On Sunday, September 8, 2013 4:42:02 PM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote: > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 chris peck <[email protected] <javascript:>>wrote: > > *>> "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical >>> research program".* >>> >> >> > I don't have any problem with Popper's comments here. I see no reason >> whatsoever for 'Popper fans or fans of philosophers of science' to be >> concerned in the slightest. >> > > On 08.09.2013, at 22:28, John Clark <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > Yes I know, fans of Popper are not concerned in the slightest with their > hero making that moronic statement, and Popper called himself a > philosopher; and that is exactly how philosophy gets a bad name. > > > People misunderstand Popper here. >> > > Apparently even Popper misunderstood Popper because, to his credit, he > admitted he was wrong about Darwin; most other philosophers would rather > eat ground glass than admit they were wrong. It's just a pity that it took > this great philosopher of science 119 years after the publication of "The > Origin Of Species" to figure out that Darwin was a scientist. I guess > philosophers are just slow learners > > > Furthermore, in regarding natural selection as untestable he followed in >> the footsteps of many Darwinists. >> > > Should a good philosopher be following in somebody's footsteps or should > he tell him he's going in the wrong direction? > > > It was quite common to think that the concept of 'survival of the >> fittest' involved circular reasoning and was therefore tautological. ie. >> 'fittest' is defined as 'those that survive' and so 'survival of the >> fittest' amounts to saying 'the survivors survive'. > > > Darwin gave a new meaning to the word, "fittest" means passing on more > genes that endure (survive) to the next generation than somebody who is > less fit. > > > Darwin knew nothing about genes. >
Yes, and evolutionary fitness has nothing do with the quantity of winning genes - this is a Eugenicist misinterpretation of evolution. Fitness is about the circumstantial appropriateness of mutations, not about hereditary supremacy. A sudden climate change makes entire classes of 'more fit' genes 'less fit' over night. Evolution is not a race or striving for success through superior engineering - that is utter horseshit. Thanks, Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
