"A Good Tautology is Hard to Avoid"
david ford
of natural selection. However, the essay below deals with a T.O. FAQ
and might be of interest.
Eric Anderson, "A Good Tautology is Hard to Avoid"
http://www.evolutiondebate.info/A%20Good%20Tautology%20is%20Hard%20to%20Avoid.htm
Critics of evolutionary theory have long argued that the concept of
natural selection is a tautology. John Wilkins seeks to counter this
argument in his article "A Good Tautology is Hard to Find" on the
site, The Talk.Origins Archive.
Wilkins' discussion, found at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html, contains two
points that I would like to address. The first is Wilkins' contention
that the concept of natural selection is not a tautology. The second
is his contention that natural selection rules out many possibilities,
which adds to its substantive explanatory power. Let's examine each
of these points in turn.
Tautology
In his article, Wilkins states:
"The simple version of the so-called 'tautology argument' is this:
Natural selection is the survival of the fittest. The fittest are
those that survive. Therefore, evolution by natural selection is a
tautology (a circular definition).
The real significance of this argument is not the argument itself, but
that it was taken seriously by any professional philosophers at all.
'Fitness' to Darwin meant not those that survive, but those that could
be expected to survive because of their adaptations and functional
efficiency, when compared to others in the population."
In other words, according to Wilkins, Darwin used fitness to mean not
those that did survive but those that were expected to survive. Thus
Wilkins implies that we will not have a tautology if we reword the
definition as follows: "Natural selection is survival of the fittest.
The fittest are those that are expected to survive." If natural
selection is properly doing its job of selecting, which we are assured
it always does, then those that are expected to survive will be those
that will survive. So if we take what would otherwise be a tautology
and change the verb tense, then it is no longer a tautology?
The problem is that under Wilkins' approach, natural selection will
mean nothing more than survival of those that are expected to survive,
and we are still left with a tautology. We haven't gotten anywhere by
shifting the focus from those that did survive to those that are
expected to survive. In fairness, there is a way out of the tautology
problem, as I will discuss below, but natural selection needs to be
formulated much more carefully than just proposing that we should
focus on expected survival rather than actual survival.
Wilkins' next sentence is as follows:
"This is not a tautology, or, if it is, then so is the Newtonian
equation F=ma (Sober 1984, chapter 2), which is the basis for a lot of
ordinary physical explanation."
This is tantamount to saying: "Even if natural selection is a
tautology, so what? It still explains lots of good stuff." Now I
doubt Wilkins really believes that F=ma is a tautology; rather he is
arguing that the logical construction of natural selection is
essentially analogous to other constructions that we accept as good,
valid scientific statements. Unfortunately, there is too much
reliance on Sober and too much reliance on a bad analogy.
Wilkins' confusion results from a failure to distinguish between two
very different logical constructions: equivalence and tautology.
Equivalence is a pure A=B construction. Under Wilkins' statement,
6=2*3 would also be a tautology. But it is not; it is a statement of
equivalence.
In contrast, a tautology is essentially a logical argument or
proposition of causation (or, if you prefer, premise and conclusion)
with two parts: (1) an if . . . then . . . relationship, such as If A,
then B, coupled with (2) a definition of A (the cause or the premise)
by reference to B (the effect or the conclusion). This is precisely
the problem that plagues natural selection as it is so often
described: If the organism is fit, then it will survive; and fitness
means that it did survive (or will survive, or is expected to survive,
take your pick).
Let's look again at the Newtonian equation F=ma. Even though force,
mass and acceleration can be mathematically described in terms of each
other, they do not cause each other. Force doesn't cause mass; mass
doesn't cause acceleration. The mathematical equation is an
equivalence statement of their relationship.
In contrast, natural selection posits a cause-effect relationship.
Because of an organism's fitness, it is theorized, the organism
survived (will survive, is expected to survive, etc.). Thus natural
selection is in the business of explaining what leads to or causes
survival. So far, so good. But when we then seek to explain this
causal relationship by defining the causative element ("fitness") in
terms of the resulting element ("survival"), we have a tautology.
I indicated that there is a way out of the tautology problem, and
there is. But only if the cause, fitness, is carefully defined by
reference to characteristics that are independent of the result,
survival. Thus, natural selection would not be a tautology if we
define fitness in terms of independent characteristics such as speed,
or bodily efficiency, or reproductive capability. If we define
fitness this way, then we can hypothesize that natural selection
actually means survival of the fleetest, or survival of the most
efficient, or survival of the most prolific.
Later in his article Wilkins alludes to such possible approaches to an
understanding of fitness. This is certainly a step in the right
direction, and if a careful definition of fitness is adopted we can
avoid the tautology fallacy. However, the recurring frustration
voiced by critics of evolutionary theory is that proposed definitions
are notoriously slippery, and it seems nearly impossible to pin
evolutionary theorists down on a working definition. And without a
concrete working definition of the causative element, what exactly is
it that we are supposed to test?
This is the kind of frustration with the concept of natural selection
voiced by many critics, and that brings us to Wilkins' second point.
Ruling Out
Wilkins states:
"However, there is another, more sophisticated version [of the
tautology argument], due mainly to Karl Popper (1976: sect. 37).
According to Popper, any situation where species exist is compatible
with Darwinian explanation, because if those species were not adapted,
they would not exist. That is, Popper says, we define adaptation as
that which is sufficient for existence in a given environment.
Therefore, since nothing is ruled out, the theory has no explanatory
power, for everything is ruled in.
This is not true, as a number of critics of Popper have observed since
(eg, Stamos (1996) (note 1)). Darwinian theory rules out quite a lot.
It rules out the existence of inefficient organisms when more
efficient organisms are about. It rules out change that is
theoretically impossible (according to the laws of genetics, ontogeny,
and molecular biology) to achieve in gradual and adaptive steps (see
Dawkins (1996)). It rules out new species being established without
ancestral species."
What Wilkins is saying in effect is that because genetics, ontogeny,
molecular biology, etc. are testable hypotheses, and because natural
selection is presumed not to violate them, then natural selection
rules out violations of those natural laws, which adds to its
explanatory power.
First of all, Popper was no doubt making a practical point about the
substantial challenge of pinning down a working definition of the
causative element, and thus the practical difficulty of natural
selection teaching us anything useful. No doubt Popper would agree
that violations of natural law are not available to natural selection.
Second, with apologies to Dawkins, whom Wilkins cites, I believe a
moment's reflection will tell us that natural selection does not rule
out violations of genetics; genetics does. It does not rule out
violations of molecular biology; molecular biology does.
To be sure, natural selection's inability to violate well-established
natural laws is a welcome admission, but Wilkins implies that this is
a property of natural selection itself. This is like saying that
archeology rules out violations of physics. No it doesn't; physics
does. Natural selection cannot set the parameters of genetics or
molecular biology or physics; it can only be bound by them.
Ultimately, Wilkins' statement is probably an example of attributing
much more explanatory power to natural selection than it really has.
True enough for natural laws you say, but what about the first "ruling
out" cited by Wilkins in the above quote: namely, that natural
selection "rules out the existence of inefficient organisms when more
efficient organisms are about?" Now we are getting somewhere. I
believe this "ruling out" is in fact a logically appropriate
statement. Now if only we could come up with a concrete definition of
efficiency, then we would have a definition of fitness that we could
apply and test.
Unfortunately, despite all the intervening decades since Darwin, we
still seem to be unable to come to any concrete working definition of
fitness. This is the source of the disillusionment with the concept
of natural selection expressed by so many.
Conclusion
The concept of natural selection as proposed by Darwin, and as often
applied today, is likely a tautology. The only way for us to keep it
from failing as a tautology is to carefully define fitness in terms of
characteristics that are independent of survivability. And once saved
from this logical precipice, the only way to give natural selection
any real explanatory substance is to come up with a concrete working
definition of fitness that can be tested. Although various vague
characteristics have been proposed, such as efficiency, it has been
notoriously difficult to pin down any useful working definition of
fitness over the past century and a half. Without such a definition,
we cannot carry out meaningful empirical test to determine the
correctness of the hypothesis.
Given the difficulties of defining fitness in a meaningful way, a word
play on the title of Wilkins' article might provide us with an
appropriate motto for evolutionary theory today: "A Good Tautology is
Hard to Avoid."
