Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Darwin defines natural selection as doctrine of Malthus

50 views
Skip to first unread message

backspace

unread,
Jan 30, 2013, 2:59:53 PM1/30/13
to

“natural selection” which is, as Darwin wrote in his notebook somewhere aroun 1838: “....simply the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms.....”


http://www9.bangwsd.net/gtfeducation/images/dynamic/file/Books/Morgan/NATURALLY-GOOD1.pdf?1358364942231
---------------
In July of l837, Darwin wrote that he “opened his first notebook” to record
additional facts bearing on the question, but it was not until he happened to read Malthus’ Essay on Population in October of l838 that he found an explanatory theory from which the above “supposition” followed. “In October l838,” Darwin wrote, “that is fifteen months after I had begun my systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus’ Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence (a phrase used by Malthus) which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favorable variations would tend to be preserved and unfavorable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be a new species. Here then I had at last got hold of a theory by which to work.”

From this encounter, Darwin commenced the now famous formulation of the
principle of “natural selection” which is, as he wrote, “simply the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms.”


Note:
...favorable variations would tend to be preserved and unfavorable ones to be destroyed.... is a rhetorical tautology meaning that any conclusion from such is a non-sequitur. Darwin's premise was that the present attributes were not in the distant past, his mechanism natural selection or natural means of competitive preservation of the favorable attributes is a claim of logic and thus not falsifiable.

eridanus

unread,
Jan 30, 2013, 6:55:20 PM1/30/13
to
El miércoles, 30 de enero de 2013 19:59:53 UTC, backspace escribió:
> �natural selection� which is, as Darwin wrote in his notebook somewhere aroun 1838: �....simply the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms.....�
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www9.bangwsd.net/gtfeducation/images/dynamic/file/Books/Morgan/NATURALLY-GOOD1.pdf?1358364942231
>
> ---------------
>
> In July of l837, Darwin wrote that he �opened his first notebook�
to record
>
> additional facts bearing on the question, but it was not until he
happened to read Malthus� Essay on Population in October of l838 that
he found an explanatory theory from which the above �supposition� followed. �In October l838,� Darwin wrote, �that is fifteen
months after I had begun my systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus� Population, and being well prepared to appreciate
the struggle for existence (a phrase used by Malthus) which everywhere
goes on from long-continued observation of animals and plants, it at
once struck me that under these circumstances favorable variations would
tend to be preserved and unfavorable ones to be destroyed. The result
of this would be a new species. Here then I had at last got hold of a
theory by which to work.
>
>
>
> From this encounter, Darwin commenced the now famous formulation
> of the principle of "natural selection" which is, as he wrote,
> simply the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the
> whole animal and vegetable kingdoms.
>
>
> Note:
> ...favorable variations would tend to be preserved and unfavorable
ones to be destroyed.... is a rhetorical tautology meaning that any
conclusion from such is a non-sequitur. Darwin's premise was that
the present attributes were not in the distant past, his mechanism
natural selection or natural means of competitive preservation of
the favorable attributes is a claim of logic and thus not falsifiable.

----------

Do you have any special comments on this?
I often watch documentaries about wild life in TV. They are very common
today. Well, I had watch how hard life is for all animals in the wild,
for in general they breed a lot more than natural resources are available.
Then, in times of crisis, a pride of lions can kick out some females from
the group. Those females had to go out to fend off for themselves.

It is a very difficult situation, as most good places to hunt are already
occupied. So, these females would be drive off whatever place they go.
The most probably outcome of this is starvation.

The lions are notorious for they have a fertility rate of 150% a year.
The adult lions have an average life span of 15 years. This means they
need a fertility of 6.6 %
Then, most of cubs born each year, would be devoured by predators, or
could be killed before one year of age. About this age, all male lions
are kicked out of the place of hunting they were raised.
This is a very difficult situation, for they are inexpert hunters, and
also they are often alone, and in case they hunt something, they would
be robbed by other predators, like hyenas, jackals, or leopards. Then
there exist only a faint probability of surviving alone in the worse
parts of the wild, for all the good places to hunt are already occupied
by prides of lions, etc. Then, a minor defect, or a minor weakness will
kill most lions with starvation in a few weeks, or a few months.

This can tell us something about the "survival of the fittest" that
postulated Darwin, and perhaps even Malthus could has said something
like this.

I am asking you. Which is your posture in this particular case of the
lions I present here? Do you think that the good Lord planned things
this way by giving the lioness a fertility 15 times higher than it was
needed to survive? Then the good lord planed that more than 93% of
the lions cubs would die of starvation or devoured by predators?

If there is not god, I understand very well what Darwin was saying.

I had seen also some cheetahs dying of starvation. They were three
brothers rather inexpert, for they were very young. They formed a
team for hunting. But somewhat, a one of the brothers disappeared.
The two remaining brothers were unsure. They were barely able to
hunt in a team of two. They ended starving. They were becoming
very weak as they passed four or five days without eating. One
little pray they got, was robbed to them a hyena.

What is the problem with this theory of the survival of the fittest?
God did it, we can say as well. Just imagine that "do did it". If
god did it must be perfect. Any problems with the will of god?

Then, I do not believe in god. But I have not any problems either.
Survival of the fittest. I do not see what is the problem.

When wars occur among humans, not only survival of the fittest work.
It is also random that plays a role as well. You can be very well
fitted for a war, but if a bullet hits your brain, or an explosion
blows up near you, you will die. In the same way, a lioness is
trying to hunt a giraffe and the animal kick backwards and breaks the
jaw of the lioness. This lioness would die of starvation, for it
cannot eat anymore. There is not surgery for a lioness in the
Serengeti.

What is the problem? God did it. Survival of the fittest

But if you do not believe in god, there is not any particular reason
to believe that this theory is wrong, survival of the fittest.

You wanted to prove otherwise?

