Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
flaw in Darwin Evolution grafted rootstock
Tue, 15 Jun 2004 13:12:08 +0200 P van Rijckevorsel wrote:
Archimedes Plutonium schreef No, this is a flaw in Darwin Evolution theory. Your above is another example of "postdiction" of Darwin Evolution. This particular flaw is that of "generalist" versus "specialist" and that when a plant or animal becomes too specialist faces the quick road to extinction. If you look at the record of species gone extinct it is replete with specialists, seldom any generalist. + + + The keyword here is "too specialist". Species can go extinct when they become "too generalist" also + + + [...] So no plant or animal would make a choice of going to be specialized from that of generalized. + + + Lots of them do, for very good reasons. Specialists outcompete generalists, as long as their specialty applies. This leads to increased chances of survival. + + + May I interject environment into the above. It is the environment itself that is forcing and shaping plant and animal species to go down a path of becoming too specialist or too generalist. But then Darwin Evolution does not count the "factor of environment". So Darwin Evolution is flawed on that account. So, Darwin Evolution is again a flawed theory which works okay in large part but is flawed and frayed at all margins. It is an algorithm, a rule of thumb. + + + As algorithms are something entirely different from rules of thumb, you may want to choose which you mean? + + + Well Ohms law is not a law of physics. It is a algorithm or rule of thumb. A slide-ruler ( remember those old cumbersome instruments of the 1970s) is an algorithm for finding a math answer but seldom gives you the precise and accurate answer that a math computation gives. The true theory + + + This is a contradiction in terms. Something either is true (seen from a religious perspective) or a theory (a scientific law). A "true theory" is a falsehood. + + + that replaces Darwin Evolution is what John Bell, the physicist called Superdeterminism. For you cannot have a world where both Darwin Evolution and Superdeterminism co-exist. + + + Allright, as I cannot have it, maybe you should have it? PvR Let us not be focused on semantics of words, theory, true, false when we need to focus on Darwin Evolution. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
whether grafted RockElm or rootstock SiberianElm and what roles theyplay | Plant Science | |||
Compounding replacing Darwin Evolution; NOVA show on tetrapods ofDevonian | Plant Science | |||
Compounding replacing Darwin Evolution; NOVA show on tetrapods of Devonian | Plant Science | |||
grafted rootstock | Plant Science | |||
(1) Layering and (2) seed dispersal [Was: grafted rootstock] | Plant Science |