Posted: Aug 08, 2013 9:24 am
by hackenslash
Arthur Methoxy wrote:I will simplify. My claim for Empedocles rests on the truth or falsity of this statement:

"a polar bears' foot would not be a successful adaptation for a bacterium growing on it despite the environment being the same."

Make a reasoned argument against that, or state some flaw in it. I can see a flaw in it, but I think you will have some difficulty. Could be wrong, we'll see, or not. Try and leave out the complaints this time.

I can easily state the flaw in this (not that Paul hasn't already done so), namely that the environment is not the same. What's that you say? It's cold?

You might make some progress when you learn precisely what 'environment' means in evolutionary theory. It comprises all the factors that impact an organism's chances of surviving to reproduction. For the bacterium, the selection pressures faced (and the resource niche occupied) are absolutely fuck all like those faced by the bear.

Further, evolutionary theory doesn't postulate adaptations as inevitable, another palsy in your fatuous understanding of evolution.

Utter fucking ignorant shit.