Eridanus



hersheyh

unread,
Jan 30, 2013, 7:27:50 PM1/30/13
to
You forgot to tell us how biologists define "favorable" and "unfavorable" in the context of natural selection. "Favorable" is any trait that *causes* (significantly effects) a relative increase in reproductive success. Conversely, any trait that *causes* a relative decrease in reproductive success is "unfavorable". Thus, in a reproductive system, it is true that the "favorable" variations would increase relative to the "unfavorable" ones. Was that your point?

backspace

unread,
Jan 31, 2013, 12:44:45 AM1/31/13
to
That it is a claim of logic, favorable and increase are dissimilar terms that self-referentially refers to the same fact. As Pnyikos pointed out to you in another thread that if the other creature became more favorable, we would be told the same story. I have made the bulk of the edits to the main rhetorical tautology article at wikipedia, please consult it. Evolutionary theory derives from Democritus atomism, the single favorable atoms out propagated the inferior ones. Darwin applied the same narrative to individual creatures in the firt,second edition of OoS. Fleeming Jenkin then pointed out that individual differences do not propagate in the population. Because Darwin formulated a tautology, his thesis was not falsified, it allowed him to effortlessly substitute populations that evolution takes place and not individuals. See the book Wittgenstein's beatle and other thought experiments on this issue.

Athel Cornish-Bowden

unread,
Jan 31, 2013, 1:15:40 AM1/31/13
to
On 2013-01-31 05:44:45 +0000, backspace said:

> On Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:27:50 AM UTC, hersheyh wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 2:59:53 PM UTC-5, backspace wrote:
>>
>>> [ … ]

>> You forgot to tell us how biologists define "favorable" and
>> "unfavorable" in the context of natural selection. "Favorable" is any
>> trait that *causes* (significantly effects) a relative increase in
>> reproductive success. Conversely, any trait that *causes* a relative
>> decrease in reproductive success is "unfavorable". Thus, in a
>> reproductive system, it is true that the "favorable" variations would
>> increase relative to the "unfavorable" ones. Was that your point?
>
> That it is a claim of logic, favorable and increase are dissimilar
> terms that self-referentially refers to the same fact. As Pnyikos
> pointed out to you in another thread that if the other creature became
> more favorable, we would be told the same story. I have made the bulk
> of the edits to the main rhetorical tautology article at wikipedia,
> please consult it. Evolutionary theory derives from Democritus atomism,
> the single favorable atoms out propagated the inferior ones. Darwin
> applied the same narrative to individual creatures in the firt,second
> edition of OoS. Fleeming Jenkin then pointed out that individual
> differences do not propagate in the population.

This was a valid point when Jenkin made it, and Darwin took it
seriously, but it was invalidated by the discovery of particulate
inheritance, and in particular by the development understanding of
genetics. With the incorporation of genetics into the "new synthesis"
it became of historic interest only.

> Because Darwin formulated a tautology, his thesis was not falsified, it
> allowed him to effortlessly substitute populations that evolution takes
> place and not individuals.

You're about a century out of date.

> See the book Wittgenstein's beatle and other thought experiments on this issue.

Why? What qualifications in biology did Wittgenstein have?


--
athel

Athel Cornish-Bowden

unread,
Jan 31, 2013, 2:29:44 AM1/31/13
to
On 2013-01-31 06:15:40 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:

> On 2013-01-31 05:44:45 +0000, backspace said:
>
>> [ … ]

>> See the book Wittgenstein's beatle and other thought experiments on this issue.
>
> Why? What qualifications in biology did Wittgenstein have?

Anyway, I've now looked at the part Amazon lets you see without buying
it. The author (Martin Cohen) doesn't have any qualifications in
biology, and his ideas about it are, like yours, about 100 years out of
date. The index contains no entries for "genetics", "Mendel", "modern
synthesis", "Fisher", "Wright", "Haldane", "Mayr" or anything else to
suggest that Cohen knew anything about what he was talking about. The
specific page (p. 28) where he mentions Jenkin is unfortunately not
available in the preview.
--
athel

backspace

unread,
Jan 31, 2013, 3:41:43 AM1/31/13
to
Claims of logic are never out of date.




Athel Cornish-Bowden

unread,
Jan 31, 2013, 4:48:31 AM1/31/13
to
_Claims_ of logic can certainly be out of date if they are shown to be
based on incorrect logic. If they are truly logical then any
conclusions from them are still dependent on the truth of the premises.

Fleeming Jenkin's objection was logical insofar as it was based on his
(and Darwin's) conception of inheritance as being like mixing paint.
Now that we know (and have now known for a long time) that inheritance
is not like that it is irrelevant. A conclusion that follows from a
false premise may be logical, but that doesn't make it true. If the
moon were made of green cheese there would be plenty to eat if you went
there, but it isn't so there wouldn't.


--
athel

Burkhard

unread,
Jan 31, 2013, 5:51:12 AM1/31/13
to
On Jan 31, 5:44 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:27:50 AM UTC, hersheyh wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 2:59:53 PM UTC-5, backspace wrote:
>
> > > “natural selection” which is, as Darwin wrote in his notebook somewhere aroun 1838:   “....simply the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms.....”
>
> > >http://www9.bangwsd.net/gtfeducation/images/dynamic/file/Books/Morgan...
>
> > > ---------------
>
> > > In July of l837, Darwin wrote that he  “opened his first notebook” to record
>
> > > additional facts bearing on the question, but it was not until he happened to read Malthus’ Essay on Population in October of l838 that he found an explanatory theory from which  the above  “supposition” followed.    “In October l838,” Darwin wrote,  “that is fifteen months after I had begun my systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus’ Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence (a phrase used by Malthus) which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favorable variations would tend to be preserved and unfavorable ones to be destroyed.  The result of this would be a new species.  Here then I had at last got hold of a theory by which to work.”
>
> > > From this encounter, Darwin commenced the now famous formulation of the
>
> > > principle of  “natural selection” which is, as he wrote,  “simply the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms.”
>
> > > Note:
>
> > > ...favorable variations would tend to be preserved and unfavorable ones to be destroyed.... is a rhetorical tautology meaning that any conclusion from such is a non-sequitur. Darwin's premise was that the present attributes were not in the distant past, his mechanism natural selection or natural means of competitive preservation of the favorable attributes is a claim of logic and thus not falsifiable.
>
> > You forgot to tell us how biologists define "favorable" and "unfavorable" in the context of natural selection.  "Favorable" is any trait that *causes* (significantly effects) a relative increase in reproductive success.  Conversely, any trait that *causes*  a relative decrease in reproductive success is "unfavorable".   Thus, in a reproductive system, it is true that the "favorable" variations would increase relative to the "unfavorable" ones.  Was that your point?
>
> That it is a claim of logic, favorable and increase are dissimilar terms that self-referentially

Nope. "Being self-referential" is a structural feature of sentences,
and in very exceptional cases terms. Nothing in these two terms, or
any sentence formd with them that you could find in a biology book, is
in any way, shape or form self-referential.

