veracity of evolution

what is distasteful about the aspect of survival of the fittest? natural selection is not the same as a wrestling match. the fittest would not be limited to mean the one with behavior capable of destroying everything else. take it to the basic form of aggression, which male is strong enough to be the breeder. if he were so strong and antagonistic that he destroyed every other male of his species including his children, the species would come to an end. on the other hand, if a male has superior qualities other than physical strength which are more important and suited to the direction a species is leaning towards, they will be selected.

Yes, but that reflects their character and communication style. So long as we're not getting too nasty (ahem Odenskrigare...), let's look past their style -- because everyone is making good points.

I take the latter view. The fact that falsification is possible does not imply that it is likely.

evolutionary psychology also accounts for "nice" behaviors

how do you expect me to react to "I'M OLDUR DEN U I'M RYTE"

what is distasteful about the aspect of survival of the fittest?

Point out that there are people older than him who feel as you do?

Because, like an religious notion, of some things being better than others, it can support notions such as eugenics. After all, humans are part of a deterministic nature, and all the eugenicists are doing is speeding up the evolutionary process by eliminating the unfit.

Residents of nagasaki probably feel that quantum mechanics are associated with rather upsetting historical episodes.

But that does not make quantum wrong.

Also, as explained above, proponents of eugenics didn't really grasp what survival of the fittest (itself something of a misnomer) implied.

Residents of nagasaki probably feel that quantum mechanics are associated with rather upsetting historical episodes.

But that does not make quantum wrong.

Also, as explained above, proponents of eugenics didn't really grasp what survival of the fittest (itself something of a misnomer) implied.

Sure, in the case of human beings "survival of the fittest" has often meant "survival of the most cooperative".

Darwin's speculation does presume there is a better and a worse (similar to religions), and it can be used as a rationale for all kinds of ideas, as has already happened.

It is one thing to observe events transpire and report them. It is a totally different thing to create a hierarchy of better and worse. Where in mathematics do they say one number is better or worse than another?

Darwin's speculation should have been jettisoned from the get go, but alas, it is the only story that science has, and since science feels it necessary to come up with a story competitive to the religions, they came up with this one. Just because it is the only story in town, doesn't make it science. Time for a house cleaning.

Just because it is the only story in town, doesn't make it science. Time for a house cleaning.

What does it mean "the fittest"? Anything that survives?

no stop bull****ting, the theory of evolution is descriptive not prescriptive. it states that genetic information which propagates itself survives, that which doesn't does not survive

Darwin's speculation should have been jettisoned from the get go, but alas, it is the only story that science has...

Totally useless idea

1) Everything is evolving (previously observed by Daoists and Heraclitus, and others).

2) That which survives, survives.

I can live with this, if this is what is what is being put forth as Evolutionary Theory, though it is difficult to get excited about it.

Rich

It's not the only story in town - but it's the story in town with the most evidence and which stands up best to testing, and that's what makes it a science.

No - that which is best suited to a given ecological niche.

useless means "lacking use"

Genetic programming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <== useful

and no don't pretend the hazy doctrines of Heraclitus and Laozi would have given rise to something as specific and practical as GP, or evolutionary psychology for that matter

Evidence of what for what? The theory is ambiguous. The evidence is just a lot of stories about what may have happened in the past.

How does anyone know that things survive because they survive other than looking at what survived? And that which perished, perished because they couldn't survive in the ecology that existed back then, which we are speculating was inhospitable to the species because it couldn't survive.

It is all self-defining. This is a real mess and has no place in the same category as physics and mathematics, or even modern biology which is really observing something that is happening and replicating results. It is when biology tries to insert itself into this Darwin Speculation thing that it runs into trouble, since biology is being used to speculate and assert something that may or may not have happened in the past, in the most contrived manner.

But scientists have to have their metaphysical beliefs, and so why not hide it somewhere as a "science".

Evidence of what for what? The theory is ambiguous.

The only practical use for Darwin's speculation is that it allows scientists to embrace a metaphysical belief and still feel good about themselves as scientists

You had it a minute ago - what evidence did Heraclitus have?

Let's start with what you can understand first and then try and work on what you can't - what did Heraclitus get that you too can grasp?

Best suited? How is that determined? By what survived?

I think that's an ok summary for beginners - the basics are obvious when you know how to spot them. The step taken by natural selection is explain why certain organisms in certain circumstances survive better than others, and how this shapes the subsequent generation.