Tautological Fitness
Bill
tautology because the only way to define the "fit" is to ask how well
they survive and leave descendants. The problem with this claim can be
illustrated from Newtonian mechanics.
Is it a similar tautology that force= mass x acceleration? If this is
not an interesting law of physics, but simply a tautology, true by
definition, there's nothing more to do. Want to know what the total
force acting on a body is? Just measure its mass and its acceleration
and you're done. But Newton had something more interesting in mind.
His claim is that one can understand the forces acting on a body,
gravitational, mechanical and others, add them up and find that F = m
a. If they don't add up to m x a, then we need to look for forces that
we've overlooked. In this sense f = ma is not a tautology but a
research program.
In the same way, the claim that the fittest survive is non-
tautological. The claim is that if you study the details of what it
takes for a particular living thing to survive and reproduce in a
given environment you will be able to understand why it is fit for
that environment. If you find something reproducing like crazy and
dominating a particular environment or niche you don't simply say "Ah,
it's the fittest thing for this niche," you try to understand what
advantages it has over its competitors. Like Newton's second law,
"survival of the fittest" is not a tautology but a research program.
Inez
I don't think there is any reason to get hung up on the word "fittest"
at all. This phrase is a sound bite to describe natural selection to
laymen, it is not the actual theory of evolution. The actual point of
interest is that creatures with some traits will do better than
creatures with other traits. If you don't want to think of them as
"fitter" then fine, the main thing is that this differential selection
changes gene frequency over time, rather than just letting the genes
assort randomly amongst the population.
John S. Wilkins
I concur. But I also concur with the late, unsainted, Maynard Smith, who
said somewhere, any theory that has more than a line of algebra in it
includes a tautology. Implication: so what?
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Bill
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
>
> - Perlihatkan teks kutipan -
Indeed. And if, as the creationists say "The theory of evolution is a
tautology," then it is true by definition. It cannot both be false and
a tautology.
Bill
>
> - Perlihatkan teks kutipan -
I can't tell if you are disagreeing with me, disagreeing with the
creationist argument I was rebutting, or not disagreeing at all. I
hardly think the difference between saying "x is fitter than y" or "x
does better than y" is a big deal. However one phrases it, natural
selection can *seem* like a tautology. That it is not, is what I was
arguing.
SortingItOut
> Creationists like to claim the "survival of the fittest" is a
> tautology because the only way to define the "fit" is to ask how well
> they survive and leave descendants. The problem with this claim can be
> illustrated from Newtonian mechanics.
>
> Is it a similar tautology that force= mass x acceleration? If this is
> not an interesting law of physics, but simply a tautology, true by
> definition, there's nothing more to do. Want to know what the total
> force acting on a body is? Just measure its mass and its acceleration
> and you're done. But Newton had something more interesting in mind.
> His claim is that one can understand the forces acting on a body,
> gravitational, mechanical and others, add them up and find that F = m
> a. If they don't add up to m x a, then we need to look for forces that
> we've overlooked. In this sense f = ma is not a tautology but a
> research program.
>
> In the same way, the claim that the fittest survive is non-
> tautological. The claim is that if you study the details of what it
> takes for a particular living thing to survive and reproduce in a
> given environment you will be able to understand why it is fit for
> that environment.
Exactly. But I think our friend who likes to say "naturaled" is
trying to say that what we call "survival of the fittest" could just
as easily be random chance. You've outlined the answer for him, but I
think he needs to see a detailed example. I mean, he still won't
accept it, of course, but I think the counter to his argument is one
or more examples of studies that do just what you've said above. But
it needs to be readable or summarized or something to make it an
effective counter. I've tried to find something but it's surprised
even me how hard it is to find.
Just my 2 cents.
Ivar Ylvisaker
environments change and, hence, the ability of different species to
survive and reproduce changes. Some species adapt and flourish in the
new environments and other species die out. The result is the evolution
of species. (At least, that is what the Theory of Evolution predicts.
Creationists may differ.)
Many people have argued that Newton's Second Law is also a definition.
Try a Google search using "second law is a definition." This is a
complex issue, especially when one considers the implications of
Relativity Theory.
Ivar
TomS
<bA%1m.1610$9l4...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, Ivar Ylvisaker stated..."
Suppose that we grant that "survival of the fittest" is a tautology.
Tautologies can be useful as part of an explanation.
My favorite example of a very useful tautology is the "Pigeonhole
Principle" (see the Wikipedia article).
--
---Tom S.
"...ID is not science ... because we simply do not know what it is saying."
Sahotra Sarkar, "The science question in intelligent design", Synthese,
DOI:10,1007/s11229-009-9540-x
Ivar Ylvisaker
section entitled "Is 'survival of the fittest' a tautology?" It also
lists several external references relating to the tautology issue
including one authored by John Wilkins.
Ivar
Inez
>
I agree with you, I just think that backspace's whole question of
whether or not "fittest" is an objective quality is beside the point.
Life forms change because the environment selects for certain traits
and not others. If a creationist wants to claim that we can't know if
those traits are objectively "fitter," well that is a silly argument,
but how ever it comes out it doesn't invalidate evolution. Things
still evolve no matter what you call traits that are selected for.
Bill
Yes, I am aware of the argument; that's why I chose the second law as
an example. It looks like a definition or a tautology, but it is not.
At least, I disagree with the many people who have argued that the
second law is a definition. They put their pants on one leg at a time,
too.
>
> Ivar
Ivar Ylvisaker
Regardless of the exact status of Newton's Second Law, the equation
"f=ma" and the phrase "survival of the fittest" differ in that the
former essentially defines the Second Law and the latter is more of a
catchphrase for the theory of evolution. You can't define the theory of
evolution merely by saying that it means the "survival of the fittest."
You have to say more than that.
Ivar
John S. Wilkins
That doesn't make it a good article or authority, though. When I wrote
that, I was still pre-doctoral (in fact I think I was still an
undergrad). I think that the tautology article is not very deep - but
then the topic is not very deep either. One day I will rewrite it more
deeply.
Briefly it should include this:
The *model* of NS probably is a tautology, because a model, in its
abstract state, is uninterpreted. The entities that fit into the model
are not specified. So while in a *particular instance* what makes a
particular strain of some species - say E. coli - fitter than other
strains will not be tautological but instead some *biological* property
like resistance to Ampicillin, what makes *all possible organisms or
strains fitter is just that they are by definitions the one that
survive.
The implication here is that natural selection simpliciter is not an
explanation of the spread to fixation or equilibrium of some strain or
alternative form; to make it more than a *scheme* for explanation, one
has to *interpret* the variables, so that actual properties are
included.
To give an example. Imagine a model in which the fitness of A is .7 and
the fitness of a is .4. There's a nice mathematical model that is
general and abstract. What does it explain? Nothing more than the
mathematical necessity of, all else being equal, any allele that has a
.7 fitness will go to fixation when the alternative allele is .4 in thus
and so a manner, as predicted by the math.
Now, suppose that you have this case in two physical, biological, cases:
one is two mutants of a virus in a host, and the other is a slug that
can eat a particular toxin in a fungus which raises its fitness relative
to another allele in that slug species. The *empirical* facts fix the
fitnesses equally for the virus and the slugs; now the model will tell
you what happens, although the physical facts are entirely different in
each case. *Now* it is an explanation in each case. Before those
interpretations, the model was not an explanation, but an explanatory
scheme.
Critics of NS as a tautology fail to realise that it explains fine when
interpreted, and then it simply is not a a tautology, but the use of
math to make a prediction, in conditions that are held constant
("ceteris paribus laws"). They trade on the abstraction as the entirety
of the explanation. But to do this means that *any* mathematical model
would be excluded from science, and in particular models of dynamic
systems like weather, astrophysics, and so on. If NS is a tautology
because it uses math that is otherwise undefined or uninterpreted, the
*all* math is tautologous and should be abandoned.
Some creationists would accept this conclusion, but no scientists would.
Nomen Publicus
For a start, "survival of the fittest" is a very high level sound bite used
to represent a process that is heavily based on statistics. Evolution is
not about the individual, but the entire local population. Individuals
mutate, but populations evolve.
--
Isaac Asimov: Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived.
backspace
> Critics of NS as a tautology fail to realise that it explains fine when
> interpreted, and then it simply is not a a tautology, but the use of
> math to make a prediction, in conditions that are held constant
> ("ceteris paribus laws"). They trade on the abstraction as the entirety
> of the explanation. But to do this means that *any* mathematical model
> would be excluded from science, and in particular models of dynamic
> systems like weather, astrophysics, and so on. If NS is a tautology
> because it uses math that is otherwise undefined or uninterpreted, the
> *all* math is tautologous and should be abandoned.
This is a logical fallacy which might be termed "Innocence by
Association".. For the record F=MA isn't a Tautology as Howard Hershey
explained elsewhere. I lifted his explanation reformulated it as my
own and it was thus removed from Wikipedia by Woland because by
definition YEC are stupid. The only catch is I didn't formulate the
following brilliant exposition of why F=MA isn't a tautology as
Wilkins' paragraph strongly suggests:
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology
Howard wrote:
"...Mathematical equations, such as E = mc2, are not tautologies. The
terms on both sides of the equation are defined elsewhere
independently. The equal sign does not mean "is defined by" but rather
equal to, establishing an equivalence. It doesn't define one term in
term's of another. Acceleration and mass independently don't equal
force but their product MA as derived by Newton does, hence the
equation F=MA isn't a tautology..."
Wilkins nominates for Post of the month, a section I lifted from a
discussion a few years ago:
"...The tautological expression (an unmarried bachelor) contains a
redundant word ("unmarried"), but has meaning and can be used to form
a meaningful proposition, e.g. "John is an unmarried bachelor". This
proposition is not a rhetorical tautology because the intent isn't to
deceive. It could be considered as unnecessarily language verbosity.
The tautological proposition (all bachelors are unmarried) stated in a
class on formal logic theory on the other hand, gives us no
information that is not already contained in the definition of the
word "bachelor". The Pragmatics or context with 'unmarried bachelor'
by the user would determine whether it is a tautology or language
verbosity. In an academic setting such as a peer reviewed journal
propositions are put forward in an attempt at deriving an independent
explanation for an observation. Tautologies in such a setting would be
a tautological proposition and unacceptable. Tautological expressions
used in an informal setting such as a sports event with its associated
colloquial speech is acceptable because of the pragmatics with it. The
dividing line between a tautological proposition and expression is
pragmatics. ..."
backspace
wrote:
Sorry no, SoF was a term due to Spencer, no sentence has one single
true meaning, it was a means of him expression Survival of the most
"suitable". Whenever you see fitness replace with suitable, it makes
more sense and clarifies what authors are talking about. SoF says who?
Who is the person you are interpreting.
In any case there are few more logical fallacies in Wilkins' post such
as confusing the cause with the effect in his sea slug or snail
example, will get back to it later.
> Evolution is
> not about the individual, but the entire local population. Individuals
> mutate, but populations evolve.
This is also nonsense, a population is a sampling of individuals, what
collectively happens to the pop. is what happens to the individuals.
Your paragraph is a ruse to confuse that the implication is that a
monkey gave birth to a human, just like common ancestor was a scam
exposed by Wilkijns himself. Because a CA was monkey, looked like a
monkey and not like a CA.
fnord
backspace
> does better than y" is a big deal. However one phrases it, natural
> selection can *seem* like a tautology. That it is not, is what I was
> arguing.