And even if they were, many self referential sentences have very clear
truth values (and can also be falsified): "This sentence has twelve
words" is self -referential ,falsifiable and indeed false, "This
sentence has five words" is self referential, falsifiable but true. So
nothing wrong or problematic with self-referential sentences as such

>"Favourable" and "increase"refers to the same fact.

Nope. That they must refer to different facts can easily be seen by
the fact that the second, but not the first has a temporal dimension.
Things increase _over time_, they can be "favourable" by contrast at
any given point in time. So they are not even of the same syntactic
category, let alone have the same meaning. Where they are linked in a
theory, they are linked through contingent claims.

> As Pnyikos pointed out to you in another thread that if the other creature became more favorable, we would be told the same story.

So what? If I find a broken bottle in my kitchen, I can hypothesise
that the cat pushed it form the table, and it fell because of gravity.
If I find my cat was elsewhere, I can tell "the same story" but now
about my dog. That does not mean that there is anything tautological
in "gravity", "dog" or "cat", let alone the sentence "My cat pushed
over the bottle and it fell due to gravity", which is clearly
falsifiable.

>I have made the bulk of the edits to the main rhetorical tautology article

And it shows. No references to academic literature makes it a personal
opinion piece unsuitable for an encyclopaedia, and not more convincing
than anything you say here directly. . The article fails to show that
there even _is_ such a category as "rhetorical tautology", let alone
what it supposed to mean. Some parts of it describes logical
tautologies, others describe pleonasms, most describes nothing that I
can make any sense of. Most of it is incomprehensible, the parts that
are comprehensible wrong.


> at wikipedia, please consult it. Evolutionary theory derives from Democritus atomism, the single favorable atoms out propagated the inferior ones.

This may have been a theory by Democrit. It became falsified (the
latest) once we learned more about the way atoms are formed.

>Darwin applied the same narrative to individual creatures in the firt,second edition of OoS.

That was his theory. It could have been falsified when we learned more
about inheritance, It wasn't, at least not so far (but of course like
all scientific theories, it could become falsified when new insights
in the mechanism of inheritance are discovered)

> Fleeming Jenkin then pointed out that individual differences do not propagate in the population.

That was based on Jenkin's theory of inheritance. It has since been
falsified, so does not really matter

wiki trix

unread,
Jan 31, 2013, 7:57:42 AM1/31/13
to
Sounds logical. But logic was never viable at reaching Truth. And what
of truth? Well........ it's all just a bunch of metaphors, metonyms,
and anthropomorphisms. YMMV.

J. J. Lodder J. J. Lodder

unread,
Jan 31, 2013, 1:21:06 PM1/31/13
to
Claims of logic alone are never relevant for science,

Jan

Kermit

unread,
Jan 31, 2013, 1:57:21 PM1/31/13
to
True. And synthetic claims based on false premisses are always
invalid.

Everybody's logic flies out the window in the face of facts, which by
the way you never face.

Misunderstandings of obscure philosophers do not make the evidence go
away.

Your futile attempts at word magic succeed - at best - only in
deluding yourself.

Science does not depend on the founder; it is not a cult.

kermit

Kermit

unread,
Jan 31, 2013, 2:13:12 PM1/31/13
to
On 30 Jan, 21:44, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:27:50 AM UTC, hersheyh wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 2:59:53 PM UTC-5, backspace wrote:
>
> > > “natural selection” which is, as Darwin wrote in his notebook somewhere aroun 1838:   “....simply the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms.....”
>
> > >http://www9.bangwsd.net/gtfeducation/images/dynamic/file/Books/Morgan...
>
> > > ---------------
>
> > > In July of l837, Darwin wrote that he  “opened his first notebook” to record
>
> > > additional facts bearing on the question, but it was not until he happened to read Malthus’ Essay on Population in October of l838 that he found an explanatory theory from which  the above  “supposition” followed.    “In October l838,” Darwin wrote,  “that is fifteen months after I had begun my systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus’ Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence (a phrase used by Malthus) which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favorable variations would tend to be preserved and unfavorable ones to be destroyed.  The result of this would be a new species.  Here then I had at last got hold of a theory by which to work.”
>
> > > From this encounter, Darwin commenced the now famous formulation of the
>
> > > principle of  “natural selection” which is, as he wrote,  “simply the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms.”
>
> > > Note:
>
> > > ...favorable variations would tend to be preserved and unfavorable ones to be destroyed.... is a rhetorical tautology meaning that any conclusion from such is a non-sequitur. Darwin's premise was that the present attributes were not in the distant past, his mechanism natural selection or natural means of competitive preservation of the favorable attributes is a claim of logic and thus not falsifiable.
>
> > You forgot to tell us how biologists define "favorable" and "unfavorable" in the context of natural selection.  "Favorable" is any trait that *causes* (significantly effects) a relative increase in reproductive success.  Conversely, any trait that *causes*  a relative decrease in reproductive success is "unfavorable".   Thus, in a reproductive system, it is true that the "favorable" variations would increase relative to the "unfavorable" ones.  Was that your point?
>
> That it is a claim of logic,

No, it is a definition of two words widely used in biology.

> favorable and increase are dissimilar terms that self-referentially refers to the same fact.

How are they self-referential?
A trait which is favorable means a trait that is conducive to more
successful reproduction of an organism. What is self-referential about
that?

> As Pnyikos pointed out to you in another thread that if the other creature became more favorable,

Creatures do not become more favorable; *traits are favorable. If they
are inheritable, then they tend to spread in a breeding population.
(And no, this is not tautological. Through bad luck they may not
spread, and they may not be inheritable at all. Or it might have
turned out that favorable traits would not spread, but they in fact
do.)

> we would be told the same story. I have made the bulk of the edits to the main rhetorical tautology article at wikipedia, please consult it.

Why? We've read your goofy posts on the subject, and you do not
understand this at all (or pretend that you don't).

> Evolutionary theory derives from Democritus atomism,

No, it doesn't. It doesn't even depend on the modern atomic theory,
nor the earlier version of it which nineteenth century physicists
used.

>the single favorable atoms out propagated the inferior ones. Darwin applied the same narrative to individual creatures in the firt,second edition of OoS. Fleeming Jenkin then pointed out that individual differences do not propagate in the population.

Individual traits usually do, if they are inheritable and improve
reproductive success.

> Because Darwin formulated a tautology,

He did not.
If a trait is inheritable and results in increased numbers of
offspring, then that trait will likely spread through a breeding
population. There is nothing tautological about this claim.

