Re: Falsification OR The Argument From Authority
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
sci.bio.evolution only
 
Advanced search
POPULAR GROUPS

more...

sci.bio.evolution Profile…
 Up
Re: Falsification OR The Argument From Authority         


Author: John W Edser
Date: Jun 9, 2008 10:31

Guy A Hoelzer unr.edu> wrote:-
> I think that are a very large number of things that could be meant by "the
> theory of evolution". Can you be more specific?

JE:-
Hi Guy,

My point is that just the ONE falsifiable theory of evolution exists:
the Darwinian monocentric theory. Only the ONE theory of evolution is
actually complete and therefore understandable because just ONE fitness
maximand per proposed unit of selection is rationale. Polycentric Neo
Darwinism is mostly misused mathematics within which contradictory
fitness maximands have been allowed. Reversible logic is not rationale
without non reversible logic proving mathematics not to be a science.
Show full article (1.40Kb)
4 Comments
Re: Falsification OR The Argument From Authority         


Author: Guy A Hoelzer
Date: Jun 10, 2008 10:21

Hi John,

After all these years, I think I understand what you mean by the theory of
evolution, although I don't remember you using that particular phrase (much
to your credit). Different people often have very different things in mind,
which is why I asked the previous poster for clarification before trying to
answer.

Guy

in article g2jpdu$guq$1@darwin.ediacara.org, John Edser at
edser@ozemail.com.au wrote on 6/9/08 10:31 AM:
>
> Guy A Hoelzer unr.edu> wrote:-
>
>> I think that are a very large number of things that could be meant by "the
>> theory of evolution". Can you be more specific?
>
> JE:-
> Hi Guy,
> ...
Show full article (1.91Kb)
no comments
Re: Falsification OR The Argument From Authority         


Author: Entertained by my own EIMC
Date: Jun 10, 2008 10:21

"John W Edser" ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:g2jpdu$guq$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
>
> Guy A Hoelzer unr.edu> wrote:-
>
>> I think that are a very large number of things that could be meant by
>> "the
>> theory of evolution". Can you be more specific?
>
> JE:-
> Hi Guy,
>
> My point is that just the ONE falsifiable theory of evolution exists:
> the Darwinian monocentric theory. Only the ONE theory of evolution is
> actually complete and therefore understandable because just ONE fitness
> maximand per proposed unit of selection is rationale. Polycentric Neo
> Darwinism is mostly misused mathematics within which contradictory
> fitness maximands have been allowed. Reversible logic is not rationale
> without non reversible logic proving mathematics not to be a science.
> ...
Show full article (2.51Kb)
no comments
Re: Falsification OR The Argument From Authority         


Author: Cj
Date: Jun 27, 2008 12:36

Entertained by my own EIMC wrote:
> "John W Edser" ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> news:g2jpdu$guq$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
>> Guy A Hoelzer unr.edu> wrote:-
>>
>>> I think that are a very large number of things that could be meant by
>>> "the
>>> theory of evolution". Can you be more specific?
>> JE:-
>> Hi Guy,
>>
>> My point is that just the ONE falsifiable theory of evolution exists:
>> the Darwinian monocentric theory. Only the ONE theory of evolution is
>> actually complete and therefore understandable because just ONE fitness
>> maximand per proposed unit of selection is rationale. Polycentric Neo
>> Darwinism is mostly misused mathematics within which contradictory
>> fitness maximands have been allowed. Reversible logic is not rationale
>> without non reversible logic proving mathematics not to be a science.
>>
>> If you allowgreat non falsifiable theories of evolution as bona fide ...
Show full article (2.76Kb)
no comments
Re: Falsification OR The Argument From Authority         


Author: Entertained by my own EIMC
Date: Jun 28, 2008 23:28

"Cj" mist.net> wrote in message
news:g43fgb$1e6c$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
> This would be more interesting if you made the whole thing a single
> sentence, it would save on punctuation and have exactly the same meaning.
> Cj

Cj,,,,,,,,
Gulp, but thanks. %%-}

I shall try to apply your advice; and, if I manage to do so, this will make
me into someone who merely have had a sojourn in a mental state of being
both semantically and essentially message-wise hard to swallow; something
which should make me think, accompanied by feelings of philo_genetic
fondness, of you as the mutagene that made me 'evolve' into mastering the
art of making S_EPT_IC sense.

May your critical contributions never cease!

P
no comments

RELATED THREADS
SubjectArticles qty Group
Re: Creationist Argument: Argument by Undeclared Variable2 talk.origins ·