, say, even one single solitary animal was immortal, that wouldn't stop the evolutionary process. At any rate, the second half of the question makes the whole of it false, since there is not considered any "purpose" to the evolutionary process (at least in Darwinian perspective), it is merely a process that takes place. Nothing more, nothing less.
Anyway, the 5th option was the most convoluted and confusing.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
I am at a loss here. [Not for the first time with your posts.] In what way does that constitute a complement? What is being complemented? In what way was it lacking prior to the complementation? Very odd.Woody said:
Of course, I am rejecting outright the notion that in a post where you lambaste another for their grammar, you could have intended to type compliment. Highly improbable.
Mosheh Thezion
Registered Senior Member
HOW ABOUT A PREDESTINED EVOLUTION.?
-MT
-MT
James R said: What is a "good" or "bad" trait, in your opinion, Woody? Good or bad for what, or in what way?
Woody says: Yes, you are getting the point. Basically, it's a question about "survival of the fittest." Can someone define what "fit" means? How do you really know if a trait was fit, fitter, or fittest, (good, better, best)especially concerning a species that is now extinct?
Snakelord made a point that we can not know whether a trait was indeed "fit" or "unfit" when applied to the Darwinian model. I made a counterpoint that it's difficult to accept a theory as being "scientific" when it doesn't provide definitions in the absolute sense as a foundation to build upon, and thus Darwin's theory needs to be overhauled to agree with his view.
Cole Grey says: If there were enough resources, nothing would have to die for evolution to take place. Organisms could reproduce and become more fit for the environment they are in, while the earlier "grandparent" organisms just muddle along.
Woody says: Great point. Virility, longevity, and disease resistance could be "good" traits when a species starts out, thus increasing the liklihood the species will survive. On the otherhand they could be "bad" traits when a species overpopulates and starvation sets in. In your scenario of unlimited resources, starvation wouldn't be a problem.
Ophi says: I am at a loss here. [Not for the first time with your posts.] In what way does that constitute a complement? What is being complemented? In what way was it lacking prior to the complementation? Very odd.
Woody says: Consider the source of the original remark (coming from Audible).
Woody says: Yes, you are getting the point. Basically, it's a question about "survival of the fittest." Can someone define what "fit" means? How do you really know if a trait was fit, fitter, or fittest, (good, better, best)especially concerning a species that is now extinct?
Snakelord made a point that we can not know whether a trait was indeed "fit" or "unfit" when applied to the Darwinian model. I made a counterpoint that it's difficult to accept a theory as being "scientific" when it doesn't provide definitions in the absolute sense as a foundation to build upon, and thus Darwin's theory needs to be overhauled to agree with his view.
Cole Grey says: If there were enough resources, nothing would have to die for evolution to take place. Organisms could reproduce and become more fit for the environment they are in, while the earlier "grandparent" organisms just muddle along.
Woody says: Great point. Virility, longevity, and disease resistance could be "good" traits when a species starts out, thus increasing the liklihood the species will survive. On the otherhand they could be "bad" traits when a species overpopulates and starvation sets in. In your scenario of unlimited resources, starvation wouldn't be a problem.
Ophi says: I am at a loss here. [Not for the first time with your posts.] In what way does that constitute a complement? What is being complemented? In what way was it lacking prior to the complementation? Very odd.
Woody says: Consider the source of the original remark (coming from Audible).
Last edited:
OK, I answered my own question about the term "survival of the fittest." It's a tautology:
link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest
Apparantly none of the "scholars" on this forum knew that, or they wouldn't admit the truth -- sad, indeed sad.
Darwinism --- what a weak theory.
Time for me to clear out of this graveyard.
link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest
Apparantly none of the "scholars" on this forum knew that, or they wouldn't admit the truth -- sad, indeed sad.
Darwinism --- what a weak theory.
Time for me to clear out of this graveyard.
Last edited: