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