> his thesis was not falsified,

It wasn't a thesis; it's a theory, which has had to be modified in
several respects (parts of it were falsified) but which formed the
basis of modern evolutionary biology.

Bad philosophy does not make the evidence go away. You're a fish, as
am I.

> it allowed him to effortlessly substitute populations that evolution takes place and not individuals. See the book Wittgenstein's beatle and other thought experiments on this issue.

Why? Wittgenstein was a fine philosopher but contributed little to
science.


kermit

hersheyh

unread,
Jan 31, 2013, 2:22:29 PM1/31/13
to
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:44:45 AM UTC-5, backspace wrote:
> On Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:27:50 AM UTC, hersheyh wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 2:59:53 PM UTC-5, backspace wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > “natural selection” which is, as Darwin wrote in his notebook somewhere aroun 1838: “....simply the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms.....”
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > http://www9.bangwsd.net/gtfeducation/images/dynamic/file/Books/Morgan/NATURALLY-GOOD1.pdf?1358364942231
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > ---------------
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > In July of l837, Darwin wrote that he “opened his first notebook” to record
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > additional facts bearing on the question, but it was not until he happened to read Malthus’ Essay on Population in October of l838 that he found an explanatory theory from which the above “supposition” followed. “In October l838,” Darwin wrote, “that is fifteen months after I had begun my systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus’ Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence (a phrase used by Malthus) which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favorable variations would tend to be preserved and unfavorable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be a new species. Here then I had at last got hold of a theory by which to work.”
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > From this encounter, Darwin commenced the now famous formulation of the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > principle of “natural selection” which is, as he wrote, “simply the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms.”
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Note:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > ...favorable variations would tend to be preserved and unfavorable ones to be destroyed.... is a rhetorical tautology meaning that any conclusion from such is a non-sequitur. Darwin's premise was that the present attributes were not in the distant past, his mechanism natural selection or natural means of competitive preservation of the favorable attributes is a claim of logic and thus not falsifiable.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > You forgot to tell us how biologists define "favorable" and "unfavorable" in the context of natural selection. "Favorable" is any trait that *causes* (significantly effects) a relative increase in reproductive success. Conversely, any trait that *causes* a relative decrease in reproductive success is "unfavorable". Thus, in a reproductive system, it is true that the "favorable" variations would increase relative to the "unfavorable" ones. Was that your point?
>
>
>
> That it is a claim of logic, favorable and increase are dissimilar terms that self-referentially refers to the same fact.

Not logically so. Something unfavorable can increase, like the cockroaches in your apartment (your mother's basement, probably). And something favorable can decrease, like the
number of chocolates in a candy jar. In this particular case, we define a significant increase in *frequency* of organisms having a particular trait as the favorable direction and the concurrent
decrease in the *frequency* of organisms having alternative traits as the unfavorable direction.

> As Pnyikos pointed out to you in another thread that if the other creature became more favorable, we
> would be told the same story.

Of course. It would mean that the 'other trait' (natural selection deals with traits within a species, not 'creatures') was, by definition, increasing in frequency in that environment. There are many examples
of traits changing from 'favorable' to 'neutral' to 'unfavorable' when the environment changes. Observing that there is positive selection for a trait is the *first* step in determining the evolutionary
story, not the entire story.

> I have made the bulk of the edits to the main rhetorical tautology
> article at wikipedia, please consult it.

Why should anyone consider you to be an expert in anything?

> Evolutionary theory derives from Democritus atomism, the
> single favorable atoms out propagated the inferior ones. Darwin applied the same narrative to
> individual creatures in the firt,second edition of OoS. Fleeming Jenkin then pointed out that individual
> differences do not propagate in the population.

Fleeming Jenkin correctly pointed out a problem with the blending inheritance that was thought to be
the case at that time.

> Because Darwin formulated a tautology, his thesis
> was not falsified, it allowed him to effortlessly substitute populations that evolution takes place and
> not individuals.

Evolution indeed does not take place in individuals. It takes place in populations. Did you have a problem with that?

hersheyh

unread,
Jan 31, 2013, 2:24:24 PM1/31/13
to
Was that beatle Ringo, John, Paul, or George?

Bob Casanova

unread,
Jan 31, 2013, 4:45:08 PM1/31/13
to
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:41:43 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
<steph...@gmail.com>:

>On Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:29:44 AM UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2013-01-31 06:15:40 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 2013-01-31 05:44:45 +0000, backspace said:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >> [ … ]
>>
>>
>>
>> >> See the book Wittgenstein's beatle and other thought experiments on this issue.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Why? What qualifications in biology did Wittgenstein have?

[Crickets, as usual...]

>> Anyway, I've now looked at the part Amazon lets you see without buying
>>
>> it. The author (Martin Cohen) doesn't have any qualifications in
>>
>> biology, and his ideas about it are, like yours, about 100 years out of
>>
>> date. The index contains no entries for "genetics", "Mendel", "modern
>>
>> synthesis", "Fisher", "Wright", "Haldane", "Mayr" or anything else to
>>
>> suggest that Cohen knew anything about what he was talking about. The
>>
>> specific page (p. 28) where he mentions Jenkin is unfortunately not
>>
>> available in the preview.

>Claims of logic are never out of date.

No, they're just irrelevant when contradicted by evidence.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

John Harshman

unread,
Jan 31, 2013, 5:06:13 PM1/31/13
to
On 1/31/13 1:45 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:41:43 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
> <steph...@gmail.com>:
>
>> On Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:29:44 AM UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>> On 2013-01-31 06:15:40 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 2013-01-31 05:44:45 +0000, backspace said:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> [ … ]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> See the book Wittgenstein's beatle and other thought experiments on this issue.
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> Why? What qualifications in biology did Wittgenstein have?
>
> [Crickets, as usual...]

No, you're confused. The Crickets came long before the Beatles. The
Beatles did cover "Words of Love", though.

John S. Wilkins

unread,
Jan 31, 2013, 5:29:21 PM1/31/13
to
Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

> Why? What qualifications in biology did Wittgenstein have?

None, although he did design a jet engine, so that made him an engineer,
who, we all know, understand biology better than anyone else.

What I find interesting about W is that he used biological ideas like
"family resemblance" which implies descent and modification and yet
thought evolution was uninteresting.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
Honorary Fellow, University of Melbourne
- http://evolvingthoughts.net

J. J. Lodder J. J. Lodder

unread,
Feb 1, 2013, 5:21:33 AM2/1/13
to
John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:

> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>
> > Why? What qualifications in biology did Wittgenstein have?
>
> None, although he did design a jet engine, so that made him an engineer,
> who, we all know, understand biology better than anyone else.

