'South Korea will remove evolution from its high school textbooks'

[Techne]

again i could be wrong, but i would. for beavers you can even think of their ability to build reliable dams as an expression of their genes and intelligence. some organisms survive on strenght, some survive on stealth, some survive on speed, some survive on intelligence

Again, to be sure, you would define fitness as an individual's phenotype?

 

[Techne]

He just said that?! Do you deliberately try to trip people up with big words the whole time instead of arguing the actual point?

He said what? Do you know what we are talking about?

 

[STS]

Again, to be sure, you would define fitness as an individual's phenotype?

yes yes, post the rebuttal already.

not the individuals phenotype, but HOW the individual's phenotype gives it an edge in its environment

 

[abandonallhope]

Sorry, I must have AGAIN missed the part where you dispoved evolution instead of moving the goal posts and spouting forth unverified, opinionated nonsense. Silly me...

doesn't know the answer, falls back on shifting goalposts argument.

One more time please, you said the theory of evolution has been disproven. Can you please enlighten as all as to how that was done?

can't be bothered right now, but knowing you to be the ever inquisitive and open minded individual, I know you will find it.

 

[Techne]

No, phenotypes contribute to fitness in certain ways like in the environment in the example I gave.
Blue eyes can make you more fit because people who are attracted to blue eyes might find want to fsck you more.

Having a slightly smaller pinky probably doesn't do anything. So again, no.

Blue eyes can make you more attractive, that does not imply it makes you more fit. It may make you less fit, but this again hinges on a definition of fitness that makes sense.

 

[Techne]

yes yes, post the rebuttal already.

not the individuals phenotype, but HOW the individual's phenotype gives it an edge in its environment

No rebuttal, I just want to know what your opinion is. Do you think fitness can be empirically measured? Your definition appears to be too vague for it to be any measurable quantity.

 

[STS]

doesn't know the answer, falls back on shifting goalposts argument.


can't be bothered right now, but knowing you to be the ever inquisitive and open minded individual, I know you will find it.

what you are effectively saying is that you know that it's not real, but you can't be bothered to tell us/link us to the post. most of us know about evolution off the top of our heads and can give at least vague answers.

it comes across as you believe your thing and that the only reason you don't believe in evolution is because it somehow affects your current belief

 

[boramk]

yes yes, post the rebuttal already.

not the individuals phenotype, but HOW the individual's phenotype gives it an edge in its environment

No dude, he is going to say because not all traits make you better suited in the environment therefore phenotypes ≠ fitness.
He will win by technicality.

 

[STS]

No rebuttal, I just want to know what your opinion is. Do you think fitness can be empirically measured? Your definition appears to be too vague for it to be any measurable quantity.

i was actually getting excited as i thought you were going to provide somethign contrary to my statement, or that is the impression i had gotten damn

 

[Techne]

No dude, he is going to say because not all traits make you better suited in the environment therefore phenotypes ≠ fitness.
He will win by technicality.

Logic sucks doesn't it.

 

[Techne]

i was actually getting excited as i thought you were going to provide somethign contrary to my statement, or that is the impression i had gotten damn

Anyway, quantifiable or not?

 

[Archer]

doesn't know the answer, falls back on shifting goalposts argument.

can't be bothered right now, but knowing you to be the ever inquisitive and open minded individual, I know you will find it.

I'm confused...
If I had to tell you something was true untrue you'd be asking me for the proof. Now that its the other way around you refuse to provide me with the answers?

So lets start with basics. It seems like you think the theory of evolution is false because how the heck did life come from nothing. Again, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. Which then begs the question, why did you say this:

We can start with the fact that the entire theory hangs on nothing.

If you said that because you think there is a lack of evidence for the theory of evolution, then that is also mistaken. So what are you talking about?

PS - if you cant be bothered to explain to other people what you are talking about, then seriously, WTF are you doing here other than trolling?

 

[boramk]

Logic sucks doesn't it.

I will give that to you. But you know yourself by now to know that it is you.
Saying small's answers were to vague and asking if "fitness is empirical" does fit your usual Modus operandi.

 

[STS]

No rebuttal, I just want to know what your opinion is. Do you think fitness can be empirically measured? Your definition appears to be too vague for it to be any measurable quantity.

the problem too, is that you can't really measure fitness just as you cannot measure attractiveness or knowledge. it's unique to each environment. the end measurement should be the result: the animals that survives is fit, the animal that attracts a mate is attracive. not every organism is the same, not every environment is the same

 

[Techne]

the problem too, is that you can't really measure fitness just as you cannot measure attractiveness or knowledge. it's unique to each environment. the end measurement should be the result: the animals that survives is fit, the animal that attracts a mate is attracive. not every organism is the same, not every environment is the same

Well this is circular logic.

 

[boramk]

the problem too, is that you can't really measure fitness just as you cannot measure attractiveness or knowledge. it's unique to each environment. the end measurement should be the result: the animals that survives is fit, the animal that attracts a mate is attracive. not every organism is the same, not every environment is the same

Too vague dude. Try Plato's Theory of Forms to fill the Gaps.

 

[Vrotappel]

So why did lizards become birds? Just a link will suffice.

Start here: Pterodactylus

 

[Techne]

Too vague dude. Try Plato's Theory of Forms to fill the Gaps.

No bra, Aristotle is much better.

 

[ShaunSA]

And someone was saying Asians are brighter lol. Wonder what's dumbing them down.

 

[buyeye]

And someone was saying Asians are brighter lol. Wonder what's dumbing them down.

So religion or spirituality =dumb.