Re: Reproductive Excess: Walter's False Premise


Tim Tyler wrote:
> Jim McGinn <jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote or quoted:
>
> > > . . . the cost of substitution is about
> > > one simple, unavoidable fact: Evolution requires
> > > reproductive excess.
> >
> > It always cracks me up when somebody places one
> > word in front of another and declares some new
> > truth. There is no such thing as, "reproductive
> > excess." Reproduction doesn't come with some
> > designated quota which can then be exceeded.
> >
> > The reminds me of Edserian tactics: throw a few
> > words around, declare a dramatic new truth, and
> > then implore everybody else to accept it.
> > In the meantime nobody, including it's author,
> > can make any rational sense of it.
> >
> > Amateur nonsense.
>
> "Reproductive excess" is not a recent coinage.
>
> The idea it refers to is essentially the one expressed by Malthus -
> that more individuals tend to be born that the environment can
support.

Okay, but, how does this, supposedly, add up to some
kind of a conclusion that hominids couldn't have
evolved from chimps. I can't make any sense of it.
It seems to me to be little more than an Edserian
tactic of using language liberally/poorly to create
a semantics based excuse for hand waving.

If anybody sees anything more than this going on here
I can only wonder what it is. It doesn't seem anybody
is willing to explain it, least of which Walter.

Jim


.