The concept Darwin had with matthew's Natural means of selection which
he lifted without giving credit first three editions i think was used
by him to paraphrase and reformulate in hundreds of different ways
Aristotle's proposition which cannot be disputed as posted here
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology.
He for example expressed it as ".... the dinosaurs died because they
were less improved...." which was one variation which cannot be
disputed, which as I explained at Wikipedia is a fallacy. (my edits
still remain on the first page, the article still expresses the core
of my ideas lifted from Wilkins, Howard and other very smart authors).
As the Wikipedia pragmatics article explains no term or sentence has
one true meaning "natural selection" could be associated with whatever
you want. On semantics alone it is gargoyle at the level of Darwin,
Hutton, Matthews, Wallace pragmatics it reduces to three words: What
happens happens.
fnord
Burkhard
That is obviously wrong. There are lots of predications you can make
of groups that do not distribute over the individuals in the group.
"Unemployment rises to 20% in
the Uk population" does not mean that for every UK citizen, his
unemployment rises to 20%
(every single one is still either 100% employed or 100% unemployed)
Inez
> On Jun 29, 6:20 am, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > does better than y" is a big deal. However one phrases it, natural
> > selection can *seem* like a tautology. That it is not, is what I was
> > arguing.
>
> The concept Darwin had with matthew's Natural means of selection which
> he lifted without giving credit first three editions i think was used
> by him to paraphrase and reformulate in hundreds of different ways
>
> He for example expressed it as ".... the dinosaurs died because they
> were less improved...." which was one variation which cannot be
> disputed, which as I explained at Wikipedia is a fallacy.
Again, you're too hung up on words like "improved." The point is that
creatures with certain traits do better in certain environments than
creatures without those traits. You can measure this by counting
their offspring.
Those of us who are sane consider an increased ability to survive and
reproduce greater fitness, but if you want to call it something else
go right ahead.
backspace
> > In the same way, the claim that the fittest survive is non-
> > tautological. The claim is that if you study the details of what it
> > takes for a particular living thing to survive and reproduce in a
> > given environment you will be able to understand why it is fit for
> > that environment.
> Exactly. But I think our friend who likes to say "naturaled" is
> trying to say that what we call "survival of the fittest" could just
> as easily be random chance.
I am saying read the wikipedia pragmatics article, the section where
it says:"..... no sentence has one single true meaning......"
> You've outlined the answer for him, but I
> think he needs to see a detailed example. I mean, he still won't
> accept it, of course, but I think the counter to his argument is one
> or more examples of studies that do just what you've said above. But
> it needs to be readable or summarized or something to make it an
> effective counter. I've tried to find something but it's surprised
> even me how hard it is to find.
You're actually getting my point! And to help you in your research
you have got the read the comments by our biophysics publisher
noshellwell ...... here
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:UU9X8oaWTjcJ:newsgroups.derkeiler.com/pdf/Archive/Talk/talk.origins/2008-02/msg02874.pdf+favorable+traits+natural+selection&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=za
fnord
fnord
wf3h
>
> I am saying read the wikipedia pragmatics article, the section where
> it says:"..... no sentence has one single true meaning......"
>
does that include 'in the beginning, god created...'?
wf3h
>
> As the Wikipedia pragmatics article explains no term or sentence has
> one true meaning "natural selection" could be associated with whatever
> you want. On semantics alone it is gargoyle at the level of Darwin,
> Hutton, Matthews, Wallace pragmatics it reduces to three words: What
> happens happens.
>
'natural selection' is not a 'term'. it is a description of a process.
a scientific process
that's what got you confused. you keep looking for 'god did it' and
it doesn't show up.
Burkhard
> On Jun 29, 8:41 am, SortingItOut <eri...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > > In the same way, the claim that the fittest survive is non-
> > > tautological. The claim is that if you study the details of what it
> > > takes for a particular living thing to survive and reproduce in a
> > > given environment you will be able to understand why it is fit for
> > > that environment.
> > Exactly. But I think our friend who likes to say "naturaled" is
> > trying to say that what we call "survival of the fittest" could just
> > as easily be random chance.
>
> I am saying read the wikipedia pragmatics article, the section where
> it says:"..... no sentence has one single true meaning......"
>
And yet,amazingly enough, almost al normal people are nonetheless able
to communicate effortlessly, without asking all the time for
explanations or explications (which, being sentences, would anyway
have just as many meanings as the term they explain)
> > You've outlined the answer for him, but I
> > think he needs to see a detailed example. I mean, he still won't
> > accept it, of course, but I think the counter to his argument is one
> > or more examples of studies that do just what you've said above. But
> > it needs to be readable or summarized or something to make it an
> > effective counter. I've tried to find something but it's surprised
> > even me how hard it is to find.
>
> You're actually getting my point! And to help you in your research
> you have got the read the comments by our biophysics publisher
> noshellwell ...... herehttp://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:UU9X8oaWTjcJ:newsgroups.derkeile...
>
> fnord
>
> fnord
backspace
> And yet,amazingly enough, almost al normal people are nonetheless able
> to communicate effortlessly, without asking all the time for
> explanations or explications (which, being sentences, would anyway
> have just as many meanings as the term they explain)
Forget about DArwin for a while. What is the modern theory of whatever
that explains how a monkey turned into a monkey that looks like a
human. Where? Where is this theory..... And don't tell me modern
synthesis, tell me what exactly is the modern synthesis, because the
wikipedia doesn't say. It says "tenets of they synthesis" - who's
tenets ?
Chris
> On Jun 30, 11:30 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > Critics of NS as a tautology fail to realise that it explains fine when
> > interpreted, and then it simply is not a a tautology, but the use of
> > math to make a prediction, in conditions that are held constant
> > ("ceteris paribus laws"). They trade on the abstraction as the entirety
> > of the explanation. But to do this means that *any* mathematical model
> > would be excluded from science, and in particular models of dynamic
> > systems like weather, astrophysics, and so on. If NS is a tautology
> > because it uses math that is otherwise undefined or uninterpreted, the
> > *all* math is tautologous and should be abandoned.
>
> This is a logical fallacy which might be termed "Innocence by
> Association".. For the record F=MA isn't a Tautology as Howard Hershey
> explained elsewhere. I lifted his explanation reformulated it as my
> own and it was thus removed from Wikipedia by Woland because by
> definition YEC are stupid. The only catch is I didn't formulate the
> following brilliant exposition of why F=MA isn't a tautology as
> Wilkins' paragraph strongly suggests:
>
So typical: plagiarists will steal material ("I lifted his explanation
reformulated it as my
own...") but they don't learn from it.
Chris
Woland
You are officially the dumbest person in the universe.
Congratulations.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<e5d8cca5-3b5c-4db3...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>):
No, he isn't. madman/uriel is far worse,
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Woland
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:32:20 -0400, Woland wrote
> (in article
Agree to disagree.
backspace
> > > Critics of NS as a tautology fail to realise that it explains fine when
> > > interpreted, and then it simply is not a a tautology, but the use of
> > > math to make a prediction, in conditions that are held constant
> > > ("ceteris paribus laws"). They trade on the abstraction as the entirety
> > > of the explanation. But to do this means that *any* mathematical model
> > > would be excluded from science, and in particular models of dynamic
> > > systems like weather, astrophysics, and so on. If NS is a tautology
> > > because it uses math that is otherwise undefined or uninterpreted, the
> > > *all* math is tautologous and should be abandoned.
> > This is a logical fallacy which might be termed "Innocence by
> > Association".. For the record F=MA isn't a Tautology as Howard Hershey
> > explained elsewhere. I lifted his explanation reformulated it as my
> > own and it was thus removed from Wikipedia by Woland because by
> > definition YEC are stupid. The only catch is I didn't formulate the
> > following brilliant exposition of why F=MA isn't a tautology as
> > Wilkins' paragraph strongly suggests:
Typo: I meant "..... F=MA IS a tautology as Wilkins paragraph
strongly suggests....." Wilkins is implying that F=MA is a tautology
and using "innocence by association" to absolve Darwin thus from
tautological statements.
Sober I think makes the same argument which he quoted in the Tautology
article. Note that in an email he wrote to somebody else, he considers
the talk origins tautology article out of date.....
fnord
hersheyh
>
> > Critics of NS as a tautology fail to realise that it explains fine when
> > interpreted, and then it simply is not a a tautology, but the use of
> > math to make a prediction, in conditions that are held constant
> > ("ceteris paribus laws"). They trade on the abstraction as the entirety
> > of the explanation. But to do this means that *any* mathematical model
> > would be excluded from science, and in particular models of dynamic
> > systems like weather, astrophysics, and so on. If NS is a tautology
> > because it uses math that is otherwise undefined or uninterpreted, the
> > *all* math is tautologous and should be abandoned.
>
> This is a logical fallacy which might be termed "Innocence by
> Association".. For the record F=MA isn't a Tautology as Howard Hershey
> explained elsewhere. I lifted his explanation reformulated it as my
> own and it was thus removed from Wikipedia by Woland because by
> definition YEC are stupid. The only catch is I didn't formulate the
> following brilliant exposition of why F=MA isn't a tautology as
> Wilkins' paragraph strongly suggests:
>
If you are smart enough to recognize that equations are not
tautologies, why do you persist in thinking that the ancient, and
inaccurate, term "survival of the fittest" is an adequate definition
of "natural selection"?
Natural selection refers to the relative reproductive success of
individuals with different phenotypes. IOW, mathematically you have
natural selection when and only when r1-r2 is *significantly*
different from 0 (r is any valid measure of reproductive success and
r1 is the mean reproductive success of a population with phenotype 1
and r2 is the mean reproductive success of a population with phenotype
2; *environment* -- which can affect the result -- is either
randomized or controlled). Relative reproductive success, then,
*equals* r1/r2 (assuming that r2 > 0; if one of the phenotypes has a
fitness of 0, it is always r1). If that ratio is *significantly*
greater than 1, phenotype r1 is significantly more fit in the
environments tested than r2. If the ratio is significantly less than
1 in the environments tested, then phenotype r1 is significantly less
fit than r2 in those environments.
If the ratio is not *significantly* different from 1, then the two
phenotypes are reproductively indistinguishable and there is no
natural selection, but only neutral drift.
Note that NS occurs *within* a population that has to compete for
common resources in order to reproduce. NS changes the genetic
composition of populations when either conditions are changing
(meaning that the population mean is suboptimally adapted because it
was adapted to different conditions), when chance mutation produces an
optimizing capacity that did not previously exist (for example, by
duplicating a gene to detoxify a toxin *better* than having a single
copy), or when chance mutation produces a capacity that did not
previous exist (e.g., the antifreeze proteins of some fish). Such
changes can (but need not) lead to reproductive isolation leading to
speciation.
Mike L
OK, let's try it another way. You keep asking the questions, so I
assume you really do want to know the answer. First, assume that
modern biologists are at least as intelligent and well-informed as you
are. Then, using some of the many statements that have been made to
you by such people, set out an explanation of the origin of species
which you think /they/ would agree with. You don't have to believe it
yourself: this is just an exercise, and it may help you to clarify the
specific points on which you disagree.
--
Mike.
Vend
> On 29 Jun, 09:58, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 28, 6:55 pm, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Creationists like to claim the "survival of the fittest" is a
> > > tautology because the only way to define the "fit" is to ask how well
> > > they survive and leave descendants. The problem with this claim can be
> > > illustrated from Newtonian mechanics.
>
> > > Is it a similar tautology that force= mass x acceleration? If this is
> > > not an interesting law of physics, but simply a tautology, true by
> > > definition, there's nothing more to do. Want to know what the total
> > > force acting on a body is? Just measure its mass and its acceleration
> > > and you're done. But Newton had something more interesting in mind.
> > > His claim is that one can understand the forces acting on a body,
> > > gravitational, mechanical and others, add them up and find that F = m
> > > a. If they don't add up to m x a, then we need to look for forces that
> > > we've overlooked. In this sense f = ma is not a tautology but a
> > > research program.
>
> > > tautological. The claim is that if you study the details of what it
> > > takes for a particular living thing to survive and reproduce in a
> > > given environment you will be able to understand why it is fit for
> > > dominating a particular environment or niche you don't simply say "Ah,
> > > it's the fittest thing for this niche," you try to understand what
> > > advantages it has over its competitors. Like Newton's second law,
> > > "survival of the fittest" is not a tautology but a research program.
>
> > I don't think there is any reason to get hung up on the word "fittest"
> > at all. This phrase is a sound bite to describe natural selection to
> > laymen, it is not the actual theory of evolution. The actual point of
> > interest is that creatures with some traits will do better than
> > creatures with other traits. If you don't want to think of them as
> > "fitter" then fine, the main thing is that this differential selection
> > changes gene frequency over time, rather than just letting the genes
> > assort randomly amongst the population.- Sembunyikan teks kutipan -
>
> > - Perlihatkan teks kutipan -
>
> I can't tell if you are disagreeing with me, disagreeing with the
> creationist argument I was rebutting, or not disagreeing at all. I
> hardly think the difference between saying "x is fitter than y" or "x
> selection can *seem* like a tautology. That it is not, is what I was
> arguing.
I think that the point of natural selection is:
"gene x is likely to make its bearers leave more children than
average" => "with high probability the frequency of gene x in the
population will increase".
David Hare-Scott
Have your noticed that his prose is getting less coherent over time?
David
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <h2ejo4$rlp$1...@news.albasani.net>):
Too much beer?
David Hare-Scott
I was wondering about too little medication not too much. He recently
accused me of religious persecution because I dared to ask him a question
and expect an answer.
David
backspace
Mr.NS has no points and 'natural selection' like "you have a green
light" has no single true meaning as the wikipedia pragmaticis article
explains. What you are trying to say is that "...... the point of So
and So is :..."
Who is so-and-so , who is this person? Only persons can have views the
abstract authority Mr.NS has no point he doesn't exist. Wilkin's view
differs from MYers for example.
fnord
Ivar Ylvisaker
This seems overly complicated. I doubt if most creationists have ever
considered the possibility that a "model" is a tautology when viewed as
an abstract mathematical entity but is not a tautology when applied to a
specific situation in the real world.
It is not clear to me what creationists think they are saying when they
assert that natural selection (NS) is a tautology.
If a tautology is defined as a statement that is necessarily true, then
are the creationists saying that NS is necessarily true? Obviously, the
answer is no.
A more likely possibility is that they are saying that NS is not
testable and, therefore, is not scientific. But as Darwin pointed out,
artificial selection is evidence for natural selection. Most people who
try to breed faster racehorses probably don't think of themselves as
scientists. But they are doing something a scientist might do if he was
trying to test the theory of NS. Some people test scientific hypotheses
in university labs; others do it (perhaps, unknowingly) on farms.
But, of course, this is only microevolution and creationists generally
accept the reality of microevolution. Most would argue that the real
issue is macroevolution and not microevolution. But, if microevolution
works, then the theory of NS has been tested successfully in some
situations. Breeding faster horses didn't have to succeed. Artificial
selection could have proven false.
So is there evidence for macroevolution? The fossil record? Laboratory
experiments that demonstrate mutations in organisms that result in the
development of drug resistance?
Obviously, I can go on (or could if I knew more about biology).
Just how one incorporates this (or other information) effectively in a
revised article on tautology for the TalkOrigins archives is less clear.
Ivar
John S. Wilkins
It's an addendum to the FAQ, or rather a sketch towards one.
>
> It is not clear to me what creationists think they are saying when they
> assert that natural selection (NS) is a tautology.
>
> If a tautology is defined as a statement that is necessarily true, then
> are the creationists saying that NS is necessarily true? Obviously, the
> answer is no.
>
> A more likely possibility is that they are saying that NS is not
> testable and, therefore, is not scientific. But as Darwin pointed out,
> artificial selection is evidence for natural selection. Most people who
> try to breed faster racehorses probably don't think of themselves as
> scientists. But they are doing something a scientist might do if he was
> trying to test the theory of NS. Some people test scientific hypotheses
> in university labs; others do it (perhaps, unknowingly) on farms.
>
> But, of course, this is only microevolution and creationists generally
> accept the reality of microevolution. Most would argue that the real
> issue is macroevolution and not microevolution. But, if microevolution
> works, then the theory of NS has been tested successfully in some
> situations. Breeding faster horses didn't have to succeed. Artificial
> selection could have proven false.
>
> So is there evidence for macroevolution? The fossil record? Laboratory
> experiments that demonstrate mutations in organisms that result in the
> development of drug resistance?
>
> Obviously, I can go on (or could if I knew more about biology).
>
> Just how one incorporates this (or other information) effectively in a
> revised article on tautology for the TalkOrigins archives is less clear.
>
Some of it is already in the FAQ. But other bits are in, say, the
macroevolution FAQs (particularly the wonderful essay by Douglas
Theobald).
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <h2eqsv$4g0$1...@news.albasani.net>):
Like many creationist cretins, he's nuts.
backspace
> It is not clear to me what creationists think they are saying when they
> assert that natural selection (NS) is a tautology.
The concept Aristotle had who DArwin cited and reformulated throughout
his book had nothing to do with getting naturaled.
> If a tautology is defined as a statement that is necessarily true, then
> are the creationists saying that NS is necessarily true?
A taut. is defined as saying the same thing twice either pragmatically
or semantically. The pragmatics determines if such a tautoloyg is a
proposition(fallacious) or an expression.
> A more likely possibility is that they are saying that NS is not
> testable and, therefore, is not scientific. But as Darwin pointed out,
> artificial selection is evidence for natural selection.
Wilkins says AS and NS should just be selection no a or n.
fnord
Burkhard
alleged tautology which may or may not have anything to do with biology.
We then points out that it isn't one, since there are obvious tests
for it.
He then (and without answering these counterexamples) posts "but this
does not explain how apes that did not speak suddenly gave birth to apes
who did".
It is then explained to him that this is nonsense on several levels, one
being that the ToE does not make such a claim. He then asks "what is the
ToE" and whines that nobody ever told him.
After that is explained to him (again) he posts a cut and past post
about myth, and how evolution is a myth for the capitalist age (sort of
interesting given that he works in the financial markets, apparently and
worryingly, but possibly explaining recent events...)
He then starts a new thread, claiming that a certain expression is a
tautology, and the circle repeats.
Vend
I offered a definition of natural selection.
Do you disagree with it?
Matt Silberstein
<steph...@gmail.com> in
<c8557183-4f4e-4a9e...@x5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
I'm going to point out to you yet again: what matters is that
differential reproductive success occurs. That is, inherited
differences affect which individuals successfully reproduce. That is
Natural Selection and it is an observed phenomenon.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
backspace
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> I'm going to point out to you yet again: what matters is that
> differential reproductive success occurs. That is, inherited
> differences affect which individuals successfully reproduce. That is
> Natural Selection and it is an observed phenomenon.
=== rephrase ===
I'm going to point out that reproduction occurs. Inherited
attibutes affect which individuals reproduce.
Which is a truism .
Burkhard
ordered by the state whom to marry based on party membership
backspace
> It only seems like this. It is actually circles. It starts with an
> alleged tautology which may or may not have anything to do with biology.
Biology means Life - what is Life?
> It is then explained to him that this is nonsense on several levels, one
> being that the ToE does not make such a claim. He then asks "what is the
> ToE" and whines that nobody ever told him.
> After that is explained to him (again) he posts a cut and past post
> about myth, and how evolution is a myth for the capitalist age (sort of
> interesting given that he works in the financial markets, apparently and
> worryingly, but possibly explaining recent events...)
And what is the ToE? Just give me a link to wikipedia, Wikipedia has
the word "evolution" but the pragmatics article tells us that a word
or sentence never has one true single meaning.
Evolution or Theory of Evolution, there is no page for Theory of
Evolution, it redirects to the word "Evolution" and "evolution" can
mean anything but a theory is always formally established, always.
Now who has established what?
fnord
backspace
> I offered a definition of natural selection.
> Do you disagree with it?
You have a specific concept which you label NS, this concept might or
might not differ from the concept Aristotle had: What happens
happens.
Rich Mathers
> On Jul 1, 1:11 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > It only seems like this. It is actually circles. It starts with an
> > alleged tautology which may or may not have anything to do with biology.
>
> Biology means Life - what is Life?
>
> > It is then explained to him that this is nonsense on several levels, one
> > being that the ToE does not make such a claim. He then asks "what is the
> > ToE" and whines that nobody ever told him.
> > After that is explained to him (again) he posts a cut and past post
> > about myth, and how evolution is a myth for the capitalist age (sort of
> > interesting given that he works in the financial markets, apparently and
> > worryingly, but possibly explaining recent events...)
>
> And what is the ToE? Just give me a link to wikipedia, Wikipedia has
> the word "evolution" but the pragmatics article tells us that a word
> or sentence never has one true single meaning.
Ergo, Christian fundamentalism and all of Christian theology "never
has one true single meaning."
I can buy that.
Now what?
Matt Silberstein
<steph...@gmail.com> in
<ef1a5d36-af8d-4e52...@l12g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
>On Jul 1, 4:27 pm, Matt Silberstein
><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> I'm going to point out to you yet again: what matters is that
>> differential reproductive success occurs. That is, inherited
>> differences affect which individuals successfully reproduce. That is
>> Natural Selection and it is an observed phenomenon.
>
>=== rephrase ===
>I'm going to point out that reproduction occurs.
So does solar fusion. Do you have a relevant comment?
> Inherited
>attibutes affect which individuals reproduce.
>
>Which is a truism .
No, it is an observation. It is a correct statement because the
meaning of the statement fits with the observed world. It is true
because it is how the world works. Why do you see such a thing as a
negative? Do you prefer science made up of false claims?
Kermit
> On Jun 29, 6:20 am, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > does better than y" is a big deal. However one phrases it, natural
> > selection can *seem* like a tautology. That it is not, is what I was
> > arguing.
>
> he lifted without giving credit
Science is (among other things) accumulated knowledge. *Every
scientist starts by learning some of what his or her predecessors have
learned. Nobody had yet quite described [common descent via
modification by natural selection] as Darwin did. A few came close,
but did not pursue it or support it with the wealth of detailed
evidence as seen in the Origin of Species.
>first three editions i think was used
> by him to paraphrase and reformulate in hundreds of different ways
> Aristotle's proposition
I doubt if Darwin gave much thought to Aristotle.
> which cannot be disputed as posted herehttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology.
That article supports neither of your claims here.
