Evolution in action

[HMS_Beagle]

It works perfectly fine when the particular trait is in fact useful in all but the most extreme of environments.

First you claim that a trait like intelligence is objectively superior. Then you turn around say that's true except for the completely subjectively determined "extreme" environments.

Thank you for efficiently and thoroughly refuting your own argument.

[Darth Executor]

First you claim that a trait like intelligence is objectively superior. Then you turn around say that's true except for the completely subjectively determined "extreme" environments.

Thank you for efficiently and thoroughly refuting your own argument.

As I've said over and over and over, a trait that is useful in all but the most extreme of environments is objectively superior to one that is hardly ever useful. And no, extreme environments are not "subjectively" determined. The extremity of an environment does not depend on personal opinion. Life has requirements for sustaining itself. There is a whole class of organisms named for their ability to survive extreme environments, and despite being "completely subjective" scientists don't seem to have much trouble identifying them.

[Darth Executor]

Sheesh! Here I gave you an illustration of how an environmental circumstance (the distribution of the corn meal) turned the bird's size and defensive abilities against it, so that the "inferior" birds thrived while the "superior" bird starved.

But that's not what happened. What happened is that the smaller birds got a trait (teamwork) that was superior to mere size. That doesn't make size bad, even in that environment. In a scenario where you have small birds and one big bird trying to hide from an even bigger predator and the big bird can't hide due to its size and gets eaten, then you'd have a more accurate scenario for whatever point you're trying to make (presumably, because I think some traits are objectively good, I must also think that all traits are either objectively good or bad, which is absurd).

And your answer seems to be "environment had nothing to do with it, the bigger bird STILL BENEFITED." Even though it got nothing.

And I explained how it benefited: it didn't get the crap beaten out of it by a swarm of birds. If everything else was equal but the size of the bird was similar to those it was trying to chase off, would it be better off or worse off in your scenario? If the answer is "worse off" (and it is), it makes no sense to blame its size for the situation.

And the reason it starved while the "inferior" birds feasted, is because the bigger bird has "objectively good traits."

Where did I say size is an objectively good trait? Or that the small birds are inferior? Stop putting words in my mouth.

Talk about just talking at a brick wall.

Indeed.

[HMS_Beagle]

As I've said over and over and over, a trait that is useful in all but the most extreme of environments is objectively superior to one that is hardly ever useful.

What you say and what you can demonstrate are two different things.

Please provide the objective criteria for determining "useful".

Please provide the objective criteria for determining "hardly ever".

And no, extreme environments are not "subjectively" determined. The extremity of an environment does not depend on personal opinion.

Please provide the objective criteria for determining when an environment becomes "extreme".

Life has requirements for sustaining itself. There is a whole class of organisms named for their ability to survive extreme environments, and despite being "completely subjective" scientists don't seem to have much trouble identifying them.

Your link says nothing about how much a "normal" environment has to vary before it becomes "extreme". That's a subjective call, just as "useful" and "hardly ever" are subjective calls. Your argument is toast.

[HMS_Beagle]

As I've said over and over and over, a trait that is useful in all but the most extreme of environments is objectively superior to one that is hardly ever useful.

Which is objectively superior - a great white shark's swimming speed or a tiger's running speed?

[Darth Executor]

What you say and what you can demonstrate are two different things.

Despite his inane analogy, at least phank is trying

Please provide the objective criteria for determining "useful". [/quote]

I have already done so in this thread once, no need to preach twice for a deaf hag.

Please provide the objective criteria for determining "hardly ever".

Frequency and likelihood of encounter.

Please provide the objective criteria for determining when an environment becomes "extreme".

Please provide evidence you are not mentally retarded.

Your link says nothing about how much a "normal" environment has to vary before it becomes "extreme".

It is aimed at a more intellectual crowd.

That's a subjective call, just as "useful" and "hardly ever" are subjective calls. Your argument is toast.

Not a single one of those is a subjective call. In fact, I'm starting to see the problem: you have no clue what subjective means.

[HMS_Beagle]

Please provide evidence you are not mentally retarded.

OK, you can't provide any criteria for telling when normal stops and extreme starts. Thanks for admitting your argument lost.

Not a single one of those is a subjective call.

LOL! "useful" is a well defined objective term. "hardly ever" is a well defined objective term.

I'm starting to see the problem: you have no clue what subjective means.

The real problem seems to be you don't understand what objective means. To determine if a trait is objectively superior you have to tightly specify the environment under consideration and tightly specify the criteria for superiority. You have done neither, which is why your claim will always remain subjective.

[Darth Executor]

OK, you can't provide any criteria for telling when normal stops and extreme starts. Thanks for admitting your argument lost.

There's no criteria for where exactly the red stops and the orange begins on a rainbow and yet we still have red and orange.

LOL! "useful" is a well defined objective term. "hardly ever" is a well defined objective term.

Objective means it's independent of personal opinion. Something's usefulness may be dependent on circumstances, but that doesn't make it subjective. Variance =/= subjectivity. I'm guessing that you're also misusing "well defined" when what you actually mean is that it's not specific enough.

The real problem seems to be you don't understand what objective means. To determine if a trait is objectively superior you have to tightly specify the environment under consideration and tightly specify the criteria for superiority.

You don't, actually, but this is what you previously referred to as "subjective". It seems that your definitions of objective and subjective are themselves subjective, amusingly enough.

[HMS_Beagle]

There's no criteria for where exactly the red stops and the orange begins on a rainbow and yet we still have red and orange.

Actually there is an objective criteria. By international scientific convention yellow is defined as light with a wavelength between 570-590 nm, orange is defined as light with a wavelength between 590-620 nm.

If you were doing a scientific determination of the color of light from a star you can use that objective criteria.

When you and your girlfriend are arguing over the color of a sunset you are both using your subjective judgement.

It's the same for determining an "extreme" environment. There is no scientifically agree upon convention for "extreme" i.e water with a temp. of above 135 deg F or pH less than 5. You called me mentally retarded and posted a link describing a continuum but the fact remains any judgement about when a particular environment qualifies as "extreme" is a subjective call of where on the continuum "extreme" starts.

Objective means it's independent of personal opinion.

That's right. So why do you keep mangling the concept?

Something's usefulness may be dependent on circumstances, but that doesn't make it subjective.

Of course it does by definition. "Useful" is a continuum just like yellow to orange. There is no accepted formal convention for "usefulness" that can be used in objective determination.

Variance =/= subjectivity.

Determining the usefulness of the variance is subjectivity unless you tightly define "useful" (i.e empirically measured contribution to reproductive success) If you claim differently, please show objectively which more useful (i.e 'superior") to a falcon; its eyesight or its flying ability.