Eric Anderson
July 18, 2003
===========================================================
For Further Reading
Brady and Waddington on tautology
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.9910102327070.29158-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
Grene on Schindewolf; Margulis; Calder; Gould on hogwash in
evolutionary theory
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970721233453.16211D-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Rosen
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.980913231459.8446A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Bill Rogers
> I don't particularly care about the tautology objection to the theory
> of natural selection. However, the essay below deals with a T.O. FAQ
> and might be of interest.
>
> Eric Anderson, "A Good Tautology is Hard to Avoid"
> http://www.evolutiondebate.info/A%20Good%20Tautology%20is%20Hard%20to%20Avoid.htm
>
>
> The concept of natural selection as proposed by Darwin, and as often
> applied today, is likely a tautology. The only way for us to keep it
> from failing as a tautology is to carefully define fitness in terms of
> characteristics that are independent of survivability. And once saved
> from this logical precipice, the only way to give natural selection
> any real explanatory substance is to come up with a concrete working
> definition of fitness that can be tested. Although various vague
> characteristics have been proposed, such as efficiency, it has been
> notoriously difficult to pin down any useful working definition of
> fitness over the past century and a half. Without such a definition,
> we cannot carry out meaningful empirical test to determine the
> correctness of the hypothesis.
>
> Given the difficulties of defining fitness in a meaningful way, a word
> play on the title of Wilkins' article might provide us with an
> appropriate motto for evolutionary theory today: "A Good Tautology is
> Hard to Avoid."
I think that you are correct that there is a danger of natural
selection becoming a tautology. But I also think you may have
misunderstood the analogy to F=ma. One could well argue that it is
tautological to answer the question "what is a force?" by saying, "a
force is something that imparts an acceleration, a, to something else
which has mass, m." That law of Newton is not tautological in that it
provides motivation for a whole field of physics. It predicts that, if
you think you know what the forces acting on something are, and if you
work out what they are like, and if it still appears that f does not
equal ma, then you must be overlooking something. It is very practical
and experimentally based. The statement F=ma is, in a way, a challenge
to understand and define just what you mean by a force, be it
gravitational, electromagnetic, frictional, or what have you. It would
only be a tautology if physicists stopped work when they had measured
a body's acceleration and declared "Ah, the force is m times a, we
know what the force is. We are done."
In the same way, if a biologist says "This organism is here, so it has
survived natural selection, so it is fit. End of story, we have now
understood its fitness," he would be treating natural selection as a
tautology. On the other hand, if he tries to understand the actual
basis of the organism's fitness in its environment, then he is using a
non-tautological law of natural selection to deepen his understanding
of biological fitness.
Of course, since you are not Eric Anderson, you may not feel up to
defending the article you posted on his behalf.
Bill
Ken Shaw
david ford wrote:
> I don't particularly care about the tautology objection to the theory
> of natural selection. However, the essay below deals with a T.O. FAQ
> and might be of interest.
>
> Eric Anderson, "A Good Tautology is Hard to Avoid"
> http://www.evolutiondebate.info/A%20Good%20Tautology%20is%20Hard%20to%20Avoid.htm
>
>
<snip of copyrighted material>
Did you obtain permission to quote this essay in full?
So if you don't care about this nonissue why waste everyone else's
bandwidth with this essay?
Ken
Mike Goodrich
I think you have the wrong idea about F=mA (where I am using caps to
denote vectors.)
First off in general,
F <> mA
but instead
F = (d/dt) P
where P is the momentum vector.
A rocketry problem where the mass is not constant is the typical example.
Further A is *not defined* in terms of F which is the important point
but rather
A = (d^2/dt^2) R
where R is the position vector.
Also note that F<>0 for a *particular* force for a body for which
(d^2/dt^2) R=0.
Only the net force is zero.
Thus a *particular* force (e.g., the electrostatic force ) is *not*
defined in terms of acceleration,
Nor is accelration defined in terms of force as previously shown.
Thus F=mA is clearly not tautalogical, but is an equivalence which is
true under certain conditions.
regards,
-Mike Goodrich
Editor of EvilBible.com
"david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.04042...@posting.google.com...
> I don't particularly care about the tautology objection to the theory
> of natural selection. However, the essay below deals with a T.O. FAQ
> and might be of interest.
Perhaps you don't care for the tautology objection to the theory of natural
selection because it is totally bogus. Why bother posting something you
know is incorrect?
howard hershey
david ford wrote:
> I don't particularly care about the tautology objection to the theory
> of natural selection. However, the essay below deals with a T.O. FAQ
> and might be of interest.
I agree that the tautology objection to the observation that natural
selection exists is silly and is largely based on a definition that one
rarely uses or even sees anymore in standard texts (except to discuss
its defects, starting with its use of the superlative -est ending rather
than the comparative -er ending). But so is the denial that natural
selection exists as a fact of nature (based on equally silly
misunderstandings) that you express regularly and regularly conflate
with 'evolution by the mechanism of natural selection'. One does not
need to think that evolution happens to recognize that natural selection
does. Natural selection was well recognized prior to Darwin.
Natural selection is a frequently observed feature of the *interaction
between organisms and their environment*. It is the observation that
the *environment* (which is unintelligent) in which organisms live often
can, but does not inevitably do so, discriminate (in a stochastic
fashion) between *different phenotypes* of an organism living in that
environment, favoring one phenotype over the other and specifically
favoring phenotypes that are better adapted to life in that particular
environment. When it does so, the phenotype which is favored will (in
the stochastic sense of 'be more likely to' rather than the inevitable
causal sense 'must') have *greater reproductive success* than the
alternate phenotype; that is, greater reproductive success is a
consequence of being better adapted to a particular local environment.
[Of course, for evolution to be a consequence of natural selection, the
phenotypic differences that the environment discriminates between must
be a consequence, at least in part, of genetic differences. However, we
are talking solely about natural selection at this point. And natural
selection occurs just as relentlessly and ruthlessly (and
unintelligently) if the phenotypic differences are due to accident or
environment or developmental abnormality. The unintelligent
environment, as it relates to and interacts with life as a dog, will
favor the dog with four good legs and discriminate against the one with
none regardless of whether the legless condition is due to genetic
defect, accident, or developmental abnormality.]
Note the basic requirements for determining whether natural selection
has occurred: There must be *different phenotypes* that are interacting
with the *environment* relevant to that organism. Natural selection,
when it occurs under these conditions, is an observational consequence
of a comparison. Natural selection is a population phenomenon and is a
comparison of *phenotypes* and not *individuals*. Thus, one can talk
about the fitter *phenotype* but not the fitter *individuals*. The
survival of any single individual in a population may be a simple
anomoly (the environment only provides a stochastic bias, not a virtual
certainty). To declare that one *phenotype* is *fitter than* another,
one must be looking at a population average, not an individual.
Although a comparison of *different phenotypes* and their interaction
with a particular *environment* is the basic requirement for determining
whether natural selection has occurred, merely having two (or more)
different phenotypes in an environment does not guarantee that natural
selection will occur (or will have occurred). *Natural selection* is
only said to occur when one of the two phenotypes has a *statistically
significant* difference on the metric of reproductive success.
Phenotypes which do not affect nor produce a statistically significant
difference in the metric of reproductive success are *selectively*
neutral wrt one another.
******By convention, and in accordance with the common useage of the
term "fitter", the phenotype which has the significantly greater
reproductive success is called the *fitter* phenotype in that particular
enviroment. That is because reproductive success is the only
recognizable universal "goal" of or metric upon which to compare living
organisms. [You are, of course, quite free to disagree with the use of
this metric and claim that the less reproductively successful organisms
should be declared to be 'fitter'.]******
[I emphasized the above paragraph, because it is, in fact, crucial. If
one wants to argue against natural selection, one must argue against
this point. I am claiming that the only *apparent* or *scientifically
detectable* or *empirically useful* universal "goal" of *all* life on
earth is, empirically if not theologically, maximal reproductive
success. This makes reproductive success the only valid metric for
measuring natural selection and defining 'greater reproductive success'
as 'fitter' is indeed consistent with common understanding of the term
'fitter'. If one agrees with the validity of using differential
reproductive success as the metric for determining whether natural
selection occurs (or has occurred), then anytime that one observes
differential reproductive success of one phenotype relative to another
significantly greater than can be accounted for by random genetic drift,
one is observing an event due to natural selection -- that is, a
difference due to the local environment discriminating between
phenotypes. That means that even if Kettlewell had not done his
experiments, industrial melanism in moths would *still* be an example of
natural selection.]