>
> He for example expressed it as ".... the dinosaurs died because they
> were less improved...." which was one variation which cannot be
> disputed,
Sophomoric nonsense. "Less improved" was a broad category of traits,
which he barely touched on (they didn't know much about dinosaurs
then). He did go into various traits in great detail on some
contemporary species. And I dispute it - he was wrong. The dinosaurs
on the whole were well adapted. There was a great and sudden
catastrophe, which they were not on the whole suited to survive, but
it wasn't because they were less improved.
It was neither one trait, nor indisputable.
> which as I explained at Wikipedia is a fallacy. (my edits
> still remain on the first page, the article still expresses the core
> of my ideas lifted from Wilkins, Howard and other very smart authors).
And yet it has little or nothing to do with biology or evolutionary
science.
>
> As the Wikipedia pragmatics article explains no term or sentence has
> one true meaning "natural selection" could be associated with whatever
> you want.
Non sequitor. "Switch" has more than one meaning, but that doesn't
mean it can be associated with (do you mean defined as?) anything you
want. Context, yes, can change the meaning of a word, phrase, or
sentence. That doesn't mean that scientific explanations are normally
anything other than what they seem.
You seem to be saying that sentences can be infinitely flexible in
meaning, which cannot be determined without an overt explanation of
intent, which of course itself can mean anything, without an overt
explanation of intent, which...
> On semantics alone it is gargoyle at the level of Darwin,
> Hutton, Matthews, Wallace pragmatics it reduces to three words: What
> happens happens.
I can reduce your whole post to a single word:
Rubbish.
>
> fnord
Kermit
Kermit
You keep typing words, but they are void of meaning.
Vend said '"gene x is likely to make its bearers leave more children
than average" => "with high probability the frequency of gene x in the
population will increase". '
That is not the same as "What happens, happens."
"A proposed specific gene with an expressed phenotype" is not
synonymous with "Whatever".
"Leads to a greater rate of reproduction" is not synonymous with
"happens".
"Resulting in a higher likelihood that the gene will spread through
the population" is *also not synonymous with "happens".
You're still an ape, whether you like it or not. You cannot make it go
away by refusing to communicate clearly.
Kermit
Rich Mathers
No. That is not the point.
The point is that the above has been repeatedly demonstrated in
empirical test after empirical test. One could make the assertion
(hypothesis) that "Inherited attributes do not affect or are unrelated
to which individuals reproduce." (null hypothesis)
Empirically the latter in rejected and with sufficient empirical
controls on which variables affect reproduce success it is possible to
isolated which attribute(s) (i.e. variables) contribute to
differential reproductive success. That is how science is done.
Your perennial verbal parsings are otiose, trite and reflect a lack of
insight into how science is done.
RAM
wf3h
> On Jul 1, 1:11 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > It only seems like this. It is actually circles. It starts with an
> > alleged tautology which may or may not have anything to do with biology.
>
> Biology means Life - what is Life?
this is the typical creationist reductio ad absurdum. now he's denying
life exists merely so he can assert the bible is true.
wonderful stuff this creationism
>
> > It is then explained to him that this is nonsense on several levels, one
> > being that the ToE does not make such a claim. He then asks "what is the
> > ToE" and whines that nobody ever told him.
> > After that is explained to him (again) he posts a cut and past post
> > about myth, and how evolution is a myth for the capitalist age (sort of
> > interesting given that he works in the financial markets, apparently and
> > worryingly, but possibly explaining recent events...)
>
> And what is the ToE? Just give me a link to wikipedia, Wikipedia has
> the word "evolution" but the pragmatics article tells us that a word
> or sentence never has one true single meaning.
and have you applied that to the book of genesis? it seems you
haven't.
> Evolution or Theory of Evolution, there is no page for Theory of
> Evolution, it redirects to the word "Evolution" and "evolution" can
> mean anything but a theory is always formally established, always.
>
> Now who has established what?
>
go look it up. why are you here asking these questions?
who established god? who established the bible as literally true? etc.
etc...
wf3h
>
> === rephrase ===
> I'm going to point out that reproduction occurs. Inherited
> attibutes affect which individuals reproduce.
>
well no it's not. because it's only part of evolution. the other part
is change. i realize you creationists treat language the way a baby
treats a diaper, but try at least to get the whole story before you go
trotting off to your mythical god as an explanation.
Kermit
> On Jul 1, 1:11 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > It only seems like this. It is actually circles. It starts with an
> > alleged tautology which may or may not have anything to do with biology.
>
> Biology means Life - what is Life?
Look! <points>
A spider, a Creationist, a pine tree, a dog. These are living things.
There are things which may be borderline. Define life, and we can
determine whether or not crystals, or prions, or viruses, are alive.
This is how we use language. Categories are typically conceptual
definitions which include the various things which a people of a
particular culture and time understand to belong to that category.
When they see something new which has some of those characteristics
but not others, they have to decide whether or not that new thing
belongs to the category. Questions we have asked ourselves as a group
include:
Is Zen Buddhism a religion?
Are big bean bags chairs?
Is the game of darts a sport?
Is Pluto a planet?
Nature does not change when we argue words, and usually we are not
disputing among ourselves the *facts of the matter. We have to decide
whether the essence of a category includes a particular thing or not.
More than 999 of a thousand life scientists understand that we are all
descended from a common ancestor, and that natural selection acting on
random mutation is the main process which produced the current
diversity of life. Your self-induced linguistic confusion does not
change that. At most, in principle, you would merely persuade folks to
use different words. The data would not change.
>
> > It is then explained to him that this is nonsense on several levels, one
> > being that the ToE does not make such a claim. He then asks "what is the
> > ToE" and whines that nobody ever told him.
> > After that is explained to him (again) he posts a cut and past post
> > about myth, and how evolution is a myth for the capitalist age (sort of
> > interesting given that he works in the financial markets, apparently and
> > worryingly, but possibly explaining recent events...)
>
> And what is the ToE?
Sadly, you will never know, because scientists and those of us who
love science generally explain ideas or evidence as clearly as
possible. Naturally, that leaves you out of the loop.
>Just give me a link to wikipedia, Wikipedia has
> the word "evolution" but the pragmatics article tells us that a word
> or sentence never has one true single meaning.
Are you sure? That article may mean something entirely different than
what you think it means. Did the author explain his intent when he
wrote it?
> Evolution or Theory of Evolution, there is no page for Theory of
> Evolution, it redirects to the word "Evolution"
Yes. The description of "evolution" *is the Theory of evolution.
> and "evolution" can mean anything
Not for English speakers, it can't. Biological evolution is quite
clear.
> but a theory is always formally established, always.
Theories are multiple, complex, interdependent, and dynamic. Please
support your absurd claim.
>
> Now who has established what?
Well, we can start by eliminating you; you have established nothing
except your own linguistic incompetence.
>
> fnord
Kermit
Iain
> Creationists like to claim the "survival of the fittest" is a
> tautology
It's not a tautology because it's not a statement.
It's a noun-phrase, nothing more.
--Iain
backspace
> Vend said '"gene x is likely to make its bearers leave more children
> than average" => "with high probability the frequency of gene x in the
> population will increase". '
> That is not the same as "What happens, happens."
Either genes increase or decrease is the essence of what wilkins etc.
is telling us - how could one dispute this?
> "A proposed specific gene with an expressed phenotype" is not
> synonymous with "Whatever".
Take an oak tree and show me where is its phenotype.
Then take a cat and show me the spot where its phenotype is.
r norman
That you can tell the difference between an oak tree and a cat
indicates that you already know what a phenotype is.
OK, maybe I wrote in haste. That is, assuming you CAN tell the
difference...
backspace
I believe that according to the evidence presented in this essay, it
becomes possible to consider the theory of evolution as being the
international scientific community's origins myth. Now what does this
prove ? Only that scientists, too, are human and, like other human
beings, they need a concept that explains where they came from and
that gives them some kind of understanding of the present and also of
the future.
One characteristic that sets the theory of evolution apart from other
myths is that it is not, as myths usually are, tied in to an
explicitly delineated plan of social action (a religion). Because of
this, the theory of evolution has a hidden danger: it can be
manipulated quite easily and the results can be quite disastrous. It
is well-known that social Darwinism was the main basis for Hitler's
notion of the superiority of the Aryan race which served to justify
the massacre of six million Jews. Would we dare again place power in
the hands of someone who really believes in the theory of evolution ?
Although in the "social sciences" efforts to implement social
Darwinism are usually regarded with much suspicion, in the political
arena things are so mixed up (especially in international relations)
that it might possibly be brought back in some new form.
Ernst Mayr, one of the twentieth century's most prestigious biologists
notes (1997):
"Biologists have to study all the known facts relating to the
particular problem, infer all sorts of consequences from the
reconstructed constellations of factors, and then attempt to construct
a scenario to explain the observed facts of this particular case. In
other words, they construct a historical narrative."
"Because this approach is so fundamentally different from the
causal-law explanations, the classical philosophers of science -
coming from logic, mathematics, or the physical sciences - considered
it inadmissible. However, recent authors have vigorously refuted the
narrowness of the classical view and have shown not only that the
historical-narrative approach is valid but also that it is perhaps the
only scientifically and philosophically valid approach in the
explanation of unique occurrences."
"Of course, proving categorically that a historical narrative is
'true' is never possible."
Which should be read in the light of this essay
http://lostborders.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/the-origin-of-species-as-myth/
fnord
backspace
Here is a few more quotes:
ccording to Lucien Sebag, a deceased French anthropologist of the
structuralist school:
"A myth, for example, answers certain needs, in a given society it
fills certain functions. It links the present potential of the human
community to a primaeval History that ordinary life only repeats. It
allows each human action, each gesture, each word to be inscribed in a
symbolic order which gives it significance. It overlays the profane
order with a sacred one that founds it and inscribes society in a
continuity that goes beyond each particular moment of its
existence." (p. 143, translation by PG)
According to Percy Cohen, a British anthropologist, myths distinguish
themselves especially by their multi-functionality:
What is it in myths which appeals to men so strongly that it enables
them to treat them as sacred ? I think the answer to all of these
questions is that because myths perform several linked functions, and
because they contain levels of meaning which achieve an intuitively
experienced correspondance, because myths are narrative with a time-
anchored structure, because they deal simultaneously with the socially
and psychologically significant, because they make use of what is
experienced and available and link it to the primordial sense of a
deeper reality, they have the power which we rightly attribute to them
in some societies." (p. 351, emphasis added)
Returning to the definitions of myth given by Sebag, Cohen and Lévi-
Strauss, we must acknowledge that the theory of evolution corresponds
remarkably with the various designated functions of myth. Evolution
implies, first of all, events in the past; it is anchored in time;
and, for the scientist it is both active in the present and determines
the future. When we consider its social and cultural impact, it has so
affected and penetrated western culture that we can surely say that it
is no less multi-functional than myth.
isia Landau, in Narratives of Human Evolution explores just this issue
and she notes (1991: ix-x)
"There is a group of sciences committed to narrative in a more
discursive style than physics and on a different time scale. They seek
to reconstruct sequences of events in the past — sequences presumed to
be unique or so hugely cyclic that they are beyond experiment:
Cosmology and geology are such sciences. Paleontology, or the study of
the origin of living things on earth, and paleoanthropology, the study
of human evolution, are further examples, in descending order of
taxonomic scope and of time scale. Ideally, they should all fit
together in a coherent epic account of our world: how it came to be
and how humankind came to have its particular place in it.
