Fucking Bullshit this is...

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by JCC

Entirely predictable ad hominems. Fuck, I am shitting bricks now, I didn't take you seriously at first.

God fucking damnit, JCC. Quit fucking crying.

[Godslayer Jillian]

"If the biologists disagree with me, then they're clearly wrong"

Alright, so at least we now know it's you who is stupid.

And yes, you just proved I'm right with your social darwinism bullshit. You mentioned that social darwinism is observable in society, and put forth an 'example' by saying that lazy people are the ones that die in the streets.
That's stupid to offensive proportions, and completely ignorant of how our economic system works.
Yet that IS precisely the argument social darwinists give. They're making up a bullshit system to justify our system, but this justification can't hold its ground.
Unless those who die of hunger are really lazy and stupid and good for nothing, it's clear that social darwinism is a lie. You argument is moot.

[knightmare]

Jillian, answer my previous post.



Also, do you honestly think our economic system is totally free-market. Who regulates them and society in general?

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

"If the biologists disagree with me, then they're clearly wrong"

I never said that. Actually, I'm in doubt that biologists have a collective opposition towards the term.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Albert Mond

Then they [biologists] don't understand the phrase.

But you clearly do, huh?

Originally Posted by knightmare

Darwin's theory of evolution has been modified several times.

Yeah, and none of these modifications takes "survival of the fittest" as valid, for reasons I summed up previously.

What is my misunderstanding of evolution? Your argument of being fit enough actually lends support to my argument. If you are fit enough to gather resources for yourself, and to escape predators, you are able to transmit your genes.

I did not imply a "PWN ALL" in my statements.

Yet that's the implication of survival of the fittest, fittest being a superlative.
If you don't want to battle semantics, then fine, because it seems you actually agree with me, but you are using a common, but very erred, summary of darwinism.
Saying "survival of the fittest" is still invalid, "survival of the fit enough" is more accurate, because there's a difference between "the strongest are better off" and "the strongest are the only ones that get to live"

[PortraitOfSanity]

"Survival of the fittest" came from Herbert Spencer's writing, who was trying to sell his economic, social and ethical ideas by relating them to Darwinism. You'll almost never find a biologist use the phrase "survival of the fittest" as Jillian said, because it's not a biological phrase in the first place. "Natural selection" is the accepted biological terminology.

[knightmare]

Yes, I do agree with your view of survival of the fitter as more appropriate, although it is semantics. But I want to know about your disagreement with applying gene properties to macroscopic individuals since genes do in fact define us literally.

[PortraitOfSanity]

Read my post knightmare. Survival of the fittest is not more appropriate.

[Albert Mond]

"Survival of the fittest" is a tautology, and your interpretation of it is ridiculously unrelated to what it actually means. If no biologists get it, then, well... that's why they're biologists, and not semantics experts.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by PortraitOfSanity

Read my post knightmare. Survival of the fittest is not more appropriate.

He didn't say it was.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by PortraitOfSanity

"Natural selection" is the accepted biological terminology.

O rly, now? Well, thanks, Sherlock. You really cleared that one up.

[Godslayer Jillian]

You just got that off wikipedia, because that's still wrong.
It is merely a tautology if you believe that "fittest" implies "you survive"
That ignores again the claim I keep repeating you that it is stupid to believe only the best are the ones who survive, as it is obvious that so long as you're well enough, you get to live.
Why do you keep ignoring that? Other than you just don't like it.

[PortraitOfSanity]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

You just got that off wikipedia, because that's still wrong.
It is merely a tautology if you believe that "fittest" implies "you survive"
That ignores again the claim I keep repeating you that it is stupid to believe only the best are the ones who survive, as it is obvious that so long as you're well enough, you get to live.
Why do you keep ignoring that? Other than you just don't like it.

If that was to me, I actually got that from my mom who's in the next room, and who happens to be a bio major with a PHD....

[knightmare]

Would you answer my previous post Jillian? I am curious about your opinion.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

You just got that off wikipedia, because that's still wrong.

I got it off of Wikipedia? Oh, however did you find out? I'm ruined! RUINED!
Here's an article from CSICOP: http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdes...tautology.html

It is merely a tautology if you believe that "fittest" implies "you survive" That ignores again the claim I keep repeating you that it is stupid to believe only the best are the ones who survive, as it is obvious that so long as you're well enough, you get to live.

Funny. You managed to correct yourself and then destroy your self-correction. I find this amusing.

Why do you keep ignoring that? Other than you just don't like it.

Oooooooh. Someone hasn't had their daily literacy pill.

[knightmare]

Albert Mond is correct. Scientists would have to be stupid to assume that the fittest refers only to a small elite group of animals, since, obviously, there is great genetic diversity.

[PortraitOfSanity]

Yea Mond, I saw Ann Coulter in the article and closed the window, I usually don't read anything that presents Ann Coulter as even approaching legitimate, even mentioning her angers me. I read the rest of the article afterward, but meh....

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by PortraitOfSanity

Yea Mond, I saw Ann Coulter in the article and closed the window, I don't read anything that even mentions Ann Coulter as even approaching legitimate. I read the rest of the article afterward, but meh....

It didn't show her as 'approaching legitimate'.

Here's the last line in the article: "Stephen Jay Gould once observed that creationists are “singularly devoid of shame” in their willingness to use any argument, no matter how vacuous or frequently refuted, in making their case against evolution. He might have included right-wing demagogues alongside creationists. The tautology objection cannot survive the scrutiny of anyone versed in even the most basic elements of evolutionary theory. That Coulter would raise the issue so snidely, and have her book sell very well as a result, proves that knowing what you are talking about has no value for many on the political right."

[PortraitOfSanity]

I know the article disagrees with her, but even mentioning her, and disagreeing with her gives her more legitimacy than she deserves. Which is why, initially, I saw her name and didn't read the rest.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by CSICOP

Natural selection is not used as an abstract principle in biological research. “Survival of the fittest” is a catchy phrase that captures much of what is important about natural selection, but it is not one you will find very often in professional research papers. Instead, scientists will propose specific hypotheses about the fitness advantages conferred by particular traits in particular environments. There is nothing tautological about saying, for example, that moths possessing dark coloration will be less visible than light colored moths to predatory birds when resting on dark-colored trees.

blacktexty

[PortraitOfSanity]

I agree with that, but it still makes it seem like "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" are interchangeable, which they're not.

[PortraitOfSanity]

Anyway last thing I'm gonna say, this argument actually illustrates why biologists avoid using "survival of the fittest", even when Darwin said himself it was "more accurate than natural selection". "Fittest" is open to interpretation.

[Albert Mond]

In that case, I think we're in agreement.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by PortraitOfSanity

If that was to me, I actually got that from my mom who's in the next room, and who happens to be a bio major with a PHD....

Hey, my mother, also with a PhD in biology, has pretty much exactly the same thing to say on the subject. Funny that.

I've never liked the term 'survival of the fittest' anyway. Regardless of it being 'acceptable' outside the scientific community it's still misleading (not only with the use of a superlative, but also the way 'fit' can be misconstrued as 'physically strong') and essentially incorrect.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by Cicero

I've never liked the term 'survival of the fittest' anyway. Regardless of it being 'acceptable' outside the scientific community it's still misleading (not only with the use of a superlative, but also the way 'fit' can be misconstrued as 'physically strong') and essentially incorrect.

It's misleading if you don't know what Natural Selection is, sure. The term is generally used as a tautology (at least this was my understanding, until I ran into some internet people who took it completely literally), and is -for the most part- a reference to Natural Selection's properties, and not a full description.