I did quote you verbatim and assigned the quote to your name. The “proving the real fitness” part was not between quotes as in being assigned to you, it was in quotes to distinguish it as a phrase.
You meant to say that you can see after the fact that a species fitted, but that does not necessarily prove or disprove the fittest part.
My point was to say that that is nonsensical. When two species are competing for resources and only one survives, that is the fittest of the two. It is called survival of the fittest because the fittest is the one who is left standing.
There is nothing to prove or disprove. So maybe there were extinct species who were way more kickass at something than the remaining ones. It does not matter at all in evolutionary terns unless that kickassedness is put into staying alive
You are incorrect. Theories that can be proved are no longer theories, they become laws. We call it theory of evolution, and not law of evolution, in admitting that as beautiful and complete as it may seem, it is only plausible. There is plenty of room for unproven ideas in science. That is all theories are, an explanation for phenomena that we are not currently able to determine is the only correct explanation with certainty.
Anyway, what, exactly, is up to darwinists to prove?
This is why I asked you above, what exactly do you think darwinists need to prove. It appeared to me that you want proof the whoever survives is the fittest.
I said that there is no one fittest species. Survival determines who is fittest. Survival as in perpetuation.
Forgive me if I sound confusing. I can rephrase. You can say that we are the fittest of the Homo genus because we are the only ones left. This is after the fact because all the other ones are dead.
If you mean that that does not prove or disprove
that we are truly the fittest, I find that nonsensical because survival itself (as in perpetuation) is the very definition of fitness.
Yes I did notice that. Hence I used “we” meaning not you or me, but we as a human population.
I was making a point.
Besides you went on about humans damaging the environment in which it lives in another post and I fail to see how any other species would be different.
If there is fitness, then there must be indicators of fitness, otherwise the concept of “fitness” can never be taken seriously.
Survival.
The excuse of the Darwinists is, for example, that “fitness is more than fitness”. So they do not want to be taken seriously.
I am not familiar with that argument.
[quote
Yeah. Do you consider cockroaches as “the fittest”? [/quote]
Which ones? There are about 4600 known species.
Again: Nobody really knows “the fittest”, Phoneutria.
One can only say after some facts that this or that living being “fitted”. There are some indicators of fitness, as I already said, but in some cases (for example in the case of the human “social selection”) this indicators can also be used as if they were indicadors of unfitness.
Like what? Can you give me an example?
The Darwinistic “fitness” concept is problematic, the Darwinistic “selection principle” is partly false, and that includes the possibility of being totally false but also being partly right. I would like to save the right parts of that theory, because I think that it is going to be completely eliminated, if nobody will have eliminated its false parts in order to save its right parts.
I still don’t understand your objection.