That is a rather optimistic view.
This was ca 1910, when W was a student.
W. invented a jet driven propellor, not a jet engine.
And 'invented' is saying too much:
he adapted the well known idea of Hero of Alexandria, 1st century.

Given the state of the art at the time
it was a very theoretical excercise.
Nothing resembling W.'s ideas was ever realised in practice.
The tip-jet driven helicopters of te 1950s used different methods.

> What I find interesting about W is that he used biological ideas like
> "family resemblance" which implies descent and modification and yet
> thought evolution was uninteresting.

Too tautological, to his taste?

Jan

Bob Casanova

unread,
Feb 1, 2013, 1:18:43 PM2/1/13
to
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:06:13 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:

>On 1/31/13 1:45 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:41:43 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by backspace
>> <steph...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> On Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:29:44 AM UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>> On 2013-01-31 06:15:40 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 2013-01-31 05:44:45 +0000, backspace said:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> [ … ]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> See the book Wittgenstein's beatle and other thought experiments on this issue.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Why? What qualifications in biology did Wittgenstein have?
>>
>> [Crickets, as usual...]
>
>No, you're confused. The Crickets came long before the Beatles. The
>Beatles did cover "Words of Love", though.

Ah, my error. Thanks. ;-)

>>>> Anyway, I've now looked at the part Amazon lets you see without buying
>>>>
>>>> it. The author (Martin Cohen) doesn't have any qualifications in
>>>>
>>>> biology, and his ideas about it are, like yours, about 100 years out of
>>>>
>>>> date. The index contains no entries for "genetics", "Mendel", "modern
>>>>
>>>> synthesis", "Fisher", "Wright", "Haldane", "Mayr" or anything else to
>>>>
>>>> suggest that Cohen knew anything about what he was talking about. The
>>>>
>>>> specific page (p. 28) where he mentions Jenkin is unfortunately not
>>>>
>>>> available in the preview.
>>
>>> Claims of logic are never out of date.
>>
>> No, they're just irrelevant when contradicted by evidence.

Bob Casanova

unread,
Feb 1, 2013, 1:20:42 PM2/1/13
to
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 09:29:21 +1100, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins):

>Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>
>> Why? What qualifications in biology did Wittgenstein have?

>None, although he did design a jet engine, so that made him an engineer,
>who, we all know, understand biology better than anyone else.

....a claim made by those engineers who understand neither
engineering nor science, and especially not the difference.

>What I find interesting about W is that he used biological ideas like
>"family resemblance" which implies descent and modification and yet
>thought evolution was uninteresting.
--

backspace

unread,
Feb 1, 2013, 2:00:01 PM2/1/13
to
Was the modification in the patter or design sense? I am still waiting for you to upload the video demonstrating the alternative to a pattern with a purpose and pattern without a purpose on youtube. See
http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Pattern_or_design#Majority_and_minority_metaphor

backspace

unread,
Feb 1, 2013, 2:15:03 PM2/1/13
to
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:13:12 PM UTC, Kermit wrote:
> On 30 Jan, 21:44, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:27:50 AM UTC, hersheyh wrote:
>
> > > On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 2:59:53 PM UTC-5, backspace wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > “natural selection” which is, as Darwin wrote in his notebook somewhere aroun 1838:   “....simply the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms.....”
>
> >
>
> > > >http://www9.bangwsd.net/gtfeducation/images/dynamic/file/Books/Morgan...
>
> >
>
> > > > ---------------
>
> >
>
> > > > In July of l837, Darwin wrote that he  “opened his first notebook” to record
>
> >
>
> > > > additional facts bearing on the question, but it was not until he happened to read Malthus’ Essay on Population in October of l838 that he found an explanatory theory from which  the above  “supposition” followed.    “In October l838,” Darwin wrote,  “that is fifteen months after I had begun my systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus’ Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence (a phrase used by Malthus) which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favorable variations would tend to be preserved and unfavorable ones to be destroyed.  The result of this would be a new species.  Here then I had at last got hold of a theory by which to work.”
>
> >
>
> > > > From this encounter, Darwin commenced the now famous formulation of the
>
> >
>
> > > > principle of  “natural selection” which is, as he wrote,  “simply the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms.”
>
> >
>
> > > > Note:
>
> >
>
> > > > ...favorable variations would tend to be preserved and unfavorable ones to be destroyed.... is a rhetorical tautology meaning that any conclusion from such is a non-sequitur. Darwin's premise was that the present attributes were not in the distant past, his mechanism natural selection or natural means of competitive preservation of the favorable attributes is a claim of logic and thus not falsifiable.
>
> >
>
> > > You forgot to tell us how biologists define "favorable" and "unfavorable" in the context of natural selection.  "Favorable" is any trait that *causes* (significantly effects) a relative increase in reproductive success.  Conversely, any trait that *causes*  a relative decrease in reproductive success is "unfavorable".   Thus, in a reproductive system, it is true that the "favorable" variations would increase relative to the "unfavorable" ones.  Was that your point?
>
> >
>
> > That it is a claim of logic,
>
>
>
> No, it is a definition of two words widely used in biology.
>
>
>
> > favorable and increase are dissimilar terms that self-referentially refers to the same fact.
>
>
>
> How are they self-referential?
>
> A trait which is favorable means a trait that is conducive to more
>
> successful reproduction of an organism. What is self-referential about
>
> that?

Claims of logic can't be verified nor refuted, therefore I can't construct a test for the logic of the proposition that the favorable ones increased in a generalized context. You either get the logic or you don't, if you don't, then you don't .





> > As Pnyikos pointed out to you in another thread that if the other creature became more favorable,

> Creatures do not become more favorable; *traits are favorable. If they
> are inheritable, then they tend to spread in a breeding population.

It is logical to infer that favorable traits spread. The fact that they spread implies they were favorable. Your premise is that present attributes weren't there in the distant past with the conclusion that such attributes had to be acquired by some mechanism. Your mechanism is a claim of logic, what you propose is utterly logical and thus utterly unfalsifiable. Physics equations are not claims of logic.


> (And no, this is not tautological. Through bad luck they may not
> spread, and they may not be inheritable at all. Or it might have
> turned out that favorable traits would not spread, but they in fact
> do.)

