The Fiction of "Fact"

spendius wrote:

What a teleological wowser that is Wolf.

If you study evolution in bacteria and suchlike is it not the case that the researcher is providing the environment under which they evolve and thus possibly skews the result.

Wow.. of course environments never change without human interaction. What complete nonsense spendi. The cause of the environmental change is irrelevant to the fact that bacteria change in response to the change in environment. The fact that they change exists.

Quote:

Quote:
Natural selection primarily effects an individual's ability to reproduce.

I'm not convinced about that. I presume you mean under conditions you can envisage.

You aren't convinced that the meaning of the phrase "natural selection" is correct? Do you just get to make up meanings as you want to spendi? No wonder you are impossible to understand.

Quote:

Natural selection occurs when individuals differ in reproductive output for functional reasons,

Without this difference in reproduction there is no natural selection. It has had that meaning since Darwin first proposed it. Please direct me to a source that would supply your meaning that precludes difference in reproduction.

0 Replies

Did life start with single-handed chemistry or did such a preference evolve after life had begun?

0 Replies

Why would anyone reasonable assume "preference?"

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Why would anyone reasonable assume "preference?"

Argon just didn't prefer to combine with oxygen to create life. Neon voted to go with Argon. Carbon was the odd molecule out and refused to go with the majority. It wasn't so much a case of preference but an anarchistic revolt.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

No. Natural selection always effects an individual's ability to reproduce, primarily through killing them before they have the chance to do so.

Additionally, traits are selected (unintelligently, simply as a result of circumstance) when said traits confer a reproductive advantage, direct or indirect. A direct reproductive advantage would be one which provides more or more certain mating opportunity. An indirect advantage would be an enhanced survival trait, such as the ability to exploit food sources, which provides the individual an enhanced opportunity to reproduce through mere survival. I rather doubt that anyone can demonstrate that those who do not smoke enjoy either type of reproductive advantage.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Why would anyone reasonable assume "preference?"

Argon just didn't prefer to combine with oxygen to create life. Neon voted to go with Argon. Carbon was the odd molecule out and refused to go with the majority. It wasn't so much a case of preference but an anarchistic revolt.

Sort of an Atom and Eve type of defiance, eh?

0 Replies

read under right stuff vs left stuff at this link
towards the end of the section

http://www.astrobiology.com/adastra/ex.astra.html

0 Replies

actually the article is more or less in the middle of the section not at the end, I apologize.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

What a teleological wowser that is Wolf.

If you study evolution in bacteria and suchlike is it not the case that the researcher is providing the environment under which they evolve and thus possibly skews the result.

Spendius, you impute a pretty humorous argument: if you don't observe, you can't know, and if you observe you bias results, therefore you can't know anything for sure, hence all ideas have equal merit.

0 Replies

Ideally maybe. Is that Derrida?

What about pushing your own boat out whilst pretending you are being scientific or kicking yourself up the arse whilst trying to be scientific and not knowing?

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Ideally maybe. Is that Derrida?

What about pushing your own boat out whilst pretending you are being scientific or kicking yourself up the arse whilst trying to be scientific and not knowing?

I know it. I just know it. Someday we are going to find Spendi face down in a pond with a boot up his backside.

0 Replies

astounding wrote:

eorl

you think this is no great controversy? It is probably one of the largest and longest running controversies ever to exist. Have you not seen all the little fish magnets on the back of cars, some with feet and darwins name in the middle, some with the fish eating the one with feet?

Like Wolf said, there's no scientific controversy. No I haven't seen those stickers, but thankfully I live in a country that is largely not religious, but has been responsible for some outstanding medical and biological breakthroughs in the last few years.

I'm surprised you mention fish stickers, I had this silly idea they were a Christian thing, rather than an ID thing. Perhaps there is link....hmmm??

0 Replies

parados wrote-

Quote:

I know it. I just know it. Someday we are going to find Spendi face down in a pond with a boot up his backside.

As long as it's pointed,shiny,goes half way up the thigh and is laced up excrutiatingly elaborately I suppose I will have fulfilled my destiny.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Ideally maybe. Is that Derrida?

What about pushing your own boat out whilst pretending you are being scientific or kicking yourself up the arse whilst trying to be scientific and not knowing?

Our deep and everlasting friendship will survive all obstacles even your misplaced reference to deconstruction.

0 Replies

Monsieur Derrida was tied to a pole and the officer in charge of the firing squad on being asked what the text meant replied-"It means we are going to shoot you".

0 Replies

And thus spake the old man to Zarathustra: "No stranger to me is this wanderer: ...

0 Replies

Re: The Fiction of "Fact"

astounding wrote:

THE FICTION OF SCIENCE FACT

To disprove this I'll tell a story as I see it by one of these organisms named Fred.

One organism or multiple organisms of the same kind, are dwelling in an oceanic environment billions of years ago. Suddenly Fred (my main character, being an example of billion year old organisms) decides he wants to be a plant, for whatever reasons he thinks.

You can't be serious.

0 Replies

Where do you draw the line when you're willing to argue with yourself from two a2k accounts?

0 Replies

This thread is based on the most willful stupidity imagineable.

0 Replies

hingehead wrote:

Where do you draw the line when you're willing to argue with yourself from two a2k accounts?

good question, but others have taken that road already, i believe.

0 Replies

The Fiction of "Fact"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know