RE: Richard Dawkin's big blunder
March 14, 2014 at 10:50 am
(This post was last modified: March 14, 2014 at 10:50 am by Mister Agenda.)
(March 14, 2014 at 9:20 am)Heywood Wrote: Fitness paradigm isn't something imbued in life. The fitness paradigm is simply the mechanism which determines what is fit and what isn't.
And my speculation can be falsified by simulating evolution without designing a fitness paradigm.
Since by 'fitness paradigm' you seem to mean 'natural selection to improve adaptation to the reproductive environment' which is pretty much what evolution is, I presume that you would consider your speculation falsified (not that speculation needs to be falsified, it needs to be supported in the first place before it rises to the level that anyone should be bothered to try to falsify it) if the reproductive environment isn't designed, for example, if the reproductive environment is random.
Is that a fair statement? If so, do you want to change anything about your speculation at this point?
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.