This book is concerned with the most intimate of the narrative
sciences, paleoanthropology. It addresses a group of classic texts in
paleoanthropology beginning in the generation of Charles Darwin. It
asks what happens if we look at these texts as narratives, leaving
aside issues of truth or justification. What it finds is that these
texts are determined as much by traditional narrative frameworks as by
material evidence."
fnord
backspace
It is either a tautological proposition or expression depending on who
says SoF, just like "Beer is Beer" has an intention, either
fallacious or poetic depending on who uttered the phrase, as this
link explains: http://maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com/posts/1114725461.shtml
SoF and Beer-is-Beer etc. doesn't have a single true meaning, not
now not ever.
wf3h
> http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/origines/myth.htm
>
> I believe that according to the evidence presented in this essay, it
> becomes possible to consider the theory of evolution as being the
> international scientific community's origins myth
?? myth? seems the creationist doesn't know what 'myth' means anymore
than he does 'tautological'. he defines neither term nor tells why
why his view...creationism...explains what science doesn't
. Now what does this
> prove ? Only that scientists, too, are human and, like other human
> beings, they need a concept that explains where they came from and
> that gives them some kind of understanding of the present and also of
> the future.
yeah. go figure. we needed to explain the atom, quarks, galaxies, etc.
that's our job. nolo contendre.
the difference between creationism and science is that our ideas work.
yours don't. so frame it whatever way makes you feel comfortable. but
we succeeded where you failed. we know the answer.
you're just making up a fairy tale and using sour grapes to explain
away your failure.
>
> One characteristic that sets the theory of evolution apart from other
> myths is that it is not, as myths usually are, tied in to an
> explicitly delineated plan of social action (a religion). Because of
> this, the theory of evolution has a hidden danger: it can be
> manipulated quite easily and the results can be quite disastrous. It
> is well-known that social Darwinism was the main basis for Hitler's
> notion of the superiority of the Aryan race which served to justify
> the massacre of six million Jews.
well, not really. and it's my contention that this bit of doggerel
from radical creationist fundamentalists is anti-semitic in and of
itself.
YOU guys created antisemitism. YOU guys for a thousand years murdered
jews. YOU guys for a thousand years expelled jews from every country
in europe. and every single slave owner in the US was a creationist.
the idea that evolution led to hitler is provably a lie. (cf 'dabru
emet'). but fundies like you want to whitewash the complicity of your
hatred of jews and place the blame on science. one need only read what
the creationist 'adman' says about jews: theyr'e christ killers;
they're stubborn and stiff necked. or read what the creationist pat
buchanan says about jews. he's as anti-semitic as it gets
so slavery and hatred of jews is part of creationist culture and
history. denial of this is, itself. a form of hatred of jews since it
seeks to exculpate the guilty.
Would we dare again place power in
> the hands of someone who really believes in the theory of evolution ?
> Although in the "social sciences" efforts to implement social
> Darwinism are usually regarded with much suspicion, in the political
> arena things are so mixed up (especially in international relations)
> that it might possibly be brought back in some new form.
and christian fundamentalism? ever hear of the 'loving' decision? you
creationists need to go back and learn your history to see what you're
denying. YOU guys wrote the anti-miscegenation laws. YOU guys defended
them on the basis that 'niggers' were to be separate from whites. and
in rwanda in 1994 this led to one of the greatest acts of mass murder
in history. partially due to creationism.
it's CREATIONISM which kills. creationism which lies. creationism
which distorts.
creationism is the danger.
> "Because this approach is so fundamentally different from the
> causal-law explanations, the classical philosophers of science -
> coming from logic, mathematics, or the physical sciences - considered
> it inadmissible.
your quote mining is irrelevant. i am a physical chemist. i don't care
whether evolution is true or not. but i consider evolution to be as
scientific as chemistry. and every chemist i know thinks the same way.
creationism is a lie. you lie about murder. you lie about your guilt.
creationism is the ideology of ignorant hatred.
hersheyh
> On Jul 1, 6:16 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Vend said '"gene x is likely to make its bearers leave more children
> > than average" => "with high probability the frequency of gene x in the
> > population will increase". '
> > That is not the same as "What happens, happens."
Let me correct Vend here to what I think he meant with his shorthand:
*If* individuals with phenotype x (due to certain genotypes containing
allele x) are more likely than individuals with phenotype y (due to
certain genotypes containing allele x1) to leave more children in
environment z, *then* the frequency of allele x is likely to increase
and the fequency of allele x1 is likely to decrease in populations in
environment z, all else being equal (or randomized, which amounts to
the same thing).
> Either genes increase or decrease is the essence of what wilkins etc.
> is telling us - how could one dispute this?
Genes do, indeed, either decrease or increase and will do so in the
absence of selection (by chance alone) as well as in the presence of
non-stabilized selection. Only conservative selection can tend to
prevent change in frequency. But, if you read my description above,
you will note that for *selection* to occur, the change must be
*causally* related to a specific phenotype in a specific environment.
Selection can be distinguished from chance deviations (chance
increases or decreases) on the basis of this causality. That is, it
is *specifically* one phenotype that *consistently* increases relative
to the other. If the cause of decrease or increase in frequency were
due to chance, the results would be mathematically indistinguishable
from the expectations of chance deviation for a population of that
size.
>
> > "A proposed specific gene with an expressed phenotype" is not
> > synonymous with "Whatever".
>
> Take an oak tree and show me where is its phenotype.
> Then take a cat and show me the spot where its phenotype is.
Oak trees (and cats) have many phenotypes. *Any* specific
identifiable feature (size, leaf shape, biochemical reactions) you can
ascribe to them is a phenotype. But to understand or have either
*selection* or *drift* you have to have more than one alternative for
that specific feature.
Vend
> On Jul 1, 6:16 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Vend said '"gene x is likely to make its bearers leave more children
> > than average" => "with high probability the frequency of gene x in the
> > population will increase". '
> > That is not the same as "What happens, happens."
>
> Either genes increase or decrease is the essence of what wilkins etc.
> is telling us - how could one dispute this?
Natural selection is not "either genes increase or decrease".
I know you have issues with language, but you should try to read for
comprehension.
> > "A proposed specific gene with an expressed phenotype" is not
> > synonymous with "Whatever".
>
> Take an oak tree and show me where is its phenotype.
> Then take a cat and show me the spot where its phenotype is.
Any observable characteristic that depends on the DNA is part of the
phenotype.
In fact, "being an oak tree" is a different phenotype than "being a
cat".
David Hare-Scott
I have seen the circuit many times. It seems to me that he is getting more
strident and paranoid about it.
David
David Hare-Scott
Your attempted rebuttal of Burkhard only supplies more evidence that he is
right. Did you not notice?
David
John S. Wilkins
> On Jun 30, 9:33 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 29, 6:20 am, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > does better than y" is a big deal. However one phrases it, natural
> > > selection can *seem* like a tautology. That it is not, is what I was
> > > arguing.
> >
> > The concept Darwin had with matthew's Natural means of selection which
> > he lifted without giving credit
>
> Science is (among other things) accumulated knowledge. *Every
> scientist starts by learning some of what his or her predecessors have
> learned. Nobody had yet quite described [common descent via
> modification by natural selection] as Darwin did. A few came close,
> but did not pursue it or support it with the wealth of detailed
> evidence as seen in the Origin of Species.
>
> >first three editions i think was used
> > by him to paraphrase and reformulate in hundreds of different ways
> > Aristotle's proposition
>
> I doubt if Darwin gave much thought to Aristotle.
Not until he was nearly dead, no:
[The following letter refers to Dr. Ogle's translation of Aristotle, 'On
the Parts of Animals' (1882):]
C. Darwin to W. Ogle.
Down, February 22, 1882.
MY DEAR DR. OGLE,—You must let me thank you for the pleasure which the
introduction to the Aristotle book has given me. I have rarely read
anything which has interested me more, though I have not read as yet
more than a quarter of the book proper.
From quotations which I had seen, I had a high notion of Aristotle's
merits, but I had not the most remote notion what a wonderful man he
was. Linnæus and Cuvier have been my two gods, though in very different
ways, but they were mere schoolboys to old Aristotle. How very curious,
also, his ignorance on some points, as on muscles as the means of
movement. I am glad that you have explained in so probable a manner some
of the grossest mistakes attributed to him. I never realized, before
reading your book, to what an enormous summation of labour we owe even
our common knowledge. I wish old Aristotle could know what a grand
Defender of the Faith he had found in you. Believe me, my dear Dr. Ogle,
Yours very sincerely,
CH. DARWIN.
...
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Ivar Ylvisaker
> Ivar Ylvisaker <ylvi...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Just how one incorporates this (or other information) effectively in a
>> revised article on tautology for the TalkOrigins archives is less clear.
>>
> Some of it is already in the FAQ. But other bits are in, say, the
> macroevolution FAQs (particularly the wonderful essay by Douglas
> Theobald).
My earlier post reflected my feeling that the current FAQ page on
Tautology is not an effective response to the charge that natural
selection is a tautology.
For example, I don't know what this sentence in the first paragraph means:
"'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."
Don't at least part of "those that survive" survive because of "their
adaptations and functional efficiency, when compared to others in the
population." The tautology is still there: survivors survive. There
may be a nugget of good sense in there someplace but I suspect many
people, like me, will have trouble finding it. Creationists are likely
to conclude that Philip Johnson (writing in Darwin on Trial, e.g., page
20ff) was right; many of the arguments for evolution are nothing more
than tautologies.
The article gets better. But, for people who are looking for ammunition
to respond more effectively to creationists, it could be more helpful.
My earlier post sketched a possible response. There are almost
certainly better ones. If I spend much more time on this issue, I'll
probably write one (or, at least, a paragraph or two) myself. A couple
suggestions. Point out early in the article that the phrase "survival
of the fittest" does not completely specify the theory of NS. The
phrase "survival of the fittest" and the statements defining NS are not
logically equivalent and, hence, cannot be tautological. A more
complete description of NS will include information about inheritance.
When fully specified, NS is testable, which is the real issue. Also,
I'd get rid of the reference to F=ma. Many people have argued over the
years that this equation is necessarily true (i.e., a tautology) on the
grounds that it is actually a definition. You don't need to complicate
a discussion on whether NS is a tautology by implying that NS and F=ma
are somehow similar.
Ivar
John S. Wilkins
Ivar
I am now in technical mode, and probably can't write it clearly enough
for a popular audience any longer. Why don't you write a revised FAQ for
that section? You can include any or none of my material (if some, then
I will take junior author status, if none, then we'll set it up so that
it becomes just your page).
As I have said, it is the FAQ page I am least happy with.
backspace
> I am now in technical mode, and probably can't write it clearly enough
> for a popular audience any longer. Why don't you write a revised FAQ for
> that section? You can include any or none of my material (if some, then
> I will take junior author status, if none, then we'll set it up so that
> it becomes just your page).
> As I have said, it is the FAQ page I am least happy with.
Because Sober was wrong he committed the "innocence by association"
fallacy with F=MA.... you know it, Harshman knows, Howard does, we all
do. It should be removed as soon as possible, people are losing their
faith because of that article, people are being deceived, it is widely
referenced and read.
Would somebody please edit the Wikipedia article, because woland
removed Howard's excellent insight on the topic the concept I lifted
from him and said was mine...... which seems to have created an
allergic reaction of some sort..... it is as though anything a YEC
says has to be automatically wrong.
fnord
hersheyh
> On Jul 1, 8:20 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 1, 6:16 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Vend said '"gene x is likely to make its bearers leave more children
> > > than average" => "with high probability the frequency of gene x in the
> > > population will increase". '
> > > That is not the same as "What happens, happens."