Those traits that didn't spread given the same repeated conditions were therefor not favorable for spreading, very logical, utterly irrefutable.


> >the single favorable atoms out propagated the inferior ones. Darwin applied the same narrative to individual creatures in the firt,second edition of OoS. Fleeming Jenkin then pointed out that individual differences do not propagate in the population.
>
>
>
> Individual traits usually do, if they are inheritable and improve
> reproductive success.

What you say is logical, but not falsifiable.



> > Because Darwin formulated a tautology,
> He did not.

> If a trait is inheritable and results in increased numbers of
> offspring, then that trait will likely spread through a breeding
> population. There is nothing tautological about this claim.

The terms 'increased number' and 'likely spread' refer to the same fact, it states the same thing twice.


eridanus

unread,
Feb 1, 2013, 3:08:17 PM2/1/13
to
El viernes, 1 de febrero de 2013 19:15:03 UTC, backspace escribi�:
> On Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:13:12 PM UTC, Kermit wrote:
>
> > On 30 Jan, 21:44, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:27:50 AM UTC, hersheyh wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 2:59:53 PM UTC-5, backspace wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > �natural selection� which is, as Darwin wrote in his notebook somewhere aroun 1838: � �....simply the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms.....�
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > >http://www9.bangwsd.net/gtfeducation/images/dynamic/file/Books/Morgan...
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > ---------------
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > In July of l837, Darwin wrote that he ��opened his first notebook� to record
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > additional facts bearing on the question, but it was not until he happened to read Malthus� Essay on Population in October of l838 that he found an explanatory theory from which �the above ��supposition� followed. � ��In October l838,� Darwin wrote, ��that is fifteen months after I had begun my systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus� Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence (a phrase used by Malthus) which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favorable variations would tend to be preserved and unfavorable ones to be destroyed. �The result of this would be a new species. �Here then I had at last got hold of a theory by which to work.�
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > From this encounter, Darwin commenced the now famous formulation of the
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > principle of ��natural selection� which is, as he wrote, ��simply the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms.�
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > Note:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > ...favorable variations would tend to be preserved and unfavorable ones to be destroyed.... is a rhetorical tautology meaning that any conclusion from such is a non-sequitur. Darwin's premise was that the present attributes were not in the distant past, his mechanism natural selection or natural means of competitive preservation of the favorable attributes is a claim of logic and thus not falsifiable.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > You forgot to tell us how biologists define "favorable" and "unfavorable" in the context of natural selection. �"Favorable" is any trait that *causes* (significantly effects) a relative increase in reproductive success. �Conversely, any trait that *causes* �a relative decrease in reproductive success is "unfavorable". � Thus, in a reproductive system, it is true that the "favorable" variations would increase relative to the "unfavorable" ones. �Was that your point?
what is really the problem with this? The idea of evolution is one
born on a logical necessity to explain, first of all, the easy changes
provoked by selection on domestic animals. Then, the the close
resemblance among different species of animals, had given farther
reasons to invent a theory such as evolution.

Of course, this theory was possible for the existence of a god creator
was so weak, that most intelligent humans do not believed in it.

Then, in absences of any gods, the logical had to be naturalistic, as
never had been proved that the gods had any influence on human events,
or natural catastrophes, except in bogus scriptures that describe the
influence of the gods.

Then, the logic of evolution cannot be disproved, because you cannot
design any other theory that could replace it, except the worn out old
theory called as "god didit"

I would be glad to accept the theory of "god didit" if anyone can show
me a few examples of god altering the natural laws in a clear way, like
reversing the entropy of some natural events.

Eridanus


John S. Wilkins

unread,
Feb 1, 2013, 5:46:45 PM2/1/13
to
J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:

> John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
> > Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> >
> > > Why? What qualifications in biology did Wittgenstein have?
> >
> > None, although he did design a jet engine, so that made him an engineer,
> > who, we all know, understand biology better than anyone else.
>
> That is a rather optimistic view.
> This was ca 1910, when W was a student.
> W. invented a jet driven propellor, not a jet engine.
> And 'invented' is saying too much:
> he adapted the well known idea of Hero of Alexandria, 1st century.

Ray Monk did not go into details, I'm afraid. Thanks for the detail.
>
> Given the state of the art at the time
> it was a very theoretical excercise.
> Nothing resembling W.'s ideas was ever realised in practice.
> The tip-jet driven helicopters of te 1950s used different methods.
>
> > What I find interesting about W is that he used biological ideas like
> > "family resemblance" which implies descent and modification and yet
> > thought evolution was uninteresting.
>
> Too tautological, to his taste?

Quite the reverse. The Tractarian W loved tautologies.

Kermit

unread,
Feb 1, 2013, 6:50:07 PM2/1/13
to
On 1 Feb, 11:15, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:13:12 PM UTC, Kermit wrote:
> > On 30 Jan, 21:44, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:27:50 AM UTC, hersheyh wrote:
>
> > > > On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 2:59:53 PM UTC-5, backspace wrote:
>
> > > > > “natural selection” which is, as Darwin wrote in his notebook somewhere aroun 1838:   “....simply the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms.....”
>
> > > > >http://www9.bangwsd.net/gtfeducation/images/dynamic/file/Books/Morgan...
>
> > > > > ---------------
>
> > > > > In July of l837, Darwin wrote that he  “opened his first notebook” to record
>
> > > > > additional facts bearing on the question, but it was not until he happened to read Malthus’ Essay on Population in October of l838 that he found an explanatory theory from which  the above  “supposition” followed.    “In October l838,” Darwin wrote,  “that is fifteen months after I had begun my systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus’ Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence (a phrase used by Malthus) which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favorable variations would tend to be preserved and unfavorable ones to be destroyed.  The result of this would be a new species.  Here then I had at last got hold of a theory by which to work.”
>
> > > > > From this encounter, Darwin commenced the now famous formulation of the
>
> > > > > principle of  “natural selection” which is, as he wrote,  “simply the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms.”
>
> > > > > Note:
>
> > > > > ...favorable variations would tend to be preserved and unfavorable ones to be destroyed.... is a rhetorical tautology meaning that any conclusion from such is a non-sequitur. Darwin's premise was that the present attributes were not in the distant past, his mechanism natural selection or natural means of competitive preservation of the favorable attributes is a claim of logic and thus not falsifiable.
>
> > > > You forgot to tell us how biologists define "favorable" and "unfavorable" in the context of natural selection.  "Favorable" is any trait that *causes* (significantly effects) a relative increase in reproductive success.  Conversely, any trait that *causes*  a relative decrease in reproductive success is "unfavorable".   Thus, in a reproductive system, it is true that the "favorable" variations would increase relative to the "unfavorable" ones.  Was that your point?
>
> > > That it is a claim of logic,
>
> > No, it is a definition of two words widely used in biology.
>
> > > favorable and increase are dissimilar terms that self-referentially refers to the same fact.
>
> > How are they self-referential?
>
> > A trait which is favorable means a trait that is conducive to  more
>
> > successful reproduction of an organism. What is self-referential about
>
> > that?
>
> Claims of logic can't be verified nor refuted, therefore I can't construct a test for the logic of the proposition that the favorable ones increased in a generalized context. You either get the logic or you don't, if you don't, then you don't .

