![]() ![]() Later NS interpretations repeat the circularity conjuring trick, with the differential reproduction rate gambit. There have been post-Darwin attempts to redefine ‘fitness’, but AFAIK, none logically convincing. This rapid, logical oscillation/reversal causes most people’s eyes to cross. But it promptly then reverses itself, to explain fitness via existence. ![]() The hypothesis purports to explain the existence of a multitude of species, via the magical ‘fitness’ ingredient. ‘NS explains the survival of the fittest but – – – – – – ‘.Įr, not quite, unless I’ve missed s/thing major? In Darwin’s NS hypothesis, there is NO subbstance to the meaning of ‘fitness’, except existence of a species. “members belong to the House of Lords through hereditary right or accident of birth” “he had a little accident, but I washed his shorts out”Ģ An event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause:Ģ.1 The working of fortune chance: ![]() “four people were killed in a road accident”ġ.2 euphemistic An incidence of incontinence by a child or animal: Which of these definitions from the Oxford Dictionaries do you suppose he was referring to:ġ An unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury:ġ.1 A crash involving road or other vehicles: I am also wondering about his choice of the word “accident”. He made the assertions, therefore he carries the burden of proof. As a scientist, Dawkins must now prove scientifically that the origin of life was an accident, and philosophically that the accident was “happy”. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |