Re: Single Entity or Separate Organisms
- From: John Edser <edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 14:10:18 -0400 (EDT)
vodyanoj <vodyanoj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:-
Single entity where? On the planetary surface, all the way through a
given planetary system, or universally? At some scales, a breakdown
into independent organisms is necessary. I can see treating it as an
organism within a single biosphere, or withing a single evolutionary
history, but you'll have to deal with the thorny question of how far
this organism extends in time before we have to call it a different
one: the same problem that haunts the idea of chronospecies....
JE:
Just like any other science, evolutionary theory absolutely requires
falsifiable frames of reference just to be able to make rationale sense.
There is nothing new in this since it was amply demonstrated by Galileo
in the mid 1600's. The fertile organism (not to be confused with just an
infertile organism) presents a critical constant frame of reference for
calculating a falsifiable fitness within Darwin's _very strictly_
mono-centric theory (any evolutionary theory which only allows the one
level of selection). This falsifiable fitness is TDF (Total Darwinian
Fitness defined as the total number of fertile forms reproduced per
parent per population only allowing fertile forms to be selected and
populations of same to evolve (not the reverse which is allowed within
Neo Darwinism). Poly-centric Neo Darwinism only provides a non
falsifiable, poly-centric, mathematical oversimplification of
mono-centric Darwinian theory within which critical fitness goal posts
can be moved at will to evade falsification. While poly-centric models
make mathematical sense they do not make scientific sense. Mathematics
is not a science simply because it has no falsifiable frame of reference
(as I contend was firstly proven by Godel). However, you do not require
Godel's complex mathematical proof to demonstrate that mathematics is
not self consistent. All that is required is a basic understanding of
Zeno's Paradox which I contend can only be solved if the start and the
end of the race become re-included within the paradox as EMPIRICALLY
BASED constants. Zeno's paradox, which remains unsolved within
mathematics, is just a 100% abstract paradox produced by artificially
deleting the start and end of the race. It represents a classic example
of the misuse of mathematics in an attempt to provide a problem where no
problem exists. I cannot provide a clearer example of the stupidity of
substituting empirically based science with mathematics. However this
error has become so gross that they have named an entire epistemology
after it: Post Modernism where like mathematics, everything remains
relative to just nothing defined by anybody.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Maybe biology can feed with different kind of energies like
- Next by Date: News: Space - The not-so-final frontier
- Previous by thread: Re: Single Entity or Separate Organisms
- Next by thread: bacterial generations - how are they tracked ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
