176 thoughts on “Polyworld

  1. Patrick,

    Here is a tip for you Patrick, Google can’t help you, when you are left defending a theory that has at its core, the unfortunate necessity that anything that exists is fit. You can’t Google your way out of that.

  2. phoodoo: Patrick,

    First off that definition says “the ability to” it doesn’t say anything about the emphasis that you decided to tack on.

    I didn’t tack anything on. The full quote was in italics, including the bolded part that I emphasized to help you out. Here it is without all that confusing typography:

    “Biological fitness, also called Darwinian fitness, means the ability to survive to reproductive age, find a mate, and produce offspring.

    Basically, the more offspring an organism produces during its lifetime, the greater its biological fitness.”

    So, you’re wrong.

  3. phoodoo:
    Patrick,

    Here is a tip for you Patrick, Google can’t help you, when you are left defending a theory that has at its core, the unfortunate necessity that anything that exists is fit.You can’t Google your way out of that.

    Ignoring the evidence and constantly repeating your refuted, baseless assertions is not a compelling form of argument, the fact that it seems to work in your church notwithstanding.

  4. Patrick,

    Collins English Dictionary:
    fitness (ˈfɪtnɪs)
    n
    1. the state of being fit
    2. (Biology) biology

    a. the degree of adaptation of an organism to its environment, determined by its genetic constitution

    I have tried to tell you Patrick, Google isn’t always your friend.

    There is NO workable definition for fitness in biology, other than existing. Because as soon as you try to add in all your caveats, you have to ask:
    – How many offspring, did it have?
    – Did the offspring have offspring?
    – Are the offspring able to have offspring?
    -Does it matter if the individual has the ABILITY to have offspring, if they don’t in fact bother to have those offspring?
    -Does getting crushed by a meteor affect one’s status for fitness?
    -Does luck count?
    -If a male doesn’t have offspring, due to the fact that the female was unable, does that make the male unfit?

    And on, and on it goes.

    Google can’t help you get past this logical canyon I am afraid Patrick. There is no Google search for understanding.

  5. Patrick,

    Why haven’t you quoted the Discovery Institutes definition of fitness?

    I have already told you, biology has a logical problem with its concept of survival of the fittest. That the sites which promote evolution aren’t eager to come out and explain this circular flaw of their theory is no surprise whatsoever. You can’t have a theory which says the fittest survive and reproduce, when the definition of being fit is surviving and reproducing.

    Well, I guess you can, but it is unfalsifiable (and meaningless), as you like to complain.

  6. phoodoo:
    Patrick,

    Why haven’t you quoted the Discovery Institutes definition of fitness?

    Because I’m discussing science, not apologetics and politics.

    I have already told you, biology has a logical problem with its concept of survival of the fittest.

    And I’ve already shown you to be wrong about that. Time for you to deal with the evidence.

    That the sites which promote evolution aren’t eager to come out and explain this circular flaw of their theory is no surprise whatsoever.You can’t have a theory which says the fittest survive and reproduce, when the definition of being fit is surviving and reproducing.

    If you have an example of such circular reasoning in an actual biology textbook or peer-reviewed paper, please present it. I suggest that the real problem is your lack of understanding of evolutionary theory.

  7. Ignorance – the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.

    Address the content of the post, not the perceived failings of the poster. [purple text added 28th November 2015]

    This means that accusing others of ignorance or stupidity is off topic

  8. Mung:
    Ignorance – the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.

    Address the content of the post, not the perceived failings of the poster. [purple text added 28th November 2015]

    This means that accusing others of ignorance or stupidity is off topic

    You are technically correct, which is, of course, the best kind of correct.

    phoodoo — please consider my comment amended to “I suggest that the real problem is that you have not demonstrated any understanding of evolutionary theory in this thread or any other.”

    I hope my fellow admins will note that Mung prefers that the rules be enforced to the letter and read his comments with that in mind.

  9. Imagine a site where people were not constantly hurling insults at each other, one where people actually posted in the spirit of the rules given by Elizabeth, where there would be no need for the letter. 🙂

  10. Mung:
    Imagine a site where people were not constantly hurling insults at each other, one where people actually posted in the spirit of the rules given by Elizabeth, where there would be no need for the letter.🙂

    A NewMung world!

  11. Mung:
    Imagine a site where people were not constantly hurling insults at each other, one where people actually posted in the spirit of the rules given by Elizabeth, where there would be no need for the letter.🙂

    Imagine there’s no heaven.

  12. Mung: Imagine a site where people were not constantly hurling insults at each other, one where people actually posted in the spirit of the rules given by Elizabeth, where there would be no need for the letter.

    “Treat others as you would have them treat you. But if that doesn’t work, then say fuck it, and treat them however you like.”

    I read that in the Bible. Some of it, anyway.

    P.S.–You’re ignoring the thread that you started with “Evolution’s Search Problem.” I took the trouble to provide you with an animation showing clearly that an evolutionary process designed (not by me, but by the theoretical physicist / Christian apologist David Glass) to “hit the target” fast does nothing that anyone would ever mistake for seeking to maximize fitness.

  13. Patrick,

    Nope, no lack of understanding at all Patrick. I have just shown you why the entire concept of biological fitness is a meaningless construct. To be fit means to exist.

    Dumb and lucky beats smart and unlucky in biological fitness. Crippled, blind and asthmatic beats a healthy soldier in biological fitness world.

    There are no “levels” of fitness in biology. You either exist or you don’t. 1 or 0.

    Now, I have already shown you to be wrong Patrick. ANOTHER thing being a moderator doesn’t reward you with is the title of Arbitrator of Wrong.

    Google “being wrong.” See if your are referenced.

  14. phoodoo:
    Patrick,

    Nope, no lack of understanding at all Patrick.I have just shown you why the entire concept of biological fitness is a meaningless construct.To be fit means to exist.
    . . . .

    I provided you with multiple links to consistent definitions of “biological fitness.” The fact that you are somehow able to ignore them does not make you less wrong.

Leave a Reply