Subject:
|
Re: Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 10 Mar 2000 03:49:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1035 times
|
| |
|
|
On Wed, 8 Mar 2000 16:28:27 GMT, Christopher Tracey
<ctracey@wamalug.org> wrote:
>
>
> Mr L F Braun wrote:
> > Ack! My eyeballs just had a seizure! Galapagos. :) Those are all still
> > microevolutionary--macroevolution, it's generally believed, requires a strong shift
> > in environments, which may be underway now (though we won't see the results for a
> > long time). There's also the question of what constitutes "macro," since that's a
> > notoriously subjective term--what is "big" or "little?" Darwin's contribution was
> > the principle of Survival of the Fittest; full-blown evolutionary theory is way too
> > big to be the creation (pun unintended, please don't send me to .pun) of any one
> > person.
>
> I disagree with the term "Survival of the Fittest," shouldn't it be
> something more like "Reproduction of the Fittest(1)?"
And, I must jump in, cause, well, I do, but if I remember my History
of Anthropology course (if only I could find my notes!) it was
actually Herbert Spencer (a wild and wacky social darwinist) coined
that term.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
541 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
