LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksIt looks increasingly likely that the 'fittest' will prove to be inanimate lumps of rock and dust
Thus proving that those who believe in Darwinism will be failed by it
August 6th, 2009, 01:33 PM
It looks increasingly likely that the 'fittest' will prove to be inanimate lumps of rock and dust
Thus proving that those who believe in Darwinism will be failed by it
I don't know what you think "darwinism" is, but evolutionary theory has changed significantly since Darwin's time so that term cannot be used to describe the current scientific understanding of evolution.
Also, biological evolution is a property of living organisms. Rocks and dust do not evolve. When there are no more organisms left on Earth (which is distinctly possible and would reflect little on the accuracy of evolution) evolution will no longer happen.
We are talkng of #survival of the fittst' and that be rocks and dust, not DarwinistOriginally Posted by paralith
I don't think you know the subject well.
Sorry, esbo, unless you are talking about a different theory of evolution that I have never heard of, I know the subject quite well. Fitness is a measure of reproductive success. The fittest individuals are those that reproduce most successfully and ensure that the most copies of their genes persist into future generations. Rocks and dust to not reproduce and do not have genes.We are talkng of #survival of the fittst' and that be rocks and dust, not Darwinist
I don't think you know the subject well.
Esbo, evolutionary theory has ...evolved... since Darwinism. You may as well heckle Paralith for wearing bear skins.
You too will evolve.
Or become extinctEsbo, evolutionary theory has ...evolved... since Darwinism. You may as well heckle Paralith for wearing bear skins.
You too will evolve.
Or become extinctEsbo, evolutionary theory has ...evolved... since Darwinism. You may as well heckle Paralith for wearing bear skins.
You too will evolve.
Well it's pretty certain we will all be extinct before long, no doubt about that,
anyhow as I am unfortunatly the species as you when I am exticnt so wil you be.
It is likely that the fittest will turn out to ne molds and fungi, and varius micro organisms.Sorry, esbo, unless you are talking about a different theory of evolution that I have never heard of, I know the subject quite well. Fitness is a measure of reproductive success. The fittest individuals are those that reproduce most successfully and ensure that the most copies of their genes persist into future generations. Rocks and dust to not reproduce and do not have genes.We are talkng of #survival of the fittst' and that be rocks and dust, not Darwinist
I don't think you know the subject well.
We may be the same species, but my ancestors will be open-minded and will continue as a species. Your ancestors will die out in some sort of natural disaster they refused to believe in, and become extinct.Or become extinctEsbo, evolutionary theory has ...evolved... since Darwinism. You may as well heckle Paralith for wearing bear skins.
You too will evolve.
Well it's pretty certain we will all be extinct before long, no doubt about that,
anyhow as I am unfortunatly the species as you when I am exticnt so wil you be.
The OP is equivocating fitness in a way that exhibits a lack of understanding and education in biological evolution.
Fitness is defined totally by an organism's ability to produce offspring which, in turn survive and reproduce. That's it.
Hey a mould on a rock is not muh better than a rock.
The bigget rocks will survive, the less fit will crumble into dust the rocks will evolve into the best size as atoms have, go figure eiinstein, you don't know what you are talkig about :-D
If your sole purpose here is to be an anti-science and, apparently undereducated, troll, then please don't bother posting.
Survival of the fittest means, as pointed out by others here, persistence of the best replicators within a given niche. And it means that the best replicators will tend to exist as a larger proportion of the existing replicators in a niche and not necessarily that they'll out compete the others to the point of extinction. Interactions between species are much more subtle than mere competition, after all. Parasitism, symbiosis and predation link the decline and success of groups of species together.
As for rocks... they're not replicators. The do obey the rather obvious law of "persistence of the persisting", but they could hardly be said to compete with any species, which would be a requirement of their persistence threatening a species. Now certain chemical reactions could actually "compete" with some replicators for resources, but without the capacity to replicate and thus undergo the selective processes required to inheritably vary over time, that competition will merely act as a non reactive selective pressure on the replicators, resulting in their adaptation.
There are other forms of evolution, but they should not be confused with biological evolution.
Chemical structures evolve to become as stable as possible.
Big rocks are not nearly as durable as sands and dust.
"Hey a mould on a rock is not muh better than a rock. "
A mold has genes and reproduces, a rock does not. What is your measure of greatness?
"It is likely that the fittest will turn out to ne molds and fungi, and varius micro organisms."
This is very different than your original claim. What is your reason for changing your argument? Both of your arguments lack any support, so please stick to one and try to support it before moving on to another unfounded claim.
"we will all be extinct before long," Self fulfilled prophecy much? We will be extinct eventually, but what do you consider "long?"
"as I am unfortunatly the species as you when I am exticnt so wil you be."
Unfortunately you can't spell, type or support your claims sufficiently. Right now we are the same species, but given a long enough period of time, we may indeed split into two or more species. Species is really just a term for identifying and categorizing life, not a measure of fitness. Take humans for example, there is a great variety of characteristics that make us fit in different ways. We are not trying to survive as a species, we are trying to survive as a collection of genes. When I have babies, I'm not trying to spread your genes, or the genes of the rest of humanity, although I will invariably be doing so(in the same sense I will be spreading many of the genes of other primates, and much other life as well) nonetheless, the point is to spread my genes, not yours. So, your offspring and mine may eventually be isolated sexually for long enough to no longer be able to mate, in such a situation there would be two species, and one might go extinct without causing the other to do so.
It looks to me like your post is the unfittest I have read lately ( and thus fails). Keep at it. I am sure you can top ( ot perhaps bottom) this if you try . BTW your silly assertion does nothing to prove anything by whatever you think Darwinism to be.
This post fails miserably and is more inert than lumps of rock and dust. Sweep out the dusty and rocky skull. Please, before posting again
It looks increasingly likely that the 'fittest' will prove to be inanimate lumps of rock and dust
Thus proving that those who believe in Darwinism will be failed by it
Might want to check the dates before posting. I don't think esbo has been around for a long while.
| « England's Area-51 | FITC labelling » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