So let's summarize: Natural selection is said to have occurred when, in
any comparison of two phenotypic variants in an organism in a specific
environment, there is a significant average difference in reproductive
success of organisms with alternate phenotypes in that environment. By
convention, the phenotype which leads to greater reproductive success is
called the 'fitter' phenotype.
It is important to realize that observing a phenotypic difference does
not, by itself, tell us which, if either, phenotype is 'fitter' in any
particular environment. One can certainly use standard engineering
reasoning (by recognizing that the goal is greater reproductive success)
to make educated guesses, but must be prepared for surpises. [For
example, longevity, if it interfers with net reproductive success as is
the case in C. elegans and many other organisms, can be less 'fit' than
quick burnout due to high reproduction early on.]
OTOH, because of the definition of 'fitter' given above, if one observes
a case in nature where one phenotype is observed to have *significantly
greater* reproductive success than an alternate phenotype, one can
reasonably infer that natural selection is involved in determining the
relative numbers of the two phenotypes both now and in the future (so
long as the environment remains constant) and look for reasons why the
local environment dumbly and unintelligently significantly favors one
phenotype over the other.
IOW, the alternative to natural selection are simply cases where there
is no selection at all. Those are the only two alternatives that exist
in nature*: No selection or selection (in a specific environment). To
say that natural selection does not occur, like you seem to, is contrary
to observed reality.
*One could, I guess, make a claim that every example of the environment
discriminating between phenotypes currently ascribed to *natural*
selection is actually *artificial* selection guided by some unknown and
unobservable intelligent agency other than man. But since all examples
of natural selection involve phenotypes that are deleterious (some to
the state of being lethal, and all in the sense of affecting
reproductive success) and show consistency with engineering principles
of better by the metric of reproductive success, I see no reason for
unnecessarily multiplying the causitive agencies and explanations here.
One of the many reasons why "Survival of the fittest." is a poor
definition of natural selection (and has been recognized as a poor
definition since Darwin's time) is that it can be (and often is) falsely
interpretable as being a description of an individual property divorced
from environment rather than a comparative description of the
interaction of a phenotype in a population with a particular
environment. That is in addition to 'survival' not being the
appropriate metric by which selection is measured.
*When* natural selection is used as biologists use it, it is an
observational fact about how organisms interact with their environment.
Namely, we say that natural selection occurs when there is a
significant difference in the metric of reproductive success because the
local environment discriminates (unintelligently) between two variant
phenotypes in an organism.
[snip stuff based on the poorest of definitions of NS]
AC
Tracy Hamilton
"Mike Goodrich" <goodr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:408F9E94...@yahoo.com...
> Bill Rogers wrote:
>
> >dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message
news:<b1c67abe.04042...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> >
> >>I don't particularly care about the tautology objection to the theory
> >>of natural selection. However, the essay below deals with a T.O. FAQ
> >>and might be of interest.
> >>
> >>Eric Anderson, "A Good Tautology is Hard to Avoid"
>
>>http://www.evolutiondebate.info/A%20Good%20Tautology%20is%20Hard%20to%20Av
oid.htm
> >>
> >>
> >>
> ><snip only to save electrons>
> >
> >
> >>Conclusion
> >>
> >>The concept of natural selection as proposed by Darwin, and as often
> >>applied today, is likely a tautology. The only way for us to keep it
> >>from failing as a tautology is to carefully define fitness in terms of
> >>characteristics that are independent of survivability. And once saved
Wrong. All that it needs is just not be *defined* in terms of survival.
> >>from this logical precipice, the only way to give natural selection
> >>any real explanatory substance is to come up with a concrete working
> >>definition of fitness that can be tested. Although various vague
> >>characteristics have been proposed, such as efficiency, it has been
> >>notoriously difficult to pin down any useful working definition of
> >>fitness over the past century and a half.
The characteristics are not vague - it is the relation of the probability
of survival to those characteristics that is *difficult* to
do quantitatively. I agree that if it were easy to do, then making
iron-clad arguments would be much easier.
> Without such a definition,
> >>we cannot carry out meaningful empirical test to determine the
> >>correctness of the hypothesis.
Not really. One could hypothesize for example that melanism
(is color really vague?) and bird predation is responsible for the
natural selection, and do tests.
It is indeed the case that there are untested scenarios of natural selection
(just-so stories) that sound good, but may have alternative ones that sound
just as good,
or there may have been no selection at all (only paid lip service by
pan-adaptionists)!
You mean, if something was framed as a tautology, it would not necessarily
BE a tautology? Kind of makes you wonder if scientific theories
purported to be tautological really are, doesn't it?
[snip discussion]
> Thus F=mA is clearly not tautalogical, but is an equivalence which is
> true under certain conditions.
Tracy P. Hamilton
Ferrous Patella
(david ford):
> Conclusion
>
> The concept of natural selection as proposed by Darwin, and as often
> applied today, is likely a tautology. The only way for us to keep it
> from failing as a tautology is to carefully define fitness in terms of
> characteristics that are independent of survivability.
I do not see how NS can be a tautology. NS only claims that the more fit
*are more likely* to survive. For it to be a tautology the fitter must
*always* survive and reproduce.
We can observe that the obviously less fit do sometimes survive by sheer
dint of luck. Very fit specimens are brought down by the same.
As a thought experiment, picture a herd of antelope. One genetically
sickly member is trailing behind. Out of nowhere, a bolt of lightening
zaps the herd's alpha male. The sickly member has no superior fitness to
survive that lightening bolt (unless you want to argue that he had some
hidden ability to not piss off Thor), yet he survived.
So there you have it. The fit do not always survive. "Survival of the
fittest" is not a tautology
--
Ferrous Patella
"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war."
--John Adams, letter to Abigail, 1797
AC
An excellent explanation. I think I'm going to clip it into my explanations
file so when this argument is made, I can just invoke the wise words of
Ferrous!
What will be even more interesting, though, is how David, who has such an
intense prejudice against NS, will try handwave this away.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Mike Goodrich
No, obviously I meant that F=mA is not framed as a tautology!
Tracy Hamilton
> Tracy Hamilton wrote:
> >You mean, if something was framed as a tautology, it would not
necessarily
> >BE a tautology? Kind of makes you wonder if scientific theories
> >purported to be tautological really are, doesn't it?
> >
> >[snip discussion]
> >
> >
>
>
> No, obviously I meant that F=mA is not framed as a tautology!
Indeed it is not in fact a tautology, once you explain why it is not.
But someone not in the know, or with an anti-Newtonian agenda
could certainly claim it was a tautology, and make it sound like one
by omission.
Tracy P. Hamilton
David Murdock
> Bill Rogers wrote:
>
> >I think that you are correct that there is a danger of natural
> >selection becoming a tautology. But I also think you may have
> >misunderstood the analogy to F=ma. One could well argue that it is
> >tautological to answer the question "what is a force?" by saying, "a
> >force is something that imparts an acceleration, a, to something else
> >which has mass, m."
> >Bill
> >
> I think you have the wrong idea about F=mA (where I am using caps to
> denote vectors.)
>
> First off in general,
>
> F <> mA
>
> but instead
>
> F = (d/dt) P
>
> where P is the momentum vector.
There is no difference.
I see this claim occasionally, but for non-relativistic classical
physics where we don't get into the idea of relativistic mass, it's
wrong. Within that context, the mass of a particle does not change
and F=ma has exactly the same content. If you've got an example of
vanishing mass for which one would even consider applying Newtonian
physics, I'd love to hear about it.
> A rocketry problem where the mass is not constant is the typical example.
No, that is not such a case. A rocket works because it spews mass out
the rear end, not because the mass is simply vanishing. The mass of
the rocket plus the stuff it has ejected remains the same; it is only
sometimes *called* a system of variable mass since the mass of the
*useful* section is changing.
Now it is true that for such a problem involving multiple unspecified
particles and unknown forces Newton's second law may be hard to apply,
and the third law is more useful, but that does not mean that mass is
simply *vanishing*. The dm/dt that shows up in the solution is just
the rate at which the mass of the useful portion is becoming
non-useful. The solution must also include the speed with which the
gas is expelled.
When I have two masses fly apart from a spring that is compressed
between them, no one would call that a system where mass is
"changing". It is no different with a rocket and its propellant.
---DPM
[snip rest]
>
> regards,
>
> -Mike Goodrich
Frank J
(ponting finger) Tautolgy! Tautolgy!
BTW, there's only 2 things you need to know about "Darwinism." It's
unfalsifiable, and it's falsified. ;-)
Wait a minute, didn't I just post another example of how
anti-evolutionists try to have it both ways?
T Pagano
Pagano replies:
NATURAL SELECTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EXPECTATIONS
In "The Origin of the Species" Darwin offered some thought experiments
wherein he attempted to illustrate why he thought differentiated
characteristics between individuals would be "expected to" cause
differential survival. So, the "expected to" language was to help
his readers (and himself) understand the theorized process.
"Expectations" had nothing----whatsoever------to do with the process
of Natural Selection in and of itself. Natural Selection was a
process of ACTUAL trial and error. It was a process of ACTUAL
elimination-----not expected elimination. Those individuals that
weren't ACTUALLY eliminated by circumstances of space-time were left
standing.
IS "SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST" A TAUTOLOGY?
It was a "catchy" phrase and it sounded wonderfully powerful. However,
notwithstanding Darwin's thought experiments it struck both his
critics and his supporters that it was very obviously a tautology.
None of Darwin's supporters either in his life time nor afterwords
have been able to explicate fittness in terms independent of survival.
Ernst Mayr who was one of the neoDarwinian framers gives a perfect
example of a useless defense against claims of tautology in his "What
Evolution Is" (Basic Books, 2001). He wrote, "Actually, survival is
not a property of an organism but only an indication of the existence
of certain survival-favoring attributes. To be fit means to possess
certain properties that increase the probability of survival." (p118)
DID MAYR SUCCEED IN DEFENDING AGAINST CLAIMS OF TAUTOLOGY?
Mayr expanded the catchy phrase but did little to extricate it from
its tautologous hole. Mayr defined "fitness" as possession of certain
survival-favoring properties and "survival" as an indicator of the
existance of those very same survival-favoring properties. As is
characteristic of many of the reformulations we can't know if some set
of properties were actually survival-favoring----making the organism
fittest-----until the survival indicator tells us so. Furthermore,
it is irrelevent whether we can assign a probability or
level-of-expectation to different sets of properties since we can't
know whether they will at any given point in space-time, IN FACT, be
survival-favoring until the survival indicator tells us so. The
tautologousness is unavoidable.
CONCLUSION
Natural Selection as envisioned by Darwin was an interesting but an
over-simplified extrapolation from the observations of artificial
selection. In artificial selection an observable characteristic of an
individual is selected by an intelligent agent, protected and allowed
to propagate to future generations. All the reformulations of
"survival of the fittest" (with Mayr's being the most typical) are
quite obviously true but like all genuine tautologies have zero
content. Not much of value can be deduced from it (or the
reformulations) and it (and its reformulations) are of little
scientific value.
snip
Regards,
T Pagano
Steven J.
"T Pagano" <not....@address.net> wrote in message
news:laj090hvr0nsqohnm...@4ax.com...
>
-- [snip]
>
> >In his article, Wilkins states:
> >
> >"The simple version of the so-called 'tautology argument' is this:
> >Natural selection is the survival of the fittest. The fittest are
> >those that survive. Therefore, evolution by natural selection is a
> >tautology (a circular definition).
> >The real significance of this argument is not the argument itself, but
> >that it was taken seriously by any professional philosophers at all.
> >'Fitness' to Darwin meant not those that survive, but those that could
> >be expected to survive because of their adaptations and functional
> >efficiency, when compared to others in the population."
>
> Pagano replies:
> NATURAL SELECTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EXPECTATIONS
> In "The Origin of the Species" Darwin offered some thought experiments
> wherein he attempted to illustrate why he thought differentiated
> characteristics between individuals would be "expected to" cause
> differential survival. So, the "expected to" language was to help
> his readers (and himself) understand the theorized process.
> "Expectations" had nothing----whatsoever------to do with the process
> of Natural Selection in and of itself. Natural Selection was a
> process of ACTUAL trial and error. It was a process of ACTUAL
> elimination-----not expected elimination. Those individuals that
> weren't ACTUALLY eliminated by circumstances of space-time were left
> standing.
>
expectations. It is occasionally possible to predict, in advance, what
traits will be favored by a particular environment, whether antibiotic
resistance in bacteria, or longer legs among lizards stranded on islands
with lots of small branched trees. But your entire argument overlooks the
heart of the matter. For that matter, the peppered moths became an "icon of
evolution" because anyone not trying to be obtuse can figure out why grey
moths are "fitter" when branches are covered with lichens, and black moths
are "fitter" when branches are covered with soot. For "survival of the
fittest" to actually convey no useful information, then all variations
within a population would have to be random with respect to reproductive
success -- no trait would increase one's chances of finding food, avoiding
becoming food, mating, reproducing, etc. This is an imaginable state of
affairs; some creationists have even asserted it is the actual state of
affairs. But it seems not to be the actual state of affairs.
>
-- [snip]
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
>
-- Steven J.
R.Schenck
snip
wait. Isn't the subject line a tautology? Are you defining the good
tautologies as the ones that are hard to avoid and the ones that are hard
to avoid as the good ones?
david ford
Perhaps someone could chase John Wilkins down and get his rebuttal of
the essay's points.
Bill Rogers
>Pagano replies...
<snip>
>Those individuals that
> weren't ACTUALLY eliminated by circumstances of space-time were left
> standing.
"Actually eliminated by circumstances of space-time" = "eaten"
Perhaps by Klingons
Severian
<snip>
You are a long-winded and less entertaining version of Ford: you
converse until stymied, then give up and start or join another
ridiculous thread.
Your failure to understand either the simplicity or the deep meaning
of "survival of the fittest" surely demonstrates your will to
ignorance. (Note: it does not behoove you to repeatedly publicly
parade this pride in willful ignorance.)
Your preconceptions have blinded you.
In other words, I try to see things from your point of view, but I
can't get my head that far up my ass.
--
Sev
Ian Braidwood
Anderson has missed the point here by ignoring why those who survive
do so. It is as if biologists were arguing that there is some mystical
quality of 'survivability', which of course they don't propose at all.
Those who are expected to survive will do so, because they have an
adaptaion which confers an advantage in relation to those individuals
who lack it. Thus there are independent critria by which fitness can
be defined and this saves Natural Selection from tautology.
In the peppered moth example, the darker coloured moths survived
because their colouring provided better camouflage where there were
high levels of pollution; similarly, the lighter forms flourished
where pollution was less severe. So here, fitness is defined as 'best
camouflaged' and the fact that the moths did proliferate in the
environments to which they were best suited supports Natural
Selection.
In flying insects preyed upon by bats, camouflage provides no
advantage and so can be no part of the definition of fitness, however
the ability to detect ultrasound would confer an advantage and
examples are found in nature.
Lacewings can detect bats' ultrasound. They stop beating their wings
when they hear the mammal approach and fall out of the bat's grasp.
Some moths go a step further, by actually emitting a powerful
ultrasound sigal of their own, effectively jamming the bat's sonar.
Sometimes, camouflage is the last thing you need. If you're an insect
which stores plant toxins in your body as a defense, then you need to
warn any potential predator that you're poisonous and so conspicuous
colouration is what you need.
It's clear from these examples that, depeding on context, camouflage
can aid, be irrelevant to, or actually detrimental to an organism's
fitness; so fitness means different things in different circumstances.
The word fitness is a generalisation for any quality or characteristic
which confers an advantage and its precise meaning is dependent on the
environment in which the organism in question lives.
If biologists merely accepted that any survivor had some mystical
quality of 'fitness', then the charge of tautology would be justified.
However they don't, they specify a particular characteristic which
confers an advantage to the survivour.
Regards,
(-: Ian :-)
Thomas H. Faller
> I don't particularly care about the tautology objection to the theory
> of natural selection. However, the essay below deals with a T.O. FAQ
> and might be of interest.
>
> Eric Anderson, "A Good Tautology is Hard to Avoid"
> http://www.evolutiondebate.info/A%20Good%20Tautology%20is%20Hard%20to%20Avoid.htm
<snip>
>
>
> In other words, according to Wilkins, Darwin used fitness to mean not
> those that did survive but those that were expected to survive. Thus
> Wilkins implies that we will not have a tautology if we reword the
> definition as follows: "Natural selection is survival of the fittest.
> The fittest are those that are expected to survive." If natural
> selection is properly doing its job of selecting, which we are assured
> it always does, then those that are expected to survive will be those
> that will survive. So if we take what would otherwise be a tautology
> and change the verb tense, then it is no longer a tautology?
>
> The problem is that under Wilkins' approach, natural selection will
> mean nothing more than survival of those that are expected to survive,
> and we are still left with a tautology. We haven't gotten anywhere by
> shifting the focus from those that did survive to those that are
> expected to survive.
So "those we observe to survive" survive is a tautology, and "those we
predict to survive according to our theory" survive is also a tautology?
What about "I get X from my experiment, according to my prediction"?
That isn't a valid way to determine if a theory is successful? I think that
Anderson has warped words to please himself, not to get at the truth.
<snipping fruitless quibble>
Bait and switch. He didn't say NS rules out violations of genetics.
He said that if genetic change is not possible in _gradual_ and
_adaptive_ steps to get from one species to another, NS will not
allow it. If you have to get from dragonfly ancestor to dragonfly
through a genetically possible intermediate with twelve wings
annd no mouth or legs, it won't happen, even if it is consistant
with genetically possible changes.
<snip more blather based on incorrect premises>
Mike Goodrich
In anal;ytical mechanics there is nothing to preclude us from
considering a "system" of variable mass as a very good approximation of
a situation in which the mass which is being subjected to some applied
force is in fact changing continuously. We are also free to restrict
our attention to the mass system of interest - such as a rocket with its
remaining propellant - albeit variable, and ignore the ejected mass from
further consideration.
Thus we are lead naturally to a formulation like F = (d/dt) (MV), where
we allow for both M and V to be continously variable as the least
restrictive case, and which reduces to F = mA for "particles' which by
definition have indivisible mass and systems of particles which due
typically to 'internal' forces are held together.
There is no loss of generality to say F = (d/dt) P.
All of this speaking classically of course.
Kermit
If we spray mosquito larvae with pesticides, I would expect any
survivors in the area to be resistant to pesticides - either
biochemically or behaviorally (they might choose to sleep higher, for
instance, when the pesticide is something which settles low. I would
expect this adaptation to reflect itself in the next generations.
A prolonged cold spell in the American Southwest would wipe out
coyotes who are less adapted to the cold. The species would burrow
deeper, or grow larger, or grow furrier, because the individuals
without these characteristics would be more likely to die off. If the
changes were so extreme that *none of the coyotes survived to
successfully reproduce, they would go extinct - which event has
happened many times with other species.
Why would you think that actual events are never predictable? Do you
really (think that you) live in a world that is random and makes no
sense?
>
> IS "SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST" A TAUTOLOGY?
> It was a "catchy" phrase and it sounded wonderfully powerful. However,
> notwithstanding Darwin's thought experiments it struck both his
> critics and his supporters that it was very obviously a tautology.
> None of Darwin's supporters either in his life time nor afterwords
> have been able to explicate fittness in terms independent of survival.
> Ernst Mayr who was one of the neoDarwinian framers gives a perfect
> example of a useless defense against claims of tautology in his "What
> Evolution Is" (Basic Books, 2001). He wrote, "Actually, survival is
> not a property of an organism but only an indication of the existence
> of certain survival-favoring attributes. To be fit means to possess
> certain properties that increase the probability of survival." (p118)
No. "The winners of the race are the fastest runners". Is that a
tautology? Does that mean that we cannot describe characteristics of
champion runners? I can tell you that if you took a grade school and
put all the students thru a mile run, the winners would:
Be aerobically fit.
Be lean.
Be among the oldest students.
Be motivated.
Be healthy that day (no influenza, for example.
Have the right build - medium tall and skinny (bodybuilders don't win
races, even if they are very lean).
And we can make similar descriptions of why some individuals - and
some species - survive circumstances when others do not.
>
> DID MAYR SUCCEED IN DEFENDING AGAINST CLAIMS OF TAUTOLOGY?
> Mayr expanded the catchy phrase but did little to extricate it from
> its tautologous hole. Mayr defined "fitness" as possession of certain
> survival-favoring properties and "survival" as an indicator of the
> existance of those very same survival-favoring properties. As is
> characteristic of many of the reformulations we can't know if some set
> of properties were actually survival-favoring----making the organism
> fittest-----until the survival indicator tells us so. Furthermore,
> it is irrelevent whether we can assign a probability or
> level-of-expectation to different sets of properties since we can't
> know whether they will at any given point in space-time, IN FACT, be
> survival-favoring until the survival indicator tells us so. The
> tautologousness is unavoidable.
So? Sometimes we don't know what will work best until we see it in
action. Are you seriously suggesting that simply because we can't
always predict what will make the difference that there are ultimately
no reasons for why something happens?
Two countries have a war. the winning side is the one that fights the
war the best. That doesn't mean that one side cannot surprise
observers.
How can any sane person say that tools and characteristics make no
difference at all, simply because they may be trumped by something
unexpected?
>
> CONCLUSION
> Natural Selection as envisioned by Darwin was an interesting but an
> over-simplified extrapolation
But not so simple, alas, that you have bothered to read and understand
it :(
> from the observations of artificial
> selection. In artificial selection an observable characteristic of an
> individual is selected by an intelligent agent, protected and allowed
> to propagate to future generations. All the reformulations of
> "survival of the fittest" (with Mayr's being the most typical) are
> quite obviously true but like all genuine tautologies have zero
> content. Not much of value can be deduced from it (or the
> reformulations) and it (and its reformulations) are of little
> scientific value.
>
Horse feathers!
Medical strategy against contageous diseases depend on an
understanding of evolutionary processes. Also, defenses against crop
pests and disease vectors, and treatment of genetic diseases like
Sickle-cell anemia.
We are even using algorthms based on natural selection to produce
computer programs and hardware.
>
> snip
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Kermit
Whose severe myopia would have killed him 10,000 years ago.
Hank
<snip>
> Pagano replies:
> NATURAL SELECTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EXPECTATIONS
> In "The Origin of the Species" Darwin offered some thought experiments
> wherein he attempted to illustrate why he thought differentiated
> characteristics between individuals would be "expected to" cause
> differential survival. So, the "expected to" language was to help
> his readers (and himself) understand the theorized process.
> "Expectations" had nothing----whatsoever------to do with the process
> of Natural Selection in and of itself. Natural Selection was a
> process of ACTUAL trial and error. It was a process of ACTUAL
> elimination-----not expected elimination. Those individuals that
> weren't ACTUALLY eliminated by circumstances of space-time were left
> standing.
Species survive if they are adapted to their environment. Some that are better
adapted survive when others become extinct. Natural Selection explains why this
process can be expected to happen again. Your problem with this would be ... ?
> IS "SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST" A TAUTOLOGY?
> It was a "catchy" phrase and it sounded wonderfully powerful. However,
> notwithstanding Darwin's thought experiments it struck both his
> critics and his supporters that it was very obviously a tautology.
> None of Darwin's supporters either in his life time nor afterwords
> have been able to explicate fittness in terms independent of survival.
Can you name a metric other than survival that would indicate relative fitness, and
why it would be appropriate for use in this situation?
> Ernst Mayr who was one of the neoDarwinian framers gives a perfect
> example of a useless defense against claims of tautology in his "What
> Evolution Is" (Basic Books, 2001). He wrote, "Actually, survival is
> not a property of an organism but only an indication of the existence
> of certain survival-favoring attributes. To be fit means to possess
> certain properties that increase the probability of survival." (p118)
Sounds like a good explanation. And you think this is a tautology because ... ?
<snip>
> CONCLUSION
> Natural Selection as envisioned by Darwin was an interesting but an
> over-simplified extrapolation from the observations of artificial
> selection. In artificial selection an observable characteristic of an
> individual is selected by an intelligent agent, protected and allowed
> to propagate to future generations. All the reformulations of
> "survival of the fittest" (with Mayr's being the most typical) are
> quite obviously true but like all genuine tautologies have zero
> content. Not much of value can be deduced from it (or the
> reformulations) and it (and its reformulations) are of little
> scientific value.
Little scientific value? And the reason scientists have considered it quite valuable
for the last 150 years would be because ... ?
--
Assimilate a pitiful little species like you? I think not! - Q of Borg
Chris Rohrer
I've often thought the concept should have been summarized as
"survival of the adequate" instead. As long as you can live long
enough to crank out some offspring, you have done your part.
"Survival of the fittest" suggests that only the 99th percentiles pass
their genes on. It carries the connotation that we should all be
looking like Michael Jordan or Mia Hamm (or Bill Gates?) by now. An
hour of people watching at the mall will prove that this ain't so.
There are plenty of non-elites who survive to reproduce through dumb
luck or by being a tiny bit faster than the slowest guy. "Survival of
the adequate" may be more accurate, but it is not nearly as catchy. I
second Howard Hershey's observation previously in this thread that the
comparative "survival of the fitter" is the better, more apt (dare I
say "fit"?) characterization of NS. Let's hope it survives and gains
a foothold in the popular thought.
Chris Rohrer
Alan Jeffery
"Chris Rohrer" <zonot...@sisna.com> wrote in message
news:82fcb715.0404...@posting.google.com...
Darwin was basing his idea, to some extent, on Malthus. And he used the
metaphor of a wedge. When a new species, or change to an existing species,
occurred, all the other species were "pushed" in some direction by the new
wedge. Darwin's suggestion was toward extinction. So, although "adequate"
is probably correct as well, so can "failure", because a species that is a
failure somewhere, may be a raving success sosmewhere else. As for instance
when genus Homo left the trees. Ask the question why did we leave the
trees. I think one answer, that makes perfect sense, is that we were pushed
out by other species that were better at living in trees.
Alan Jeffery
>
> Chris Rohrer
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.672 / Virus Database: 434 - Release Date: 28/04/2004
Bill Rogers
>
> >dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.04042...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> >
> >I think that you are correct that there is a danger of natural
> >selection becoming a tautology. But I also think you may have
> >misunderstood the analogy to F=ma. One could well argue that it is
> >tautological to answer the question "what is a force?" by saying, "a
> >force is something that imparts an acceleration, a, to something else
> >which has mass, m." That law of Newton is not tautological in that it
> >provides motivation for a whole field of physics. It predicts that, if
> >you think you know what the forces acting on something are, and if you
> >work out what they are like, and if it still appears that f does not
> >equal ma, then you must be overlooking something. It is very practical
> >and experimentally based. The statement F=ma is, in a way, a challenge
> >to understand and define just what you mean by a force, be it
> >gravitational, electromagnetic, frictional, or what have you. It would
> >only be a tautology if physicists stopped work when they had measured
> >a body's acceleration and declared "Ah, the force is m times a, we
> >know what the force is. We are done."
> >
> >Bill
> >
>
>
> I think you have the wrong idea about F=mA (where I am using caps to
> denote vectors.)
No, I have a pretty good understanding of mechanics. I put the second
law in the form in which it is easiest to explain why it is not a
tautology. You are certainly free to rewrite it in vector form, or to
focus your attention on the "interesting" part of a system of masses
and consider force as equal to dP/dt, to break up a net force into
components, and even to take relativistic effects into account, if you
want. None of that affects the explanation of why the second law is
non-tautological.
Or the aptness of the analogy to survival of the fittest, which also
is not a tautology.
Mike Goodrich
F=mA is not tautological for the reasons I stated; I'm sorry you missed it.
T Pagano
wrote:
>T Pagano wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Pagano replies:
>> NATURAL SELECTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EXPECTATIONS
>> In "The Origin of the Species" Darwin offered some thought experiments
>> wherein he attempted to illustrate why he thought differentiated
>> characteristics between individuals would be "expected to" cause
>> differential survival. So, the "expected to" language was to help
>> his readers (and himself) understand the theorized process.
>> "Expectations" had nothing----whatsoever------to do with the process
>> of Natural Selection in and of itself. Natural Selection was a
>> process of ACTUAL trial and error. It was a process of ACTUAL
>> elimination-----not expected elimination. Those individuals that
>> weren't ACTUALLY eliminated by circumstances of space-time were left
>> standing.
>
>Species survive if they are adapted to their environment. Some that are better
>adapted survive when others become extinct. Natural Selection explains why this
>process can be expected to happen again. Your problem with this would be ... ?
Pagano replies:
Apparently Hank didn' t understand the issue raised. The issue was
it's tautologous nature. To say that, "the fit survive" is a
redundancy in expression. Because of the way fitness is defined,
this dictum is like saying, "those that survive do survive." While
tautologous constructions are logically true for all truth values of
its atomic expressions they have "near zero" content. And as such
they have almost no scientific value.
A possible way to extricate "survival of the fittest" would be to
characterize it as "a posteriori" claim. I use "a posteriori" as an
argument from consequence (back) to cause. But even as an "a
posteriori" claim it is too simplistic to be of much scientific value
(see below for why). Finally, as a matter of historical development
it clear that Darwin (and others) were making an unwarranted
extrapolation from observations of the acts of an intelligent agent in
animal husbandry.
>
>
>> IS "SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST" A TAUTOLOGY?
>> It was a "catchy" phrase and it sounded wonderfully powerful. However,
>> notwithstanding Darwin's thought experiments it struck both his
>> critics and his supporters that it was very obviously a tautology.
>> None of Darwin's supporters either in his life time nor afterwords
>> have been able to explicate fittness in terms independent of survival.
>
>Can you name a metric other than survival that would indicate relative fitness, and
>why it would be appropriate for use in this situation?
Pagano replies:
It isn't my problem to extricate "survival of the fittest" from its
obviously tautologous hole. No one has solved this problem which has
been obvious since 1859.
>
>
>> Ernst Mayr who was one of the neoDarwinian framers gives a perfect
>> example of a useless defense against claims of tautology in his "What
>> Evolution Is" (Basic Books, 2001). He wrote, "Actually, survival is
>> not a property of an organism but only an indication of the existence
>> of certain survival-favoring attributes. To be fit means to possess
>> certain properties that increase the probability of survival." (p118)
>
>Sounds like a good explanation. And you think this is a tautology because ... ?
Pagano replies:
Just llike "survival of the fittest" sounds good so does Mayr's. That
is, it only sounds good until its logically analyzed, but Hank cut the
analysis because he obviously had no answer. Those interested in
seeing what he evaded look up the thread.
It is well known now that physical characteristics that (purportedly)
help spare an individual from elimination at one point in space-time
(outrun a preditor) MAY NOT BE favored at another point in space-time
(the swift individual's leg stuck in a hole). One can't know that a
particular characteristic is "survival-favoring" until after they have
ACTUALLY "survived." Any conclusion would ONLY be applicable to that
unique situation not an explaination for one billion years of
purported evolutionary change.
We may not be able to conclude what spared the individual from
elimination except in the most simplistic of thought experiments. In
many cases it may be the individual's resourcefulness or just dumb
luck that may have been decisive.
FINAL NOTE
In most cases the survival-favoring characteristics used as
illustrations of this tautologous dictum are invariably OBSERVABLE
ones. However, the real differential characteristics that are
supposed to cause differential survival and explain the creation of
the eye, liver and wing (and hence biological diversity) are
(according to the neoDarwinian framework) only a few nucleotide
copying error differences. The neoDarwinians can't even explain "a
posteriori" how a few nucleotide copying conferred a survival
advantage.
Finally the fossil record is uneqivocally one of stasis not ubiquitous
change.
>
><snip>
>
>> CONCLUSION
>> Natural Selection as envisioned by Darwin was an interesting but an
>> over-simplified extrapolation from the observations of artificial
>> selection. In artificial selection an observable characteristic of an
>> individual is selected by an intelligent agent, protected and allowed
>> to propagate to future generations. All the reformulations of
>> "survival of the fittest" (with Mayr's being the most typical) are
>> quite obviously true but like all genuine tautologies have zero
>> content. Not much of value can be deduced from it (or the
>> reformulations) and it (and its reformulations) are of little
>> scientific value.
>
>Little scientific value? And the reason scientists have considered it quite valuable
>for the last 150 years would be because ... ?
Pagano replies:
Obviously Hank is ignorant of the history of science and of Thomas
Kuhn's findings. Scientists cling desparately to whatever is
available until something more palatable to their worldview comes
along. Scientists in history have often clung to false, stagnant, or
useless frameworks for decades (and centuries) even when they knew of
the framework's problems.
In otherwords the length of time an idea is held is no indication,
whatsoever, of its verisimilitude or of its value to uncovering more
truths. The dictum, "survival of the fittest" has not progressed the
evolutionary framework significantly beyond what it was in Darwin's
day. Evolutionists still cannot agree about the locus of real
evolutionary change, where the mechanism can be found or what that
mechanism might look like.
Augray
ford) wrote in <b1c67abe.0404...@posting.google.com>:
Given his post at
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=1gb3zey.1548km51v4sma6N%25john_SPAM%40wilkins.id.au
that's unlikely.
