TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
You can't "repeat" what you've never done.
The link is right there. Everybody can read it. Several people have already it pointed out to you since then as well.
Are you suggesting that since I wasn't aware that mate selection is now part of survival of the fittest
It's part of natural selection and has always been. As has been explained to you multiple times.
in which I do not believe that my usage of the word "mate selection" is wrong?
It is in the context you were using it.
I can only suggest you look up the words "mate" and "selection'. When you do try to remember that "mate selection" isn't really a force in every species. There is no evidence for instance that a yew tree can exclude any male. I did mention other such examples.
Your posts have devolved into semantical arguments.
No.
When you use the word "fit" differently then when it is mentioned in evolution theory, and when used by every evolutionary biologists out there, and then try to use that warped definition to make a point about it in context of evolution, then all we can do is point out the fallacy.
This is one single word and you want to leverage your belief in the referent for this word into proof I and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong about everything.
As also said already, it has nothing to do with my personal beliefs or opinions and everything to do with the actual science of evolutionary biology and what those terms mean in that context.
Semantics can never define reality. Reality can't even be modeled in words and you want to use them and word games to create the reality you believe exists. Good luck with that. I don't believe in this reality you are trying to create.
Words are used to describe reality. Hence why it is important to no warp the meaning of the words of those descriptions when talking in such context.
If you would lay out your nonsense about evolution to an evolutionary biologist while using your personal definition of "fitness", all you will get is a funny look.
I don't believe you can understand even the double slit experiment without understanding consciousness so I certainly don't believe you can understand change in species without understanding the nature of consciousness.
Random comment is random
Yeah, science is hard sometimes. That's not a reason to reject it. To do so is just intellectual lazyness.Reality is impossibly complex so trying to model it with experiment is exceedingly difficult. Our science is a powerful tool but it's not yet up to the job. Deal with it.