Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Thorough critism of revised tautology FAQ from Dead Rat.
22 views
Skip to first unread message
Friar Broccoli
Oct 16, 2012, 10:58:37 PM10/16/12
to
Survival of the fittest (SoF) is testable
Creationists commonly formulate the Tautology argument somewhat as
follows:
DR> "Formulate" and "somewhat" clash a bit, and "formulate" seems
DR> far too rigorous for creationist thinking. A somewhat better
DR> formulation: " Creationists commonly advance the tautology
DR> argument, which states ...." Why is "Tautology" capitalized
DR> here?
The Theory of evolution is built around the phrase "Survival of the
Fittest" (SoF), but since the only measure of "fitness" is the
survival rate, this phrase actually reduces to "Survival of the
survivors" which is circular and thus an empty tautology.
DR> Even for creationists, the objection isn't to the phrase but to
DR> the concept. Why the scare quotes on "fitness"? I'm not sure
DR> SoS is circular, and "empty tautology" is redundant. Perhaps:
DR> "The theory of evolution depends on the concept of "Survival of
DR> the Fittest" (SoF), but since the only measure of fitness is
DR> survival rate, Survival of the Fittest means no more than
DR> Survival of the Survivors, a tautology and thus without any
DR> explanatory force." Capitalization seems random. Why cap-T
DR> Theory? Why cap-F fitness in SoF, but lower-s survivors in
DR> SoS?
However, on examining this argument we see that it is an attack only
against the wording used to describe one of the core concepts in
evolution. It is not a challenge to the observable phenomenon to
which SoF actually refers.
DR> I don't think this is true. You make it sound like the
DR> objection is to word selection. It's a claim that fitness has
DR> no measure beyond survival.
SoF refers to the fact that given a certain selective regime in the
real world, a population will tend to evolve in the same direction
over and over, and we can often predict in advance what the response
will be.
DR> This is awkward. Refers to the fact that given? The real
DR> world, as opposed to the imaginary? "SoF names the tendency of
DR> populations to evolve in predictable ways in response to the
DR> selective regimes of their environments." "Over and over"
DR> sounds like you can run selection experiments on the same
DR> populations in the "real world" and get the same results. Not
DR> only is that impossible, other aspects of evolution would
DR> probably dictate different outcomes, no?
For example, black moths will increase in frequency if trees are
dark, and gray moths will increase in frequency if trees are covered
in gray lichen. It isn't just "whatever survives survives"; it is
that particular traits are preserved depending on environment. Thus
SoF isn't empty wording, it is a description of events in the real
world.
DR> Wouldn't your examples be stronger if you point to multiple
DR> instances in which species evolve with the color of their
DR> surroundings or make the same type of adaptation to the cold?
While this summarizes the core of the argument, owing principally to
the many possible meanings of "tautology" this discussion is often
seen in alternative forms, raising a variety of different issues,
which are touched on in the following.
DR> Consider deleting the previous sentence. What little it adds
DR> is defeated by two passive verbs and clauses that if not
DR> actually dangling are hanging on for dear life.
Historical introduction to the tautology argument
The tautology argument grew out of a change made by Darwin between
the fourth[1] and fifth[2] editions of his "On the Origin of
Species".
DR> Does this sound odd to you or is it just me: what's between
DR> the fourth and fifth editions, the 4 1/2? We know it's his
DR> book, the title of which should be italicized.
He changed the title of the fourth chapter from "NATURAL SELECTION"
to "NATURAL SELECTION; OR THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST." (SoF) He
wrote: "This preservation of favourable variations, and the
destruction of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection, or
the Survival of the Fittest." and thereafter used the two terms as
synonyms.
DR> The tautology argument was a response to a change that Darwin
DR> made in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species. The
DR> title of Chapter 4 in the fourth edition read "NATURAL
DR> SELECTION." In the fifth edition, Darwin changed that to
DR> "NATURAL SELECTION; OR THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST." He
DR> thereafter used the terms interchangeably.
DR> On the US side of the pond, commas and periods go inside
DR> quotes; semicolons and colons go outside; exclams and question
DR> marks go where the sense takes them; on the British side,
DR> commas and periods go outside the quotes. Choose a standard
DR> and stick with it.
In 1879 Samuel Butler[3] charged that natural selection is a
"truism", leading to a focus on the phrase SoF and the assertion
that because survival rates define fitness, "'fittest' has no force"
and thus natural selection and hence the whole of the theory of
evolution explains nothing.