If you are using purely abstract symbols, then the logic cannot be
refuted (although it might be so complex that it has to be studied to
affirm its soundness).

But when you make claims of fact about the world - synthetic
statements, then those claims can certainly be checked.

>
> > > As Pnyikos pointed out to you in another thread that if the other creature became more favorable,
> > Creatures do not become more favorable; *traits are favorable. If they
> > are inheritable, then they tend to spread in a breeding population.
>
> It is logical to infer that favorable traits spread. The fact that they spread implies they were favorable.

No. There are favorable traits that do not spread (they are not
inheritable, or there is bad luck for a particular organism.) It is
also easy to conceive of a mechanism for inheritance that has some
sort of "correction" process or serious limitations. It turns out,
however, that in reality inheritable traits which are favorable *will
tend to spread throughout a breeding population.

Logical speculation about reality has to be tested, and verified.

Darwin was wrong about inheritable traits blending in offspring (of
sexually dimorphic species). Genetic inheritance is instead granular
in nature, but this took some study to determine.Two alleles
controlling the same trait interact, and may look like an analog
blending, but it's not.

> Your premise is that present attributes weren't there in the distant past with the conclusion that such attributes had to be acquired by some mechanism.

No, this is not a premiss. This is an observation. Inheritable traits,
mutations, and natural selection are the models which explains these
observations. Pre-Darwinian Christian geologists could see that
species had change dramatically over a long period of time.

> Your mechanism is a claim of logic, what you propose is utterly logical and thus utterly unfalsifiable.

No, it's a testable model. As I (and numerous others) have told you
before (on numerous occasions) there could have been other outcomes.
E.g., the traits may not have been inheritable, or perhaps species
have some archetype controlling mechanism which is always expressed
with some variations, and only the archetype is passed on.
Or perhaps the characteristics are inheritable, but favorable ones
don't spread.

However, it turns out that these various falsifying outcomes are not
true.

Realty is not constrained by bad logic. Good logic, close study, and
attempts to falsify explanatory models, however, give up an excellent
start in understanding the world around us.

Science works.

> Physics equations are not claims of logic.

Like all science, logic and math are tools. Science uses those tools
in its investigations of reality.

>
> > (And no, this is not tautological. Through bad luck they  may not
> > spread, and they may not be inheritable at all. Or it might have
> > turned out that favorable traits would not spread, but they in fact
> > do.)
>
> Those traits that didn't spread given the same repeated conditions were therefor not favorable for spreading, very logical, utterly irrefutable.

Favorable traits are traits which produce more offspring from an
individual.
This claim itself, when applied to any particular case has to be
confirmed and tested. Was it the thicker fur? Was it simply chance?
Was it smell or something else not obvious to a cursory glance?

A trait which is confirmed to lead to greater reproductive success
does not not lead to spreading in a population from logical necessity.
For instance, it may not be inheritable.
Or it may have turned out that favorable traits do not spread
throughout a population.

It turns out that they do, but that's confirmed by observation, not by
logical necessity.

As you have been told before.

>
> > >the single favorable atoms out propagated the inferior ones. Darwin applied the same narrative to individual creatures in the firt,second edition of OoS. Fleeming Jenkin then pointed out that individual differences do not propagate in the population.
>
> > Individual traits usually do, if they are inheritable and improve
> > reproductive success.
>
> What you say is logical, but not falsifiable.

Sure it is. I've given several logical possibilities. Turns out that
evolutionary science is the best explanation for reality.

It's science if it's falsifiable *in principle. If it is actually
falsified, then it's wrong (but still science, just wrong), and the
model has to be modified or dropped altogether.

>
> > > Because Darwin formulated a tautology,
> > He did not.
> > If a trait is inheritable and results in increased numbers of
> > offspring, then that trait will likely spread through a breeding
> > population. There is nothing tautological about this claim.
>
> The terms  'increased number' and 'likely spread' refer to the same fact, it states the same thing twice.

Nope, I have given several possibilities that might have happened. And
there are many cases of favorable traits that are not inheritable.

A rich man might have many lovers, but the offspring may not inherit
his wealth.

A fox may have found a source of food in the winter such as a human's
always filled garbage can, and her resulting strength allows her to
carry more litters of kits to term than other foxes - but those young
ones do not inherit the yummy garbage.

Or it may have turned out that traits don't work the way we thought
150 years ago. There are creationists right now who insist that there
is some archetype from which which organisms cannot deviate very far.
Those incorrect claims (refuted by evidence) actually refute your
claim that the spread of favorable traits is logically necessary.

You are not a philosopher at heart. You want to use word magic to
affirm your beliefs; you do not want to discover the truth at all. You
don't love truth, you fear or hate it for some reason. A philosopher
needs courage to pursue the truth.

kermit


J. J. Lodder J. J. Lodder

unread,
Feb 2, 2013, 9:36:19 AM2/2/13
to
John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> >
> > > Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Why? What qualifications in biology did Wittgenstein have?
> > >
> > > None, although he did design a jet engine, so that made him an engineer,
> > > who, we all know, understand biology better than anyone else.
> >
> > That is a rather optimistic view.
> > This was ca 1910, when W was a student.
> > W. invented a jet driven propellor, not a jet engine.
> > And 'invented' is saying too much:
> > he adapted the well known idea of Hero of Alexandria, 1st century.
>
> Ray Monk did not go into details, I'm afraid. Thanks for the detail.

