On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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 <chris_...@hotmail.com> 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 <johnk...@gmail.com> 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.
Yes. A common error is to equate evolution with progress -- one sees that a lot in mainstream use of the terms. I believe that neo-Darwinism is a great scientific theory, and that it does explain the origin of biological complexity, namely humans. But it is easy to misinterpret it or take it too far. For example, by saying things like "human beings are more evolved than bacteria" which is nonsense. Telmo. > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.