DR> I can't tell where Samuel Butler leaves off and you're
DR> commentary begins. Is "'fittest' has no force" Butler's? Does
DR> he focus on SoF? It would help if you attached your footnotes
DR> to the quotes and not the quoted.
Here, note that an attack launched against the phrase SoF
immediately incorporates its synonym "Natural Selection", despite
the obvious fact that selection by nature is no more tautological
than selection by man. Thereafter, as usual, the attack is widened
to include all of evolution.
DR> Do we need this note? If Darwin used the terms synonymously,
DR> then obviously an attack on one is an attack on the other. And
DR> where does artificial selection come in? And if NS falls,
DR> isn't fair to say that evolution goes with it?
A current version of the tautology critique
A recent version of the tautology argument was made by Ann Coulter who
said:
"The second prong of Darwin's "theory" is generally nothing but
a circular statement: Through the process of natural selection,
the "fittest" survive. Who are the "fittest"? The ones who
survive! Why look - it happens every time! The "survival of the
fittest" would be a joke if it weren't part of the belief system
of a fanatical cult infesting the Scientific Community. The
beauty of having a scientific theory that's a tautology is that
it can't be disproved."[4]
Most creationists agree that the fittest survive
Note that the foregoing 'argument' characterizes as a "joke" the
idea that it is the best adapted (fittest) parents who have most
offspring. So what do creationists propose as an alternative? - that
it is the worst adapted who are most fertile; that it is the arctic
fox with the shortest fur who fathers the most pups generation after
generation?
No, apparently not, Coulter like many other fundamentalists, accepts
that such adaptation occurs, but denies that adaptation below the
level of species (microevolution) is really evolution. She says:
DR> Run-on sentence above.
"Natural selection has never been demonstrated to change anything
fancier than the shape of a bird's beak."[5]
"Evolution is not the capacity of bacteria to develop antibiotic
resistance, but which never evolves into anything but more bacteria.
Evolution is not the phenomenon of an existing species changing over
the course of may years for example."
DR> Typo: s/may/many/
But this reveals a contradiction. SoF refers to only one element of
evolution, not the entire theory. SoF refers to no aspect of
"macroevolution"; not to the creation of new species, or to the tree
of common descent generated by speciation, or the nested hierarchy
of characteristics within that tree; nor does it refer to mutations
as the cause of variation. While supposing that Coulter, like many
creationists, believes that all characteristics are preloaded into
the genome by design she also clearly knows that species do change
in response to changes in their environment. But such changes (like
beak shape in response to varying circumstances) are precisely the
part of evolution that SoF describes! So why are creationists
arguing that a position they already accept is a "joke"? Could it
be they don't understand their own argument?
DR> This needs to be less rhetorical and more pointed. Thus
DR> But this reveals a contradiction. In her haste to deny the
DR> large changes of "macroevolution," she has accepted the very
DR> mechanism of natural selection that she had just denounced as a
DR> joke. Even Ann Coulter believes that bacteria that develop
DR> antibiotic resistance are fitter to survive than their
DR> susceptible relatives.
DR> Is it worthwhile to get sidetracked on Coulter's conflation of
DR> natural selection with the whole of evolution? It seems worth
DR> no more than a short aside, which certainly shouldn't obscure
DR> your lead: Coulter contradicts herself: she admits that
DR> species change in response to environmental changes toward more
DR> fitness.
Survival due to specific characteristics
Coulter's argument asks: `Who are the "fittest"? The ones who
survive!', apparently a variant of "survival of the survivors", but
it is not abstract individuals who survive, but individuals with
specific heritable characteristics. These characteristics cause
improved survival in predicable and often testable ways.
Specific heritable characteristics may include:
visual sensitivity to yellow
densest fur
longest tail feathers
There is simply nothing tautological (in the circular sense) about
survival of long tail feathers. That "fitness" is intended to refer
to specific characteristics is the core to understanding that SoF is
not in any sense a tautology, because by observation we can, for
example, establish that those arctic foxes with the densest fur
survive to pass on that characteristic. Similarly in a changing
environment we may note that in dry years it is the finches with the
strongest beaks that survive, while in wet years those with the
longest beaks are retained. Hence, instances of SoF are clearly
observationally contingent, and repeated failures to see the
obvious, would disprove SoF.