More at
<http://rsnr.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/61/1/39.full>

> > Given the state of the art at the time
> > it was a very theoretical excercise.
> > Nothing resembling W.'s ideas was ever realised in practice.
> > The tip-jet driven helicopters of te 1950s used different methods.
> >
> > > What I find interesting about W is that he used biological ideas like
> > > "family resemblance" which implies descent and modification and yet
> > > thought evolution was uninteresting.
> >
> > Too tautological, to his taste?
>
> Quite the reverse. The Tractarian W loved tautologies.

He must have thrown it away with the ladder,

Jan

Burkhard

unread,
Feb 2, 2013, 10:40:44 AM2/2/13
to
On Feb 1, 7:15�pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, January 31, 2013 7:13:12 PM UTC, Kermit wrote:
> > On 30 Jan, 21:44, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:27:50 AM UTC, hersheyh wrote:
>
> > > > On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 2:59:53 PM UTC-5, backspace wrote:
>
> > > > > �natural selection� which is, as Darwin wrote in his notebook somewhere aroun 1838: � �....simply the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms.....�
>
> > > > >http://www9.bangwsd.net/gtfeducation/images/dynamic/file/Books/Morgan...
>
> > > > > ---------------
>
> > > > > In July of l837, Darwin wrote that he ��opened his first notebook� to record
>
> > > > > additional facts bearing on the question, but it was not until he happened to read Malthus� Essay on Population in October of l838 that he found an explanatory theory from which �the above ��supposition� followed. � ��In October l838,� Darwin wrote, ��that is fifteen months after I had begun my systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus� Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence (a phrase used by Malthus) which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favorable variations would tend to be preserved and unfavorable ones to be destroyed. �The result of this would be a new species. �Here then I had at last got hold of a theory by which to work.�
>
> > > > > From this encounter, Darwin commenced the now famous formulation of the
>
> > > > > principle of ��natural selection� which is, as he wrote, ��simply the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms.�
>
> > > > > Note:
>
> > > > > ...favorable variations would tend to be preserved and unfavorable ones to be destroyed.... is a rhetorical tautology meaning that any conclusion from such is a non-sequitur. Darwin's premise was that the present attributes were not in the distant past, his mechanism natural selection or natural means of competitive preservation of the favorable attributes is a claim of logic and thus not falsifiable.
>
> > > > You forgot to tell us how biologists define "favorable" and "unfavorable" in the context of natural selection. �"Favorable" is any trait that *causes* (significantly effects) a relative increase in reproductive success. �Conversely, any trait that *causes* �a relative decrease in reproductive success is "unfavorable". � Thus, in a reproductive system, it is true that the "favorable" variations would increase relative to the "unfavorable" ones. �Was that your point?
>
> > > That it is a claim of logic,
>
> > No, it is a definition of two words widely used in biology.
>
> > > favorable and increase are dissimilar terms that self-referentially refers to the same fact.
>
> > How are they self-referential?
>
> > A trait which is favorable means a trait that is conducive to �more
>
> > successful reproduction of an organism. What is self-referential about
>
> > that?
>
> Claims of logic can't be verified nor refuted, therefore I can't construct a test for the logic of the proposition that the favorable ones increased in a generalized context.

Sure you can. Just count the offspring, If it stays stable for all
trait all the time, the proposition failed the test and is
falsified.If it is reduced fro al traits all the time, ditto.

You either get the logic or you don't, if you don't, then you don't .
>
> > > As Pnyikos pointed out to you in another thread that if the other creature became more favorable,
> > Creatures do not become more favorable; *traits are favorable. If they
> > are inheritable, then they tend to spread in a breeding population.
>
> It is logical to infer that favorable traits spread. The fact that they spread implies they were favorable.

While you keep claiming this, it is provably untrue (and you have been
given the observations that falsify your claim numerous time). It
might be highly plausible that favourable traits spread - and in an
informal, every day parlance we sometimes use "highly plausible" and
"logical" interchangeably, But in the technical sense of "logical",
that is, strictly necessarily or as a result of word meaning alone, it
is provably wrong. "Being a King" is a favourable attribute, but we do
not get more and more kings (or members of the order of the thistle
ect etc) "Having a degree from Harvard" is favourable, but again we
don;t see it spreading though a population. Every single counter
example of this typeis enough to falsify your claim that this is a
logical necessity - they do not allow exceptions, not even merely
possible ones.


> Your premise is that present attributes weren't there in the distant past with the conclusion that such attributes had to be acquired by some mechanism. Your mechanism is a claim of logic, what you propose is utterly logical and thus utterly unfalsifiable. Physics equations are not claims of logic.
>
> > (And no, this is not tautological. Through bad luck they �may not
> > spread, and they may not be inheritable at all. Or it might have
> > turned out that favorable traits would not spread, but they in fact
> > do.)
>
> Those traits that didn't spread given the same repeated conditions were therefor not favorable for spreading, very logical, utterly irrefutable.

Sure is refutable. If you find that the spreading is aligned to an
external factor such as the star sign under which the animal was born,
or if we were to find a "rest button" that automatically changes the
DNA back to a predefined blueprint when too many deviations have
occurred, or if we were to find that there is a part of the DNA that
ensures that after a set period of time, a trait (or an entire
species) dies out whatever the environment, the proposition falsified.

>
> > >the single favorable atoms out propagated the inferior ones. Darwin applied the same narrative to individual creatures in the firt,second edition of OoS. Fleeming Jenkin then pointed out that individual differences do not propagate in the population.
>
> > Individual traits usually do, if they are inheritable and improve
> > reproductive success.
>
> What you say is logical, but not falsifiable.

of course it can. Count the offsping over several generations, if it
does not increase, it is falsified _for this trait_. Do it across all
or a large number of traits -- and if the distribution remains
stable, the theory is false.

There is nothing in the meaning of the words "trait","inheritable" or
"reproduction" that implies that traits should fluctuate. It is
perfectly possible to envisage a species whose reproductive cycle is
so responsive to the environment that numbers are kept stable (e.g.
fertility increases when mortality increases too)Not what we find, but
that is a contingent fact for which you have to study the world, not
word meaning

>
> > > Because Darwin formulated a tautology,
> > He did not.
> > If a trait is inheritable and results in increased numbers of
> > offspring, then that trait will likely spread through a breeding
> > population. There is nothing tautological about this claim.
>
> The terms �'increased number' and 'likely spread' refer to the same fact, it states the same thing twice.

Nope obvious counter example: a mutation leads to a massive increase
in octuplets. However, due to the limitations of milk in the mother.
most of them die before they reproduce. the number of the offspring
increases, but the trait is not likely to spread

0 new messages