Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 22:51:59 GMT
"Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest"
~ Hugo de Vries
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jun 1, 2017 22:58:53 GMT
It doesn't need to. Genetic mutation supplies the random variation.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jun 1, 2017 23:01:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 1, 2017 23:03:24 GMT
"Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest"~ Hugo de Vries no. It never made a valid point all it did was demonstrate the speakers lack of knowledge regarding the theory of natural selection. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 23:03:31 GMT
It doesn't need to. Genetic mutation supplies the random variation. Lol |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 23:06:53 GMT
"Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest"~ Hugo de Vries no. It never made a valid point all it did was demonstrate the speakers lack of knowledge regarding the theory of natural selection. Do you genuinely think one of the most renowned biologists of his day didn't fully understand the theory of natural selection? |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 1, 2017 23:07:55 GMT
It's kind of silly in that it suggests "the fittest" is an isolated group that just showed up at one time or another. The arrival happened when life first began. Now, it is correct to say that survival of the fittest does not explain how life first appeared -- but then, nobody ever claimed that it was intended to explain such a thing in the first place. The statement is akin to saying "gravity may explain why heavy objects fall, but it cannot explain why hot air rises". Well no sh*t...it's not supposed to!
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 1, 2017 23:10:07 GMT
I'm not quite sure what that means. Is he saying natural selection can't explain abiogenesis? If that's the case, then sure, but natural selection isn't really used to explain abiogenesis.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 1, 2017 23:12:07 GMT
no. It never made a valid point all it did was demonstrate the speakers lack of knowledge regarding the theory of natural selection. Do you genuinely think one of the most renowned biologists of his day didn't fully understand the theory of natural selection? I cannot say what this biologist ultimately knew or did not know about natural selection. But I can say that IF he believed that natural selection was intended to explain the origins of all life, then he was wrong, because that's not what the theory ever attempted to explain. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 1, 2017 23:14:09 GMT
no. It never made a valid point all it did was demonstrate the speakers lack of knowledge regarding the theory of natural selection. Do you genuinely think one of the most renowned biologists of his day didn't fully understand the theory of natural selection? He understood it as best an 19th century man could, obviously his understanding of it isn't as good as today's since natural selection was barely introduced. If Henry Ford was resurrected, obviously you wouldn't expect him to have an understanding of modern cars with ABS breaks, wind resistance, and computer chips.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 1, 2017 23:15:01 GMT
no. It never made a valid point all it did was demonstrate the speakers lack of knowledge regarding the theory of natural selection. Do you genuinely think one of the most renowned biologists of his day didn't fully understand the theory of natural selection? I absolutely do think that this statement demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge about the theory of natural selection, with the caveat that the way you have presented it is to try to debunk natural selection. Now assuming you have not taken it out of context then, yes the person who said this does not understand natural selection, if however it was intended to say "actually natural selection neither explains nor intends to explain how the 'fittest' got here" then it is a valid point. Perhaps you would enlighten us as to what the point you think the statement has? |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 1, 2017 23:16:35 GMT
I'm not quite sure what that means. Is he saying natural selection can't explain abiogenesis? If that's the case, then sure, but natural selection is really used to explain abiogenesis. You mean "isn't"? Yes, fixed |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 23:17:05 GMT
Do you genuinely think one of the most renowned biologists of his day didn't fully understand the theory of natural selection? He understood it as best an 19th century man could, obviously his understanding of it isn't as good as today's since natural selection was barely introduced. If Henry Ford was resurrected, obviously you wouldn't expect him to have an understanding of modern cars with ABS breaks, wind resistance, and computer chips.
And yet with all that scientific advancement it still can't be fully answered to this day. Go figure. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 1, 2017 23:18:09 GMT
He understood it as best an 19th century man could, obviously his understanding of it isn't as good as today's since natural selection was barely introduced. If Henry Ford was resurrected, obviously you wouldn't expect him to have an understanding of modern cars with ABS breaks, wind resistance, and computer chips.
And yet with all that scientific advancement it still can't be fully answered to this day. Go figure. I never claimed it did. Not sure what point you're trying to make. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 1, 2017 23:19:38 GMT
He understood it as best an 19th century man could, obviously his understanding of it isn't as good as today's since natural selection was barely introduced. If Henry Ford was resurrected, obviously you wouldn't expect him to have an understanding of modern cars with ABS breaks, wind resistance, and computer chips.
And yet with all that scientific advancement it still can't be fully answered to this day. Go figure. What can't be fully answered? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 23:19:52 GMT
And yet with all that scientific advancement it still can't be fully answered to this day. Go figure. I never claimed it did. Not sure what point you're trying to make. Then you agree, De Vries has a point? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 23:22:19 GMT
And yet with all that scientific advancement it still can't be fully answered to this day. Go figure. What can't be fully answered? How natural selection cant explain the arrival of the fittest. It's still a puzzle scientists are struggling to solve. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 1, 2017 23:22:52 GMT
I never claimed it did. Not sure what point you're trying to make. Then you agree, De Vries has a point? I'm not sure what point he's trying to make. Natural selection can't explain the origin of life? Is that what he's saying? If so, again natural selection has nothing to do with abiogenesis. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 1, 2017 23:23:51 GMT
What can't be fully answered? How natural selection cant explain the arrival of the fittest. It's still a puzzle scientists are struggling to solve. What do you mean by "fittest"? I wanna say this is another lame God of the Gaps argument, but I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 1, 2017 23:25:13 GMT
What can't be fully answered? How natural selection cant explain the arrival of the fittest. It's still a puzzle scientists are struggling to solve. Natural selection is not supposed to explain the origins of life. So no, it would be a stupid point that assumes he doesn't know what the theory of natural selection actually is. |
|