VoiceOfReason
BUZZ! Sorry Pagman, nice try, but it's not a tautology. This claim
has been raised and shot down many a time. But then, you already knew
that didn't you? The claim is refuted in
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
> A possible way to extricate "survival of the fittest" would be to
> characterize it as "a posteriori" claim. I use "a posteriori" as an
> argument from consequence (back) to cause. But even as an "a
> posteriori" claim it is too simplistic to be of much scientific value
> (see below for why). Finally, as a matter of historical development
> it clear that Darwin (and others) were making an unwarranted
> extrapolation from observations of the acts of an intelligent agent in
> animal husbandry.
Wrong again, you got it backwards. To explain the concepts of
variation in the animal world, he used known concepts from "Variation
Under Domestication" hoping it was simple enough for others to
understand the basics. (It seems that for some of us, his example
wasn't simple enough.)
> >> IS "SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST" A TAUTOLOGY?
> >> It was a "catchy" phrase and it sounded wonderfully powerful. However,
> >> notwithstanding Darwin's thought experiments it struck both his
> >> critics and his supporters that it was very obviously a tautology.
> >> None of Darwin's supporters either in his life time nor afterwords
> >> have been able to explicate fittness in terms independent of survival.
> >
> >Can you name a metric other than survival that would indicate relative fitness, and
> >why it would be appropriate for use in this situation?
>
> Pagano replies:
> It isn't my problem to extricate "survival of the fittest" from its
> obviously tautologous hole. No one has solved this problem which has
> been obvious since 1859.
I see you dodged the question. Strange though, that since 1859,
science hasn't had a problem with this "obviously tautologous hole" of
yours.
> >> Ernst Mayr who was one of the neoDarwinian framers gives a perfect
> >> example of a useless defense against claims of tautology in his "What
> >> Evolution Is" (Basic Books, 2001). He wrote, "Actually, survival is
> >> not a property of an organism but only an indication of the existence
> >> of certain survival-favoring attributes. To be fit means to possess
> >> certain properties that increase the probability of survival." (p118)
> >
> >Sounds like a good explanation. And you think this is a tautology because ... ?
>
> Pagano replies:
> Just llike "survival of the fittest" sounds good so does Mayr's. That
> is, it only sounds good until its logically analyzed, but Hank cut the
> analysis because he obviously had no answer. Those interested in
> seeing what he evaded look up the thread.
Well, there's a nice bit of hypocrisy. Dodge a question while
accusing the other guy of doing it. Maybe because you can't explain
why it's a tautology? See the above link before you attempt it
though.
> It is well known now that physical characteristics that (purportedly)
> help spare an individual from elimination at one point in space-time
> (outrun a preditor) MAY NOT BE favored at another point in space-time
> (the swift individual's leg stuck in a hole). One can't know that a
> particular characteristic is "survival-favoring" until after they have
> ACTUALLY "survived." Any conclusion would ONLY be applicable to that
> unique situation not an explaination for one billion years of
> purported evolutionary change.
Your thinking is way too simplistic. An example:
1) Some of the antelope in a population run fast.
2) Some of the antelope in a population run slow.
3) Can you make a prediction which subset of the population is more
likely to avoid being eaten by predators?
4) Can you make a prediction which subset of the population is more
likely to pass on their genes to their offspring?
Repeat this process over millions of years with many different
mutations and the result will be what? (Hint: Think "Lots of new
species.")
With respect to: "One can't know that a particular characteristic is
"survival-favoring" until after they have ACTUALLY "survived."" ...
isn't this an example of a tautology?
> We may not be able to conclude what spared the individual from
> elimination except in the most simplistic of thought experiments. In
> many cases it may be the individual's resourcefulness or just dumb
> luck that may have been decisive.
>
>
> FINAL NOTE
> In most cases the survival-favoring characteristics used as
> illustrations of this tautologous dictum are invariably OBSERVABLE
> ones. However, the real differential characteristics that are
> supposed to cause differential survival and explain the creation of
> the eye, liver and wing (and hence biological diversity) are
> (according to the neoDarwinian framework) only a few nucleotide
> copying error differences. The neoDarwinians can't even explain "a
> posteriori" how a few nucleotide copying conferred a survival
> advantage.
So you're saying you don't understand genetics either?
> Finally the fossil record is uneqivocally one of stasis not ubiquitous
> change.
Hogwash. You're woefully ignorant of geology as well. That species
obviously change over time has been well-known from the fossil record
for a very long time. The evolution of the horse is one example.
> ><snip>
> >
> >> CONCLUSION
> >> Natural Selection as envisioned by Darwin was an interesting but an
> >> over-simplified extrapolation from the observations of artificial
> >> selection. In artificial selection an observable characteristic of an
> >> individual is selected by an intelligent agent, protected and allowed
> >> to propagate to future generations. All the reformulations of
> >> "survival of the fittest" (with Mayr's being the most typical) are
> >> quite obviously true but like all genuine tautologies have zero
> >> content. Not much of value can be deduced from it (or the
> >> reformulations) and it (and its reformulations) are of little
> >> scientific value.
> >
> >Little scientific value? And the reason scientists have considered it quite valuable
> >for the last 150 years would be because ... ?
>
> Pagano replies:
> Obviously Hank is ignorant of the history of science and of Thomas
> Kuhn's findings.
Wrong again. What he said was obviously true. Have you ever *read* a
science book???
> Scientists cling desparately to whatever is
> available until something more palatable to their worldview comes
> along. Scientists in history have often clung to false, stagnant, or
> useless frameworks for decades (and centuries) even when they knew of
> the framework's problems.
These would be the centuries before the scientific method was
developed. Think "the Dark Ages."
> In otherwords the length of time an idea is held is no indication,
> whatsoever, of its verisimilitude or of its value to uncovering more
> truths. The dictum, "survival of the fittest" has not progressed the
> evolutionary framework significantly beyond what it was in Darwin's
> day. Evolutionists still cannot agree about the locus of real
> evolutionary change, where the mechanism can be found or what that
> mechanism might look like.
They debate new ideas all the time, constantly researching for new
information and considering new ideas. You may want to try it
sometime.
Richard Forrest
Pagano wrote:
> Apparently Hank didn' t understand the issue raised. The issue was
> it's tautologous nature. To say that, "the fit survive" is a
> redundancy in expression.
Rubbish. It's an observation
> Because of the way fitness is defined,
> this dictum is like saying, "those that survive do survive."
Try finding out how biologists define 'fitness'.
> While
> tautologous constructions are logically true for all truth values of
> its atomic expressions they have "near zero" content. And as such
> they have almost no scientific value.
Which is irrelevant because your premises are flawed.
>
> A possible way to extricate "survival of the fittest" would be to
> characterize it as "a posteriori" claim. I use "a posteriori" as an
> argument from consequence (back) to cause. But even as an "a
> posteriori" claim it is too simplistic to be of much scientific value
> (see below for why). Finally, as a matter of historical development
> it clear that Darwin (and others) were making an unwarranted
> extrapolation from observations of the acts of an intelligent agent in
> animal husbandry.
Which is irrelevant because your premises are flawed.
Pagano replies:
> It isn't my problem to extricate "survival of the fittest" from its
> obviously tautologous hole. No one has solved this problem which has
> been obvious since 1859.
Which shows that you haven't bothered to try to fins out.
Pagano replies:
> Just llike "survival of the fittest" sounds good so does Mayr's. That
> is, it only sounds good until its logically analyzed, but Hank cut the
> analysis because he obviously had no answer. Those interested in
> seeing what he evaded look up the thread.
i.e. I'm cleverer than you and can see the flaws you missed
>
> It is well known now that physical characteristics that (purportedly)
> help spare an individual from elimination at one point in space-time
> (outrun a preditor) MAY NOT BE favored at another point in space-time
> (the swift individual's leg stuck in a hole).
This example has nothing to do with fitness or natural selection
> One can't know that a
> particular characteristic is "survival-favoring" until after they have
> ACTUALLY "survived." Any conclusion would ONLY be applicable to that
> unique situation not an explaination for one billion years of
> purported evolutionary change.
Surely the principle can apply?
>
> We may not be able to conclude what spared the individual from
> elimination except in the most simplistic of thought experiments.
It ain't about indivduals. It's about populations
> In
> many cases it may be the individual's resourcefulness or just dumb
> luck that may have been decisive.
