Re: Darwinism=Capitalism

From: John Edser (edser_at_tpg.com.au)
Date: 10/28/04

  • Next message: Michael Ragland: "Genetically Engineering the Human Species" 
    Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 03:17:41 +0000 (UTC)

    "Lennart Kiil" <kiilx@xtele2adsl.dk> wrote:
    > References: <ckn2ig$1v76$1@darwin.ediacara.org>

    > > MR:-
    > > Darwin's theories of evolution didn't
    > > incorporate Mendelian genetics, random genetic drift, kin selection,
    > > group selection, etc. Now I'm not saying this means Darwin's theories
    > > have been invalidated as a result. Indeed, they have been proven in
    > > experiments. And to the best of my knowledge Mendelian genetics and
    > > random genetic drift aren't incompatible with Darwin's theories. Kin
    > > selection, however, appears to have a basis in some insect populations.
    > > Hamilton is famous for this and developing an equation for it. Mr. Edser
    > > finds no scientific-empirical basis for it. Nevertheless, kin selection
    > > was not one of Darwin's theories on evolution although I believe he
    > > commented on the phenomenon. Both kin selection and group selection have
    > > been extended to human evolution by some scientists. Are they as
    > > scientifically validated as Darwin's theory of natural selection
    > > (individual selection), sexual selection, etc.? No, they aren't. They
    > > are hypotheses rather than theories. All I'm saying is just because
    > > Darwin didn't include group selection in his theories of evolution
    > > doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    > LK:-
    > Of course not.

    JE:-
    Darwin provided the only testable to refutation
    theory of evolution that we have, to this very
    day. Unless (like Dr Hoelzer) you simply throw out
    basic Popperian refutation then the fact that
    "kin selection and group selection have
    been extended to human evolution by some
    scientists" where however, this remains
    entirely _outside_ of Darwinian theory
    just results in the junking of evolutionary
    theory as a valid _science_ because these
    Neo Darwinistic views cannot be tested to
    refutation.

    Regards,

    John Edser
    Independent Researcher

    PO Box 266
    Church Pt
    NSW 2105
    Australia

    edser@tpg.com.au

  • Next message: Michael Ragland: "Genetically Engineering the Human Species"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Seanpit, ID and complexity
      ... random mutation and I assume natural selection. ... think (using empirical evidence to support your position) each of them ... I, in fact, did define evolution: ... Even Paley recognized variation within a species. ...
      (talk.origins)
    • Evolutionary Theory
      ... controlled random mutations and contingent selection ... Evolution and Natural Selection. ...
      (sci.bio.evolution)
    • Re: Rupture aortic aneurysm
      ... couldn't catch food or would have been killed by other animals. ... No. Natural selection can explain how ... "Slugs, when attacked, can contract their body, making themselves harder and more compact and thus more difficult for many animals to get a hold. ... direction that evolution will probably take. ...
      (sci.med.cardiology)
    • Re: Revised Tautology FAQ - Thread-5
      ... He has foisted evolution ... point has nothing to do with whether natural selection is a tautology. ... misconstrued as the fittest surviving? ...
      (talk.origins)
    • Re: Howard Hershey: Correction by RM
      ... his "magnum opus" against evolution. ... without producing any evidence that you ... that evolution via natural selection (there is still evolution through ... reproductive success in a population, then NS would be falsified (and, ...
      (talk.origins)
    Loading