>
> > Either genes increase or decrease is the essence of what wilkins etc.
> > is telling us - how could one dispute this?
>
> Natural selection is not "either genes increase or decrease".
> I know you have issues with language, but you should try to read for
> comprehension.
He can't do that (read for comprehension) and maintain his false idea
that NS is a false tautology.
>
> > > "A proposed specific gene with an expressed phenotype" is not
> > > synonymous with "Whatever".
>
> > Take an oak tree and show me where is its phenotype.
> > Then take a cat and show me the spot where its phenotype is.
>
> Any observable characteristic that depends on the DNA is part of the
> phenotype.
The "depends on DNA" is inacurate. Phenotype is "appearance"
regardless of cause. Selection works *directly* on phenotypic
difference and only indirectly on genotypic difference. The dumb,
unintelligent environment cares not whether you are a legless deer
because of a genetic defect, a non-genetic birth defect, or amputation
by accident. Compared to legged deer, legless deer are at a selective
disadvantage regardless of whether that phenotype is genetic or not.
To the extent (and only to the extent) that the phenotype of "legless"
is genetically based, selection will favor some alleles (those that
favor legged deer in this case) over others. That is true not only
for *simple* genetic traits, but also for complex or quantitative
genetic traits.
IOW, selection works on *phenotype*. Evolution of *genotype* by
selection requires that the phenotype have some genetic basis.
> In fact, "being an oak tree" is a different phenotype than "being a
> cat".
Depends on the specific trait. But *selection* is a competition among
members of the same population (not the competition between oak and
cat). Such selection can sometimes lead to differentiation of
populations to specialize to different environments. And that can
lead to favoring reproductive isolation leading to speciation.
Kermit
> http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/origines/myth.htm
>
> I believe that according to the evidence presented in this essay, it
> becomes possible to consider the theory of evolution as being the
> international scientific community's origins myth. Now what does this
> prove ? Only that scientists, too, are human and, like other human
> beings, they need a concept that explains where they came from and
> that gives them some kind of understanding of the present and also of
> the future.
I have often said something like this myself. However, I rarely say it
to Crfeationists, for they *invariably do not hear my explanation for
how I am using the word "myth".
This paragraph, BTW, is very foolish. While the ToE may serve as an
origins myth, that claim does not "prove" that scientists (either all
or simply most) need one. The ToE is a result of studying reality.
This paragraph looks like a attempt to avoid the implications of
studying reality with naturalistic methodology.
>
> One characteristic that sets the theory of evolution apart from other
> myths is that it is not, as myths usually are, tied in to an
> explicitly delineated plan of social action (a religion).
Correct; because it is not actually a religious myth; it simply can
serve *in *some *ways as such for some people. This is akin to a
drinking society or a garden club substituting for the social
functions of a church for some people. That does not make them
churches, and it would be foolish to attribute other churchly
characteristics to them, or claim they have failed in those functions.
> Because of
> this, the theory of evolution has a hidden danger: it can be
> manipulated quite easily and the results can be quite disastrous.
How does one manipulate a testable model of reality? What does this
even *mean?
> It
> is well-known that social Darwinism was the main basis for Hitler's
> notion of the superiority of the Aryan race which served to justify
> the massacre of six million Jews.
No, it was more the heritage of Luther's hatred for the Jews. Hitler
made no mention of Darwin, he showed little interest in science except
as a source of weaponry, and he used various religious symbology
often. Both Haeckel and Darwin were generally disliked by the Nazis.
This statement shows either a terrible ignorance of recent history or
a deep and fundamental dishonesty.
>Would we dare again place power in
> the hands of someone who really believes in the theory of evolution ?
This translation uses the term "believe in" which is often used by
English speakers to conflate "believe X is true" with "embrace the
values of X". Carelessness, or more dishonesty? And what sort of mind
thinks that we can or should believe something is true based on values
derived from it? Does Luther establish that Christianity is false or
evil? If Gosselin is arguing that there are values implicit in
Darwin's dangerous idea, then he contradicts himself when he said that
"the theory of evolution apart from other myths is that it is not, as
myths usually are, tied in to an explicitly delineated plan of social
action".
> Although in the "social sciences" efforts to implement social
> Darwinism are usually regarded with much suspicion, in the political
> arena things are so mixed up (especially in international relations)
> that it might possibly be brought back in some new form.
It never went away. You cannot understand, nor refute, scientific
theories by reading incompetent non-scientists.
>
> Ernst Mayr, one of the twentieth century's most prestigious biologists
> notes (1997):
>
> "Biologists have to study all the known facts relating to the
> particular problem, infer all sorts of consequences from the
> reconstructed constellations of factors, and then attempt to construct
> a scenario to explain the observed facts of this particular case. In
> other words, they construct a historical narrative."
> "Because this approach is so fundamentally different from the
> causal-law explanations, the classical philosophers of science -
> coming from logic, mathematics, or the physical sciences - considered
> it inadmissible. However, recent authors have vigorously refuted the
> narrowness of the classical view and have shown not only that the
> historical-narrative approach is valid but also that it is perhaps the
> only scientifically and philosophically valid approach in the
> explanation of unique occurrences."
> "Of course, proving categorically that a historical narrative is
> 'true' is never possible."
Correct. Same for physics. True of any science - in fact, any
synthetic statement is only contingently true (at best).
>
> Which should be read in the light of this essay http://lostborders.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/the-origin-of-species-as-...
>
> fnord
I see you have no intention of addressing the evidence, nor offering
any alternative testable model that fits all the pertinent facts.
Kermit
Kermit
> On Jul 1, 6:16 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Vend said '"gene x is likely to make its bearers leave more children
> > than average" => "with high probability the frequency of gene x in the
> > population will increase". '
> > That is not the same as "What happens, happens."
I and others have explained at length. I shall try a minimalist
approach.
>
> Either genes increase or decrease is the essence of what wilkins etc.
> is telling us - how could one dispute this?
Let me paraphrase your response:
What?
>
> > "A proposed specific gene with an expressed phenotype" is not
> > synonymous with "Whatever".
>
> Take an oak tree and show me where is its phenotype.
> Then take a cat and show me the spot where its phenotype is.
And here you say:
Where?
Kermit
backspace
> No, it was more the heritage of Luther's hatred for the Jews.
This is the truth, he also killed by drowning my people the
Anababtists. I am anababtist, we believe that you must have a personal
relationship with Jesus, no infant babtism. I myself was persecuted by
the Dutch Reformed church. The Roman whore and false protestants
killed both Jews and anababtists. The anababtists never really wielded
political power of any sort as far as I know.
Even King James who gave us the King James bible ordered that an
anababtist family should not be helped, they died of hunger and
exposure. I am a staunch supporter of Jews and the nation of Israel,
who the Democrats are trying to destroy.
Woland
Weirdz, lots of Jews are Democrats. Are they trying to destroy
themselves? Seems kind of counter productive.
wf3h
>
> Even King James who gave us the King James bible ordered that an
> anababtist family should not be helped, they died of hunger and
> exposure. I am a staunch supporter of Jews and the nation of Israel,
> who the Democrats are trying to destroy.
which is horseshit. those who think unbridled defense of the israeli
govt is support for israel are as crazy as any other fundamentalist.
Mitchell Coffey
So a month and a half before he died, Darwin was studying Aristotle,
and with clear joy. No wonder Chas is hated in certain quarters.
The sad part of the quote is "... though I have not read as yet more
than a quarter of the book proper." I mean, did he finish it? On the
other hand, good Dr. Ogle did get Char's comment, which he must have
particularly cherished after Darwin's death, given how the more usual
practice is to finish the book before sending the comment. Char's
pleasure was such he couldn't contain himself.
... A pleasure of that level of excitement isn't so good for the heart
of an old man. Which raises the possibility, what role, if any, did
the reading of Aristotle have in Darwin's death? It occurs that a
comparison bears with the somaticly similar demises of certain other
notable men. I'm thinking of, for instance, the discorporation of ex-
Vice President and former-New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, who
perished in carnal consult with an aide some 50 years his junior. It
is perhaps a sign of my own aging, and I hope this is not
misunderstood, but on consideration I'd much rather go like Darwin.
Mitchell
John S. Wilkins
In other words, rather than the usual story about how Darwin killed
Aristotle, the reverse might be true?
Matt Silberstein
<hers...@yahoo.com> in
<6cb54f10-71f5-425d...@q11g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
[snip]
>But *selection* is a competition among
>members of the same population (not the competition between oak and
>cat). Such selection can sometimes lead to differentiation of
>populations to specialize to different environments. And that can
>lead to favoring reproductive isolation leading to speciation.
OK. Is it selection if sub-species A out-competes sub-species B? How
about if they have become full species? At what point is it no longer
selection?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
John S. Wilkins
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 08:04:56 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins , hersheyh
> <hers...@yahoo.com> in
> <6cb54f10-71f5-425d...@q11g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >But *selection* is a competition among
> >members of the same population (not the competition between oak and
> >cat). Such selection can sometimes lead to differentiation of
> >populations to specialize to different environments. And that can
> >lead to favoring reproductive isolation leading to speciation.
>
> OK. Is it selection if sub-species A out-competes sub-species B? How
> about if they have become full species? At what point is it no longer
> selection?
I think there are layers of levels in animal evolution - when species
compete in an area, it is competitive exclusion. For it to be selection,
the alleles or variants must be in the same population, and that implies
pre-speciation.
Darwin sometimes spoke of species as competing, but not, I think, of
that being natural selection.
Chris
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 08:04:56 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins , hersheyh
> <6cb54f10-71f5-425d-9f2f-14c085af3...@q11g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >But *selection* is a competition among
> >members of the same population (not the competition between oak and
> >cat). Such selection can sometimes lead to differentiation of
> >populations to specialize to different environments. And that can
> >lead to favoring reproductive isolation leading to speciation.
>
> OK. Is it selection if sub-species A out-competes sub-species B? How
> about if they have become full species? At what point is it no longer
> selection?
>
> --
> Matt Silberstein
>
> Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
>
>
> "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
You know better than to conflate species selection with natural
selection.
Chris
backspace
Then why don't you give up your US citizenship and go live there?
backspace
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >But *selection* is a competition among
> >members of the same population (not the competition between oak and
> >cat). Such selection can sometimes lead to differentiation of
> >populations to specialize to different environments. And that can
> >lead to favoring reproductive isolation leading to speciation.
>
> OK. Is it selection if sub-species A out-competes sub-species B? How
> about if they have become full species? At what point is it no longer
> selection?
Who did the selecting? Nobody says the inquisition priest at Harvard
molding like putty the terrified brain of the hapless student infront
of him, who without a degree will be digging ditches for the rest of
his life.
If you say: Wrong question, then you are denying Christ because Paul
says to be wary of those bringing in destructive heresies and
doctrines of devils. Saying "selection" the whole time, but nobody
did the selecting as even Stephen Myers is using "selection", means
you are straight for the jugular ,for the kill - destroying your
mental health and thus we wind up with pathetic spectacle of Stephen
Myer denying his faith.
