Natural selection, my ass (Page 5)

AchillesSinatra: The point is: What does your powerful theory predict?

"That those organisms that are really tough will prevail over the 90-lb weaklings and get more alleles?

AchillesSinatra: Let's get back to basics, pal.

Is your theory about random mutation?

How can randomness be at all predictable?

AchillesSinatra: Yes yes, I know all about "non-random selection"

theHating: Well, based on the number of genes an organism has, there is a band of certainty for predicting how much change, innately random, will be passed down to offspring. Then as I understand it, the pressures of nature select for white fur because white camo bears are harder to find in the arctic.

AchillesSinatra: Do you REALLY believe a ring-tailed lemur came about through random processes?

Stop and think for a bit, friend.

Yes yes, I know what you're gonna say

AchillesSinatra: "Well, based on the number of genes an organism has, there is a band of certainty for predicting how much change, innately random, will be passed down to offspring. "


And all biologists are agreed on this?

Ans: Of course they aren't.



Hey, you know what, I'd really like?

To make you think a bit.

I can see you're clever.

Thus far, you're just echoing.

I'd love you to think for yourself.

theHating: A bunch of biologists literally told me that.

AchillesSinatra: Now, the first thing we have to get straight, my friend...


Ask ten biologists and you'll get ten ten different answers.

Nothing wrong with that.

As long as you think, you're a friend of mine.

AchillesSinatra: We must not think "Hey! scientists all say the same thing"

let's not be silly

theHating: Just how I understand it.

You're saying it has no explanatory power and that experts have been avoiding the philosophical issue.

I see how they ought to throw it out, but....

Are ring tailed lemurs not ring tailed lemurs under any condition?

theHating: "Ask ten biologists and you'll get ten ten different answers."

I asked an entire forum of biologists.

They all gave me the same answer.

AchillesSinatra: "You're saying it has no explanatory power and that experts have been avoiding the philosophical issue."

That's exactly what I'm saying. It has no explanatory power, as standardly formulated.

And some of the people I admire most agree. Read any Richard Lewontin?

theHating: I only read sky mall.

AchillesSinatra: lol

Read him. He's very clever.

A bit of a rebel.

And you seem so too

Sir Loin: Achilles I realise now you didn't start this forum for a discussion on natural selection at all. Only to show what a fool you are.

AchillesSinatra: Sir Loin, I wouldn't want to attack a strawman. Let me summarize your position...

"I'm a fool"

Is this a fair encapsulation of your counterargument?

theHating: That describes just about everyone on the internet.

Lets get our pitch forks and torches

AchillesSinatra: Well if the idiot tells me a cat of nine tails is a cat, I can only despair for his students.

I assume you're familiar with the fallacy of equivocation, Mr Hating?

AchillesSinatra: I'll explain if you like.

I wouldn't mind so much if he hadn't been bragging about his critical thinking courses.

theHating: Is that when miracles ARE explainable with science but not with *science*?

AchillesSinatra: No, it's like me saying "I like dogs"

And he says "I like them with mustard".

theHating: I think he's equivocating "thinking" with "gut response to someone criticising my favorite ideas"

AchillesSinatra: He doesn't even know what it is.

You're my only hope, Mr Hating.

theHating: Yea its kind of ironic.


Not really giving me any reason to go to university and learn ethics.

AchillesSinatra: Sir Loin keeps showing me his resume ...

"I'm a very important scientist and I teach courses in critical thinking"

What he has not done yet is display any of it. Perhaps he's shy.