Is natural selection undeniable?

[backspace]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_frm/thread/3ad8e23dc2d07d34#

Is natural selection undeniable?"
The question isn't valid. It certainly isn't testable. Here's why.
We define only an existing life-form as being selected. We can't then
turn around and say that nature selected that form, for nature might
have had some other form lined up. We could, in fact, point to a
non-existing life-form and say that because it doesn't exist then
natural selection doesn't work.
What started out looking like a question that could be empirically
ascertained as being true or "undeniable", actually turns out to be a
species of tautology. In this case, synonyms (natural selection, and
life-forms that exist) are erroneously regarded as different events
in
relationship.
AN EXAMPLE to CLARIFY
For example. We could say that "it is undeniable that explosions
cause
things to fly apart". Here the tautology is to regard the synonyms
"explosion" and "fly apart" as two empirically real events in
relationship, when in fact there is only one event.
Similarly, "natural selection" and "existing life-form" aren't two
empirically real events in undeniable relationship. There is no
empirical relationship at all, as there is only one event.

[backspace]

Skyeys wrote: nr45

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_frm/thread/3ad8e23dc2d07d34#


45. SkyEyes
View profile
More options Feb 14 2010, 6:05 am
On Feb 13, 5:54 am, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> "Is natural selection undeniable?"

Yes, it is undeniable, and it's exceeding easy to demonstrate.
Take two people of breeding age, of the same gender, who have the
same
number of offspring. Plonk them both down in the wilds of
Yellowstone, unarmed, 20 yards in front of a hungry grizzly.
One of them will run faster than the other, and will survive to have
more offspring. Her/his genes - including that ability to run fast -
will be passed on to those offspring. The beneficial trait - being a
fast runner - has been selected by the environment. *That's all
natural selection is.*
You know, as much as you try to make this unintelligible rocket
science, it just isn't. It's perfectly straightforward and sensible,
and all your yammering isn't going to make it go away.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net

[backspace]

On May 13, 10:57 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Skyeys wrote: nr45
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/browse_frm/thread/3ad8e...

>
> 45.  SkyEyes
> View profile
>  More options Feb 14 2010, 6:05 am
> On Feb 13, 5:54 am, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > "Is natural selection undeniable?"
>
> Yes, it is undeniable, and it's exceeding easy to demonstrate.
> Take two people of breeding age, of the same gender, who have the
> same
> number of offspring.  Plonk them both down in the wilds of
> Yellowstone, unarmed, 20 yards in front of a hungry grizzly.
> One of them will run faster than the other, and will survive to have
> more offspring.  Her/his genes - including that ability to run fast -
> will be passed on to those offspring.  The beneficial trait - being a
> fast runner - has been selected by the environment.  *That's all
> natural selection is.*

Is F=ma and Newton's inverse square law undeniable? They are deniable
for falsifiable , hence they are scientific theories and not
tautologies. What happens, happens is undeniable, hence not a theory
but a logical validity. We are after theories not truisms.

[backspace]

-