The whole idea with ID was to get Christ into the academia, the ID
people are denying this. Not only are they thus lying but denying
Christ.
backspace
OoS:
"..............Passing over allusions to the subject in the classical
writers (Aristotle, in his "Physicae Auscultationes" (lib.2, cap.8, s.
2),
after remarking that rain does not fall in order to make the corn
grow, any
more than it falls to spoil the farmer's corn when threshed out of
doors,
applies the same argument to organisation; and adds (as translated by
Mr.
Clair Grece, who first pointed out the passage to me),
"So what hinders the different parts (of the body) from having this
merely accidental relation
in nature? as the teeth, for example, grow by necessity, the front
ones
sharp, adapted for dividing, and the grinders flat, and serviceable
for
masticating the food; since they were not made for the sake of this,
but it
was the result of accident. And in like manner as to other parts in
which
there appears to exist an adaptation to an end. Wheresoever,
therefore,
all things together (that is all the parts of one whole) happened like
as
if they were made for the sake of something, these were preserved,
having
been appropriately constituted by an internal spontaneity; and
whatsoever
things were not thus constituted, perished and still perish."
We here see the principle of natural selection shadowed forth, but how
little Aristotle
fully comprehended the principle, is shown by his remarks on the
formation
of the teeth.), the first author who in modern times has treated it in
a
scientific spirit was Buffon. But as his opinions fluctuated greatly
at
different periods, and as he does not enter on the causes or means of
the
transformation of species, I need not here enter on
details........................................"
=== Tautology part ===
Wheresoever, therefore, all things together (that is all the parts of
one whole) happened like as
if they were made for the sake of something, these were preserved,
having been appropriately constituted by an internal spontaneity; and
whatsoever things were not thus constituted, perished and still
perish."
This is the passage DArwin reformulated in various ways such as ".....
those that went extinct were less improved....".
Ivar Ylvisaker
> I am now in technical mode, and probably can't write it clearly enough
> for a popular audience any longer. Why don't you write a revised FAQ for
> that section? You can include any or none of my material (if some, then
> I will take junior author status, if none, then we'll set it up so that
> it becomes just your page).
>
> As I have said, it is the FAQ page I am least happy with.
I'll think about it. I'm not sure how difficult it will be for me to
integrate what I may write with the other pages in this FAQ section.
That's why I was hoping that you would do it.
I note that your tautology page largely focused on the biologists' idea
of fitness. My thinking has been more focused on what I think
creationists have in mind when they offer up the tautology argument. (I
don't think that they have much in mind.)
If I do write something, I'll send you a draft via email.
Ivar
wf3h
>
> This is the passage DArwin reformulated in various ways such as ".....
> those that went extinct were less improved....".
it's a testable theory. that's what has you confused. you creationists
are stuck in a 3rd century linguistic time warp, before the
development of science, so reject the idea that theories are testable.
if it's not in a book, you can't understand it.
sorry. there's really no way to help you out of the situation you've
created for yourself. it's up to you to change.
hersheyh
> <6cb54f10-71f5-425d-9f2f-14c085af3...@q11g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >But *selection* is a competition among
> >members of the same population (not the competition between oak and
> >cat). Such selection can sometimes lead to differentiation of
> >populations to specialize to different environments. And that can
> >lead to favoring reproductive isolation leading to speciation.
>
> OK. Is it selection if sub-species A out-competes sub-species B?
Yes.
> How
> about if they have become full species?
Not natural selection at that point. Either one of the species goes
extinct (competitive exclusion) or they diverge to specialize to
different niches.
>At what point is it no longer
> selection?
There can be competion between species for resources, but such
competition is not what biologists call "natural selection". But, of
course, as in most of biology related to speciation, there are gray
areas. Similar in some ways to competition of local dialects which
share a common language compared to a competition betweeen two
separate languages (such as English taking over the 'lingua franca'
role from Latin in science).
Competition between species for resources can occur between completely
unrelated species, one invasive and one domestic. Such can and have
led to extinction of one of the species, but really represents a
sudden modification of the local environment rather than what is
ordinarily called "natural selection" as it relates to evolution.
>
> --
> Matt Silberstein
>
> Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
>
> http://www.beawitness.orghttp://www.darfurgenocide.orghttp://www.savedarfur.org
Woland
Again, go back to school and lean what a tautology actually is.
Woland
> On Jul 3, 6:33 am, Matt Silberstein
>
> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >But *selection* is a competition among
> > >members of the same population (not the competition between oak and
> > >cat). Such selection can sometimes lead to differentiation of
> > >populations to specialize to different environments. And that can
> > >lead to favoring reproductive isolation leading to speciation.
>
> > OK. Is it selection if sub-species A out-competes sub-species B? How
> > about if they have become full species? At what point is it no longer
> > selection?
>
> Who did the selecting?
The environment.
>Nobody says the inquisition priest at Harvard
> molding like putty the terrified brain of the hapless student infront
> of him, who without a degree will be digging ditches for the rest of
> his life.
Somebody has to dig 'em.
>
> If you say: Wrong question, then you are denying Christ because Paul
> says to be wary of those bringing in destructive heresies and
> doctrines of devils.
>Saying "selection" the whole time, but nobody
> did the selecting as even Stephen Myers is using "selection", means
> you are straight for the jugular ,for the kill - destroying your
> mental health and thus we wind up with pathetic spectacle of Stephen
> Myer denying his faith.
The environment does the selecting. Many people believe that God set
it up this way.
> The whole idea with ID was to get Christ into the academia, the ID
> people are denying this. Not only are they thus lying but denying
> Christ.
True.
hersheyh
> On Jul 3, 6:33 am, Matt Silberstein
>
> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >But *selection* is a competition among
> > >members of the same population (not the competition between oak and
> > >cat). Such selection can sometimes lead to differentiation of
> > >populations to specialize to different environments. And that can
> > >lead to favoring reproductive isolation leading to speciation.
>
> > OK. Is it selection if sub-species A out-competes sub-species B? How
> > about if they have become full species? At what point is it no longer
> > selection?
>
> Who did the selecting?
No "who" does the selecting. The dumb, unintelligent, non-conscious,
local environment does the selecting or discrimination between
alternatives. Just like the dumb, unintelligent, non-conscious, local
environment determines the course of rainwater.
> Nobody says the inquisition priest at Harvard
> molding like putty the terrified brain of the hapless student infront
> of him, who without a degree will be digging ditches for the rest of
> his life.
>
> If you say: Wrong question, then you are denying Christ because Paul
> says to be wary of those bringing in destructive heresies and
> doctrines of devils. Saying "selection" the whole time, but nobody
> did the selecting as even Stephen Myers is using "selection", means
> you are straight for the jugular ,for the kill - destroying your
> mental health and thus we wind up with pathetic spectacle of Stephen
> Myer denying his faith.
Environmental conditions certainly affect and effect consequences. If
you are in a room filled with two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen
and a random lightning bolt hits (changing environmental conditions),
there will be an effect that will affect your well-being. In natural
selection, if you have the genotype HbA/HbA, an environment with
endemic malaria will affect you differently (on average) than an
individual with HbA/HbS. No "who" involved except for the not
particularly brilliant malaria parasite.
> The whole idea with ID was to get Christ into the academia, the ID
> people are denying this. Not only are they thus lying but denying
> Christ.
That they are lying by denying that their goal was to insert
fundamentalist Christianity into *science* (the academy has never
excluded the study of religions, their beliefs, their history, and
effects; but the academics who do that are not doing science) is
obvious. Funny thing, many fundamentalists don't much like honesty in
that area of research either.
Rich Mathers
Childish retort. However, it does fit your insight capacity.
backspace
> On Jul 1, 9:13 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 29, 2:55 am, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Creationists like to claim the "survival of the fittest" is a
> > > tautology
>
> > It's not a tautology because it's not a statement.
> > It's a noun-phrase, nothing more.
> It is either a tautological proposition or expression depending on who
> says SoF, just like "Beer is Beer" has an intention, either
> fallacious or poetic depending on who uttered the phrase, as this
> link explains:http://maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com/posts/1114725461.shtml
>
> SoF and Beer-is-Beer etc. doesn't have a single true meaning, not
> now not ever.
http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2007/07/27/survival-of-the-fittest-is-tautological/
"..........The argument that “survival of the fittest is a tautology”
claims that evolutionists believe that “the fittest” and “survivors”
are identical groups (evolutionists don’t believe that), and that
evolutionists have no way to judge fitness other than survival (which
is false)............."
That would depend on the concept the author is encoding with SoF.
Spencer meant "survival of the most suitable". So who made what
argument, because SoF doesn't have a single true meaning, it is a
cluster of words that can be used by anybody to express any concept.
"...From a definitional standpoint, “fitness” means possessing traits
which aid in survival, which is correlated with (but not identical to)
survival itself...."""
The word "fitness" has no single true meaning "...possessing traits
which aid in survival..." isn't the only concept one can encode for
others to decode.
backspace
".....Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that
make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully
reproduce become more common in a population over successive
generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution....."
There is no language without a motive, who wrote that opening
paragraph and why was "favorable" removed as it was in the previous
editions? What is the concept the author has with "natural
selection" , which passages of OoS did he interpret. Did he interpret
Aristotle as Darwin interpreted him. If not why not. Who said what
when and where. What is the motive, concept , world view and
background knowledge of the author that wrote: ....... natural
selection .... on Wikipedia.
If it doesn't matter , why not. Does "natural selection" have one true
single meaning?
Burkhard
What do you mean with "it"?
What do you mean with"doesn't"?
What do you mwan with "matter"?
What do you mean with ","
Iain
> On Jul 1, 9:13 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 29, 2:55 am, Bill <brogers31...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Creationists like to claim the "survival of the fittest" is a
> > > tautology
>
> > It's not a tautology because it's not a statement.
>
> > It's a noun-phrase, nothing more.
>
> It is either a tautological proposition
No, because, like I said, "survival of the fittest" is not a
statement, therefore certainly not a tautology.
"The fittest survive" would be a statement. Maybe even a tautology.
But "the fittest survive" was never the point.
The point alluded to by the noun-phrase 'survival of the fittest' is
"the survival of the fittest influences the course of a species'
evolution".
This is in no way, shape or form a tautology. This is evident from
that fact that many Victorians denied its truth when they first heard
it. At the time, the nature of inheritance was not understood to be
something that could render the course of a species' evolution
susceptible to environmental influence. It was a new and substancial
idea. One could consider it a response to the question "what
influences the course of a species' evolution?".
In the beginning, idea that species adapt to their environment was not
even accepted as true, let alone a truism.
Although I'm looking forward to your Wonka-like attempts to portray it
as one. I see you've already made a head-start yesterday.
> or expression depending on who
> says SoF, just like "Beer is Beer" has an intention, either
> fallacious or poetic depending on who uttered the phrase, as this
> link explains:http://maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com/posts/1114725461.shtml
>
> SoF and Beer-is-Beer etc. doesn't have a single true meaning, not
> now not ever.
Horseshit.
--Iain
backspace
> But "the fittest survive" was never the point.
Depends who says "the fittest survive".
> The point alluded to by the noun-phrase 'survival of the fittest' is
> "the survival of the fittest influences the course of a species'
> evolution".
Who's point?
> This is in no way, shape or form a tautology. This is evident from
> that fact that many Victorians denied its truth when they first heard
> it. At the time, the nature of inheritance was not understood to be
> something that could render the course of a species' evolution
> susceptible to environmental influence.
Begging the question again.
