 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Bio Evolution Forum » The Silliest Show On Earth... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| John Edser... |
 Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 5:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECE77Imki9M&feature=topvideos
Dawkins continues to make millions out of the silliest show on earth..
Note that the key word "falsifiability" is never employed by Dawkins.
Without this Popperian concept Dawkins argument remains no better than
the ID belief presented by O'Reilly. Science has never consisted of non
falsifiable beliefs such as ID. Scientists, but not religious
dogmatists, are absolutely required to present empirically falsifiable
theories e.g. Darwin's Theory (not model) Of Evolution By Natural
selection. Other examples are Newton's Mechanics and Einstein's Special
Theory. Please note: Darwin's proposed theory of evolution has no
relationship to Herbert Spencer's "survival of the fittest" tautology.
Yet Spencer has been allowed to misrepresent Darwinian theory for over
150 years. Fortunately, belief/disbelief were and remain irrelevant to
the sciences (but not to the politics of science). In short, a belief is
not a valid theory and mathematics is not a valid
science.
Dawkins' cannot employ "falsifiability" against O'Reilly (which is the
only weapon he has) simply because today, Neo Darwinism consists
entirely of non falsifiable mathematics. IOW, the same weapon can be
used by O'Reilly against Dawkins. Mathematics is not a science because
it can be easily demonstrated that all by itself, mathematics has no
frame of reference (let alone a falsifiable frame of reference).
Dawkins' "Selfish genes" promoting "altruistic organisms" never had an
empirical reality because both have to be selected within the one,
same unit of selection (mono-centricity), employing a Darwinian
epistatic, heritable total fitness per parent per population. Genetic
epistasis (non additive genetic associations including every gene
fitness association within the same genome) remain artificially deleted
within Neo Darwinian mathematics, including Dawkins selfish gene model.
Dawkins argument was and remains based on Hamilton's uncorrected,
oversimplified model of Darwinism within which Total Darwinian Fitness
(TDF) remains ignored/deleted. Only TDF can supply a falsifiable frame
of reference for evolutionary theory, allowing O'Reilly and ID beliefs
to forever remain separate from Darwin and his science of evolution.
The continued Neo Darwinian employment of Hamilton and Haldane's
multi-unit mathematics as a bona fide theory allowed the popular
delusion that an altruistic organism fitness can be selected for within
nature. The poly-centric smoke screen employed by Neo Darwinism only
represents a gross misuse of mathematics within evolutionary theory,
most probably for political purposes.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser at (no spam) ozemail.com.au' |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PG... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 5:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"John Edser" <edser at (no spam) ozemail.com.au> a écrit dans le message de news:
hba3ri$nht$1 at (no spam) darwin.ediacara.org...
[quote:a8edef90f5]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECE77Imki9M&feature=topvideos
Dawkins continues to make millions out of the silliest show on earth..
Note that the key word "falsifiability" is never employed by Dawkins.
Without this Popperian concept Dawkins argument remains no better than
the ID belief presented by O'Reilly. Science has never consisted of non
falsifiable beliefs such as ID. Scientists, but not religious
dogmatists, are absolutely required to present empirically falsifiable
theories e.g. Darwin's Theory (not model) Of Evolution By Natural
selection. Other examples are Newton's Mechanics and Einstein's Special
Theory. Please note: Darwin's proposed theory of evolution has no
relationship to Herbert Spencer's "survival of the fittest" tautology.
Yet Spencer has been allowed to misrepresent Darwinian theory for over
150 years. Fortunately, belief/disbelief were and remain irrelevant to
the sciences (but not to the politics of science). In short, a belief is
not a valid theory and mathematics is not a valid
science.
Dawkins' cannot employ "falsifiability" against O'Reilly (which is the
only weapon he has) simply because today, Neo Darwinism consists
entirely of non falsifiable mathematics. IOW, the same weapon can be
used by O'Reilly against Dawkins. Mathematics is not a science because
it can be easily demonstrated that all by itself, mathematics has no
frame of reference (let alone a falsifiable frame of reference).
Dawkins' "Selfish genes" promoting "altruistic organisms" never had an
empirical reality because both have to be selected within the one,
same unit of selection (mono-centricity), employing a Darwinian
epistatic, heritable total fitness per parent per population. Genetic
epistasis (non additive genetic associations including every gene
fitness association within the same genome) remain artificially deleted
within Neo Darwinian mathematics, including Dawkins selfish gene model.
Dawkins argument was and remains based on Hamilton's uncorrected,
oversimplified model of Darwinism within which Total Darwinian Fitness
(TDF) remains ignored/deleted. Only TDF can supply a falsifiable frame
of reference for evolutionary theory, allowing O'Reilly and ID beliefs
to forever remain separate from Darwin and his science of evolution.
The continued Neo Darwinian employment of Hamilton and Haldane's
multi-unit mathematics as a bona fide theory allowed the popular
delusion that an altruistic organism fitness can be selected for within
nature. The poly-centric smoke screen employed by Neo Darwinism only
represents a gross misuse of mathematics within evolutionary theory,
most probably for political purposes.
[/quote:a8edef90f5]
It would be interesting to see what answers you got to this on the official
RD site forum at http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/ - perhaps the man
himself might be encouraged to respond.
pg |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Wed Dec 02, 2009 3:12 pm
|
|