Other than noting the organism thrived how was its suitability to the environment derived ? Let me help you out here. Your argument rests on a truism:The organism exists or The organism is suited to its environment. And this is the essence of your statement which of course is just truism. So in order to disguise your truism you turn it into a tautology. You tell me the organism “thrived”, obviously how else could it have thrived if it wasn’t well suited to its environment? Telling me it “thrived” doesn’t tell me anything more that what is implied with:" … well-suited…"
Where can I read this formally defined and established theory which you label “Natural Selection”. Is the term “natural selection” in an of itself the actual theory or is it a label for some yet to be defined theory that will explain how an egg turns into a chicken?
You are limiting your understanding of the word to the forth definition, and ignoring the first definition. This definition allows for the special definition of scientific inquiry which described the processes of undertaking scientific investigations - details at Wiki. It is obvious to any reader familiar with the English language that 'Luthon’s intent in using the phrase “think […] of [the term “Evolution”] as a term denoting [an] area of […] scientific inquiry” was to indicate that “Evolution” has a meaning beyond simply “change” and that meaning is the subject, the target, the focus of many diverse areas of scientific investigation from a variety of fields which all point to the same thing, the same theory of Evolution. Remember in the distant past that I said that Evolution has it’s own meaning in the field of biology? Any dictionary will list this biological definition separately from the “change” definition that you are clinging to.
We did this for you on the previous thread about Natural Selection and triangular circles. Here we go again. Just ignoring what was posted there does not mean that it wasn’t sufficient evidence.
Here are some ones which may have been posted already (if they were, you haven’t commented on them)…
No. As I stated previously, “Survival of the Fittest” is not a theory, it is a pop-marketing phrase for the theory of Natural Selection. In my example of the antelope with deformed blood cells I showed that it is not always the fittest that survive and will continue to guarantee the survival of the species. I also said that we don’t say that the elephant is fit because it is here and alive, no, we say that it is fitter than the mammoth because Natural Selection acted on these particular traits which the mammoth didn’t have, or the mammoth had these particular adverse traits.
Here comes the most important link of this post - even if you don’t follow any of the other links that I have provided - go to this document at the Talk Origins Archive and tell us what about this article you do not understand.
We have theories for that, in case you didn’t know, biologists have studied Fertilisation and Embryology for centuries. If you think that Natural Selection is supposed to replace these theories then you are very misguided.
In view of ArgumentumAdHominem’s detailed elucidation which strongly suggests that I was hardly being obscure, I am forced to wonder whether you are being deliberately provocative because it seems nigh impossible that anyone really, really could mimic the spectacular density of a neutron star.
Other than noting that you keep asking the same silly question over and over, how is your inability to comprehend fairly simple abstract principles to be detected? Your question is meaningless because it rests on the false assumption that “thriving” and “suitability to the environment” are statically equivalent to one other. Neither the environment nor the organisms in it remain static in any sense of that word for any length of time.
Please don’t help me, I implore you. Of course it’s a truism if you implicitly assume that “thriving” is idempotent to “suited to the environment!” This implicit assumption is probably the result of it being quite obvious to us today that there is an ongoing dynamic and competitive interplay between organisms and their environment, and forgetting – conveniently, I suspect – that this interdependence was not at all obvious in the past.
So you can insist on calling “tautology” and “truism” all you want because it’ll only show up your profound ignorance for what it really is. And if you do, then you must necessarily also concede that “E = m∙c2” is a truism and a tautology because it has always been true and there is no reason to doubt that it will continue to be true.
The environment changed to be even more conducive to the proliferation of that organism, for example if a natural enemy went extinct. Two words for you: “rabbits” and “Australia”.
Rubbish. See above.
Richard Dawkins’ book The Blind Watchmaker is just one of an almost endless list of places where good information is to be had. If you’re really interested, there are many links to resources in this very forum. You could even attend a reputable university if you want the nitty-gritty low-down.
Neither. Think about it, unless you’re being either silly or disingenuous.
“…Natural selection. According to this theory, evolutionary change comes about through the abundant production of genetic variation in every generation. The relatively few individuals who survive, owing to a particularly well-adapted combination of inheritable characters, give rise to the next generation…”
Other than noting that the individuals were well-adapted how was it determined that they survived ?
This “reality” includes, presumably, the notion that repeating ad nauseam the same nonsensical question will, at some indeterminate future point, imbue it with import. In other words, it’s a “reality” where the ritualistic approach is both primary and pervasive.