> In the beginning, idea that species adapt to their environment was not
> even accepted as true, let alone a truism.
By adapt your are begging the question, assuming that that monkeys
gave birth to humans. One is supposed to provide a way to falsify such
a notion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natural_selection/Archive_8
".... By the way, of course selection reduces genetic diversity
within a closed population (though it can also maintain it by
enforcing a blance between different sub-populations), but it does not
"just" do that. It does it asymmetrically, by retaining and
propagating newly found, well-adapted characters. This allows for
gradual accumulation of small (or even not-so-small) improvements, the
secret of evolution's power. Mutation and speciation -> diversity,
natural selection -> adaptation and improvement.
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thomas_Arelatensiss 13:45, 13
February 2007 (UTC)....."
=== rephrase ===
Selection reduces or maintains diversity within a closed population ,
but it does not "just" do that. It does it by retaining and
propagating newly found, well-adapted characters. This allows for
accumulation of small improvements, the secret of evolution's power.
Mutation and speciation -> diversity, natural selection -> adaptation
and improvement.
=== rephrase ===
Selection reduces or maintains diversity within a closed population ,
but it does not "just" do that. It does it by retaining newly found,
well-adapted characters. This allows for accumulation of small
improvements, the secret of evolution's power. Mutation and speciation
-> diversity, natural selection -> adaptation and improvement.
"...newly found...." begs the question, assumes an underlying progress
from simple to progressive life forms. lets remove it to get to the
tautology which masks the circular reasoning. Tautologies are not the
same thing as begging the question.
=== rephrase ===
Selection reduces or maintains diversity within a closed population ,
but it does not "just" do that. It does it by retaining well-adapted
attributes, accumulating improvements, the secret of evolution's
power.
=== rephrase ===
Selection reduces or maintains diversity. It can maintain it by
retaining well-adapted attributes and accumulating improvements.
=== rephrase ===
Selection maintains diversity by retaining well-adapted attributes
and accumulating improvements.
=== rephrase ===
Selection maintains diversity by retaining well-adapted attributes.
=== Tautological essence ===
The well-adapted attributes are retained.
Iain
> On Jul 4, 1:57 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But "the fittest survive" was never the point.
>
> Depends who says "the fittest survive".
> > The point alluded to by the noun-phrase 'survival of the fittest' is
> > "the survival of the fittest influences the course of a species'
> > evolution".
>
> Who's point?
Darwin's, for one. And Wallace's. The initial users of the term. And
most of the subsequent users who are not as confused as you are.
> > This is in no way, shape or form a tautology. This is evident from
> > that fact that many Victorians denied its truth when they first heard
> > it. At the time, the nature of inheritance was not understood to be
> > something that could render the course of a species' evolution
> > susceptible to environmental influence.
>
> Begging the question again.
What on Earth are you talking about? Begging what question? How?
Do you even read what I wrote? Do you think this relates to what I
said?
Was your brain installed sideways?
> > In the beginning, idea that species adapt to their environment was not
> > even accepted as true, let alone a truism.
>
> By adapt your are begging the question, assuming that that monkeys
> gave birth to humans.
Say what? Monkeys begetting humans? My assumption? Begging a
question?
That, right there is non-sequitur, incorrect, bewildering first-class
gibberish.
I expected obfuscation, not gibberish. I'm impressed.
--Iain
backspace
> Ivar Ylvisaker <ylvis...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > The Wikipedia has an article on "Survival of the fittest" including a
> > section entitled "Is 'survival of the fittest' a tautology?" It also
> > lists several external references relating to the tautology issue
> > including one authored by John Wilkins.
> Briefly it should include this:
> The *model* of NS probably is a tautology, because a model, in its
> abstract state, is uninterpreted.
NS like SoF doesn't have a single true concept. If you are referring
to Darwin his concept had no math, he couldn't do math, his concept
was "the dinosaurs died because they were less improved, those that
didn't die were improved." No model is any state either, abstract or
otherwise unless you tell me who's model it is. For something to be
"abstract" it must be associated with some individual's thought
process: Who is this individual?
> The entities that fit into the model are not specified.
Which model from which individual?
> So while in a *particular instance* what makes a particular strain of some species - say E. coli - fitter than other
> strains will not be tautological
Depends what you define as a tautology.
> The implication here is that natural selection simpliciter is not an
> explanation of the spread to fixation or equilibrium of some strain or
> alternative form; to make it more than a *scheme* for explanation, one
> has to *interpret* the variables, so that actual properties are
> included.
Implication from which concept by which individual? Who is the person
you are referring to. What is the concept you have with natural
selection.
> mathematical necessity of, all else being equal, any allele that has a
> .7 fitness will go to fixation when the alternative allele is .4 in thus
> and so a manner, as predicted by the math.
Darwin didn't know about genes. Who are you interpreting, if Darwin
then cite the book, if OoS is your text read what it says: Those who
died were less improved.
> Critics of NS as a tautology fail to realise that it explains fine when
> interpreted, and then it simply is not a a tautology, but the use of
> math to make a prediction, in conditions that are held constant
> ("ceteris paribus laws").
Darwin couldn't do math who's concept are you referring to with the
term "natural selection"?
> They trade on the abstraction as the entirety of the explanation.
Where did DArwin have an abstraction, cite the passage.
> But to do this means that *any* mathematical model would be excluded from science
To do what? You have given no citations.
> If NS is a tautology because it uses math that is otherwise undefined or uninterpreted, the
> *all* math is tautologous and should be abandoned.
NS and SoF was two terms Darwin used for his reformulation of
Aristotle that the dinosaurs perished because they weren't
constituted. He used no math. In his description of the titmouse he
speculated that larger feet would give it an advantage. But the size
of the titmouse feet is optimized for climbing and flight, to large
feet and it creates drag, to small and he can't grasp twigs.
> Some creationists would accept this conclusion, but no scientists would.
Yours or Darwin?
wf3h
> On Jun 30, 11:30 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > Ivar Ylvisaker <ylvis...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > The Wikipedia has an article on "Survival of the fittest" including a
> > > section entitled "Is 'survival of the fittest' a tautology?" It also
> > > lists several external references relating to the tautology issue
> > > including one authored by John Wilkins.
> > Briefly it should include this:
> > The *model* of NS probably is a tautology, because a model, in its
> > abstract state, is uninterpreted.
>
> NS like SoF doesn't have a single true concept
it has a TESTABLE concept. that's why you don't understand it. your
view...the creationist view...is from about 1000 years ago before the
very concepts of modern science were born. so NATURALLY you don't
understand how science works.
>
> NS and SoF was two terms Darwin used for his reformulation of
> Aristotle that the dinosaurs perished because they weren't
> constituted. He used no math.
when einstein started to develop the theory of relativity, he asked
himself 'what would it look like if i ran beside a beam of light'. he
did not write down the math until he had a qualitative picture in his
mind.
you creatinists can't understand science because to you, experiments
and thinking about how the universe runs are alien concepts. you think
in terms of simplistic answers like 'god did it' even though such
ideas are wrong..
that's where your hangup is.
hersheyh
>
> > Ivar Ylvisaker <ylvis...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > The Wikipedia has an article on "Survival of the fittest" including a
> > > section entitled "Is 'survival of the fittest' a tautology?" It also
> > > lists several external references relating to the tautology issue
> > > including one authored by John Wilkins.
> > Briefly it should include this:
> > The *model* of NS probably is a tautology, because a model, in its
> > abstract state, is uninterpreted.
>
> NS like SoF doesn't have a single true concept. If you are referring
> to Darwin his concept had no math, he couldn't do math, his concept
> was "the dinosaurs died because they were less improved, those that
> didn't die were improved." No model is any state either, abstract or
> otherwise unless you tell me who's model it is.
Is it your claim that the *current* understanding of NS differs from
some of the ideas of Darwin? If so, SFW? Darwin was a good human
scientist of his time, not an omniscient god. Newton was a good human
scientist of this time, not an omniscient god. Like most scientific
models, it is the work of a community of scientists working in many
different places and times to test the previous model and make changes
so that it continues to be in consilience with the currently available
evidence.
> For something to be
> "abstract" it must be associated with some individual's thought
> process: Who is this individual?
The scientific collective. As explained, described, tested, argued
about, and tested some more in the body of work found in the
collective collections of science libraries.
> > The entities that fit into the model are not specified.
>
> Which model from which individual?
Why do you seem to think that a *single* individual is responsible for
any given scientific model? And continue to do so when there is ample
evidence that most modern models are the work of many individuals to
form a consilience of ideas with evidence with the sole goal of more
accurately describing material reality?
> > So while in a *particular instance* what makes a particular strain of some species - say E. coli - fitter than other
> > strains will not be tautological
>
> Depends what you define as a tautology.
Yes. And your definition is brain dead.
> > The implication here is that natural selection simpliciter is not an
> > explanation of the spread to fixation or equilibrium of some strain or
> > alternative form; to make it more than a *scheme* for explanation, one
> > has to *interpret* the variables, so that actual properties are
> > included.
>
> Implication from which concept by which individual? Who is the person
> you are referring to. What is the concept you have with natural
> selection.
>
> > mathematical necessity of, all else being equal, any allele that has a
> > .7 fitness will go to fixation when the alternative allele is .4 in thus
> > and so a manner, as predicted by the math.
>
> Darwin didn't know about genes.
SFW? Both genes and math have been subsequently added to and
explicated natural selection beyond what Darwin proposed. The
concepts of gravity and light today differs significantly from
Newton's ideas; that doesn't mean certain basic Newtonian ideas should
be discarded.
> Who are you interpreting, if Darwin
> then cite the book, if OoS is your text read what it says: Those who
> died were less improved.
>
> > Critics of NS as a tautology fail to realise that it explains fine when
> > interpreted, and then it simply is not a a tautology, but the use of
> > math to make a prediction, in conditions that are held constant
> > ("ceteris paribus laws").
>
> Darwin couldn't do math who's concept are you referring to with the
> term "natural selection"?
>
> > They trade on the abstraction as the entirety of the explanation.
>
> Where did DArwin have an abstraction, cite the passage.
>
> > But to do this means that *any* mathematical model would be excluded from science
>
> To do what? You have given no citations.
>
> > If NS is a tautology because it uses math that is otherwise undefined or uninterpreted, the
> > *all* math is tautologous and should be abandoned.
>
> NS and SoF was two terms Darwin used for his reformulation of
> Aristotle that the dinosaurs perished because they weren't
> constituted. He used no math.
SFW? Scientific ideas are not static ideas; to remain, they often must
be tested and modified. That there are now mathematical explanations
of NS of the neoDarwinian scientists does not mean Darwin's basic
concept was wrong. It has been modified, tested, and re-tested
mathematically. It remains a good description of empirical reality.
> In his description of the titmouse he
> speculated that larger feet would give it an advantage.
Under what environmental conditions?
Larger size in a male guppy's tail has advantage when there are no
predators. The more predation there is, the less advantage large tail
size has. Tail size has a major genetic component.
> But the size
> of the titmouse feet is optimized for climbing and flight, to large
> feet and it creates drag, to small and he can't grasp twigs.
So, under conditions where grasping twigs is important, there is
constraint on the size of the titmouse's feet. This is a minimax
problem that arises all the time in the biological world. NS is an
excellent blind unintelligent mechanism for identifying and reaching
optimal positions between too big and too small, too colorful and too
drab, too aggressive and not aggressive enough.