IT'S ABOUT POPULATIONS, NOT INDIVIDUALS
>
>
> FINAL NOTE
> In most cases the survival-favoring characteristics used as
> illustrations of this tautologous dictum are invariably OBSERVABLE
> ones.
So we should be looking for non-observable ones?
> However, the real differential characteristics that are
> supposed to cause differential survival and explain the creation of
> the eye, liver and wing (and hence biological diversity) are
> (according to the neoDarwinian framework) only a few nucleotide
> copying error differences.
Try reading a bit more about evolutionary theory.
It's a whole load of copying errors. It's cumulative.
> The neoDarwinians can't even explain "a
> posteriori" how a few nucleotide copying conferred a survival
> advantage.
>
> Finally the fossil record is uneqivocally one of stasis not ubiquitous
> change.
Complete and utter bollocks! Try investigating the fossil record.
Pagano replies:
> Obviously Hank is ignorant of the history of science and of Thomas
> Kuhn's findings. Scientists cling desparately to whatever is
> available until something more palatable to their worldview comes
> along. Scientists in history have often clung to false, stagnant, or
> useless frameworks for decades (and centuries) even when they knew of
> the framework's problems.
In what way is evolutionary theory a 'false', 'stagnant' or 'useless'
framework? Making public display of your utter ignorance of biology
and palaeontology does not give your arguments any credence.
>
> In otherwords the length of time an idea is held is no indication,
> whatsoever, of its verisimilitude or of its value to uncovering more
> truths.
And 'creationism' was held to be true for hundreds of years, until its
value in uncovering more truths was found to nonexistent.
> The dictum, "survival of the fittest" has not progressed the
> evolutionary framework significantly beyond what it was in Darwin's
> day. Evolutionists still cannot agree about the locus of real
> evolutionary change, where the mechanism can be found or what that
> mechanism might look like.
Have you never heard of genetics?
RF
Hank
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:15:58 +0000 (UTC), Hank <Ha...@application.com>
> wrote:
>
> >T Pagano wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> Pagano replies:
> >> NATURAL SELECTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EXPECTATIONS
> >> In "The Origin of the Species" Darwin offered some thought experiments
> >> wherein he attempted to illustrate why he thought differentiated
> >> characteristics between individuals would be "expected to" cause
> >> differential survival. So, the "expected to" language was to help
> >> his readers (and himself) understand the theorized process.
> >> "Expectations" had nothing----whatsoever------to do with the process
> >> of Natural Selection in and of itself. Natural Selection was a
> >> process of ACTUAL trial and error. It was a process of ACTUAL
> >> elimination-----not expected elimination. Those individuals that
> >> weren't ACTUALLY eliminated by circumstances of space-time were left
> >> standing.
> >
> >Species survive if they are adapted to their environment. Some that are better
> >adapted survive when others become extinct. Natural Selection explains why this
> >process can be expected to happen again. Your problem with this would be ... ?
>
> Pagano replies:
> Apparently Hank didn' t understand the issue raised. The issue was
> it's tautologous nature.
Apparently Paggy didn't understand he got caught spreading manure.
> To say that, "the fit survive" is a
> redundancy in expression. Because of the way fitness is defined,
> this dictum is like saying, "those that survive do survive." While
> tautologous constructions are logically true for all truth values of
> its atomic expressions they have "near zero" content. And as such
> they have almost no scientific value.
Try looking up tautology again. Darwin wasn't talking about those that survive, but those
that can be *expected* to survive. Do you understand why this is not a tautology?
> A possible way to extricate "survival of the fittest" would be to
> characterize it as "a posteriori" claim. I use "a posteriori" as an
> argument from consequence (back) to cause. But even as an "a
> posteriori" claim it is too simplistic to be of much scientific value
> (see below for why). Finally, as a matter of historical development
> it clear that Darwin (and others) were making an unwarranted
> extrapolation from observations of the acts of an intelligent agent in
> animal husbandry.
Try again. He used animal husbandry as an example for comparison.
> >> IS "SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST" A TAUTOLOGY?
> >> It was a "catchy" phrase and it sounded wonderfully powerful. However,
> >> notwithstanding Darwin's thought experiments it struck both his
> >> critics and his supporters that it was very obviously a tautology.
> >> None of Darwin's supporters either in his life time nor afterwords
> >> have been able to explicate fittness in terms independent of survival.
> >
> >Can you name a metric other than survival that would indicate relative fitness, and
> >why it would be appropriate for use in this situation?
>
> Pagano replies:
> It isn't my problem to extricate "survival of the fittest" from its
> obviously tautologous hole. No one has solved this problem which has
> been obvious since 1859.
I see. So in other words you have no clue what other metric to use, so you blow smoke
again by tossing around more bogus claims.
> >> Ernst Mayr who was one of the neoDarwinian framers gives a perfect
> >> example of a useless defense against claims of tautology in his "What
> >> Evolution Is" (Basic Books, 2001). He wrote, "Actually, survival is
> >> not a property of an organism but only an indication of the existence
> >> of certain survival-favoring attributes. To be fit means to possess
> >> certain properties that increase the probability of survival." (p118)
> >
> >Sounds like a good explanation. And you think this is a tautology because ... ?
>
> Pagano replies:
> Just llike "survival of the fittest" sounds good so does Mayr's. That
> is, it only sounds good until its logically analyzed, but Hank cut the
> analysis because he obviously had no answer. Those interested in
> seeing what he evaded look up the thread.
Once again we see Paggy run away from a question by blowing smoke and pointing fingers.
Let's try the question again, shall we? "And you think this is a tautology because ... ?"
> It is well known now that physical characteristics that (purportedly)
> help spare an individual from elimination at one point in space-time
> (outrun a preditor) MAY NOT BE favored at another point in space-time
> (the swift individual's leg stuck in a hole). One can't know that a
> particular characteristic is "survival-favoring" until after they have
> ACTUALLY "survived." Any conclusion would ONLY be applicable to that
> unique situation not an explaination for one billion years of
> purported evolutionary change.
Natural selection works on populations, not on an individual. You *really* need to read
the Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ -
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
<snip>
> FINAL NOTE
> In most cases the survival-favoring characteristics used as
> illustrations of this tautologous dictum are invariably OBSERVABLE
> ones. However, the real differential characteristics that are
> supposed to cause differential survival and explain the creation of
> the eye, liver and wing (and hence biological diversity) are
> (according to the neoDarwinian framework) only a few nucleotide
> copying error differences. The neoDarwinians can't even explain "a
> posteriori" how a few nucleotide copying conferred a survival
> advantage.
You *really* need to read the Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ -
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
> Finally the fossil record is uneqivocally one of stasis not ubiquitous
> change.
You *really* need to read the Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ -
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
> ><snip>
> >
> >> CONCLUSION
> >> Natural Selection as envisioned by Darwin was an interesting but an
> >> over-simplified extrapolation from the observations of artificial
> >> selection. In artificial selection an observable characteristic of an
> >> individual is selected by an intelligent agent, protected and allowed
> >> to propagate to future generations. All the reformulations of
> >> "survival of the fittest" (with Mayr's being the most typical) are
> >> quite obviously true but like all genuine tautologies have zero
> >> content. Not much of value can be deduced from it (or the
> >> reformulations) and it (and its reformulations) are of little
> >> scientific value.
> >
> >Little scientific value? And the reason scientists have considered it quite valuable
> >for the last 150 years would be because ... ?
>
> Pagano replies:
> Obviously Hank is ignorant of the history of science and of Thomas
> Kuhn's findings.
ONCE AGAIN we see Paggy run away from a question by blowing smoke and pointing fingers.
Man, you are really getting boring with this lame tactic. Can't you try something
original?
Let's try the question again, shall we? "And the reason scientists have considered it
quite valuable for the last 150 years would be because ... ?"
<snip>
david ford
Hard to Avoid"" in message
news:<b1c67abe.04042...@posting.google.com>...
> I don't particularly care about the tautology objection to the theory
> of natural selection. However, the essay below deals with a T.O. FAQ
> and might be of interest.
>
> http://www.evolutiondebate.info/A%20Good%20Tautology%20is%20Hard%20to%20Avoid.htm
[snip]
On
http://www.evolutiondebate.info
the "Further Thoughts on Natural Selection" link is to a PDF file in
which Eric Anderson has some responses to comments made by the
following individuals:
Ferrous Patella, Alan Jeffery, Ian Braidwood, Thomas Faller, Frank J.,
Howard Hershey.