Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen
Ah, so I am disqualified from the discussion based upon my occupation. Very well, you may have it as you like it. If I were a smaller man, I'd ask what it is that you do, and then use it against you in a similar manner. Fortunately for you, I am that that type of person.
|
Not at all disqualified. I did not say that at all, nor did I mean that.
The point was merely to use the "fitness" definition from evolutionary biology or population genetics, that's all. Just like "theory" in other discussions we've had here before. If someone uses the dictionary definition, then an observed fact like evolution can become "just a theory" since the scientific definition of theory is so very much more specific than the dictionary version. The scientific fitness definitions include reproduction (sometimes as math (relative abundance of a genotype, etc)).
The definition is important in this case I think because social darwinists (who misuse the language of evolutionary biology) will in effect use the dictionary definition to weed out the "weak" with terrible consequences.
If my writing was poor enough to give offense (quite possible for me) then I apologize, sincerely. No offense was meant, I didn't read what I wrote in that way at all, or I would have written it differently. I am not a biologist, but I entertained paleontology for a while in school (and took classes)—then ended up working with a bunch of paleontologists for about 10 years.