DR> This is confusing. The first sentence is a denial without
DR> explanation, and your reader has to diagram the second sentence
DR> to follow it. I think you mean to say that SoF is an
DR> observation taken from the correlation of the changes in a
DR> population to the changes in the environment in which the
DR> members of the population live. When we measure these changes,
DR> we find that certain ones of them come to be fixed in the
DR> population and others disappear. (Is that what
DR> "observationally contingent" means? It can't mean contingent
DR> on observation.) We might imagine a world in which a
DR> population of arctic foxes reaches some equilibrium of
DR> long-haired coat and short-haired coat in the event of colder
DR> and colder winters. But that's not what we see in our
DR> biosphere.
Sometimes survival isn't determined by fitness
Another problem with Coulter's argument is that it sets up full
equivalence between survival and fitness. "Who are the "fittest"?
The ones who survive! Why look - it happens every time!"(emphasis
added). If that were true, then all differential survival would
necessarily be selection. But we have a name for differential
survival that isn't selection; it is called drift (basically,
changes in a population's gene pool due to chance). And in fact we
can often perform tests that distinguish selection from drift. We
couldn't do that if selection were just "those that survive
survive".
We now briefly examine two aspects of tautologies themselves.
Are all tautologies necessarily true?
Asking if tautologies are necessarily true may seem ridiculous,
after all, isn't that the definition of a tautology? In fact there
are a number of definitions. Two common formulations are:
Semantic: redundancy or saying the same thing twice (which can be dated
to 1581[7]).
examples: The gift is free; Her wet nose is moist.
Logic: a statement that is necessarily true due to its form.
examples: Socrates is mortal or he is not; Husbands are married men.
DR> I find this section particularly opaque. Perhaps it has to
DR> do with the false distinction between semantic and logical
DR> tautologies. A tautology is a statement axiomatically true
DR> from its form, i.e., independent of its content. The semantic
DR> tautologies rely on the equivalence of a proposition with
DR> itself ( A<-->A, A iff A). So if a gift is a free transfer,
DR> saying that a gift is free tells you nothing more than that
DR> there is a gift. No matter what the attribute is, the form is
DR> still true: "The gift is a transfer." You find a second type
DR> of logic tautology in the statement about Socrates. This type
DR> is derived from the law of the excluded middle in which a
DR> proposition or its denial, one or the other but not both is
DR> true. (A v ~A, A or not A). Your second example about husbands
DR> is a tautology of the first type, not the second.
Looking at these two formulations we immediately note a key
difference. Saying the same thing twice, if the repeated statement
is false can't be necessarily true. Hence the semantic and logic
forms are not equivalent.
DR> This seems inapt to me. In practice, the problem with
DR> tautological usage is in making a declaration A that everyone
DR> takes as true and drawing an implication from that statement to
DR> a second statement B, which you claim is independent but which
DR> is really identical to the first statement. The creationist
DR> argument goes, "Everybody concedes that survivors survive (A).
DR> Evolutionists declare a second statement, namely that
DR> populations have a property called more fitness (B), and that B
DR> -> A. That is more fitness implies more survival. But fitness
DR> is no more than another name for survival, so we have A->A.
DR> Which is a triviality.
The quote from Coulter begins by describing SoF as a "circular
statement" an apparent reference to the semantic meaning, but ends
by stating that tautologies "can't be disproved" presumably
referring to the definition in logic.
DR> Coulter is confused. No surprise there. A circular argument
DR> is different from a tautology. A circular argument says that
DR> if we agree that "if A is true then B and if B is true then A",
DR> then we may conclude that A and B are both true. (A->B & B->A)
DR> -> (A&B). We find this argument in fundamentalist argument
DR> that God is infallible because the Bible says so, and that the
DR> Bible is true because it's God's word and He's infallible. The
DR> problem is that the conclusion about A and B is erroneous.
DR> Assuming the circular argument tells us only that A and B have
DR> the same truth value.
This makes about as much sense as saying that a nocturnal mammal
that catches flying insects using echo location is the bat which I
use for hitting baseballs. This is definition switching. Does
Coulter believe bad puns can discredit evolutionary theory?
DR> I suggest that this is a non sequitur.
Mathematical expressions of scientific laws as tautologies
In population genetics SoF is represented mathematically. Therein
we see a formal variable called fitness (W) which is measured by the
proportion of a trait that survives into the next generation. The
simplest form of the equation looks like this:
Wabs = Nafter/Nbefore
where:
Wabs is absolute fitness
Nbefore is the Number of individuals with some genotype in a first
generation (before selection)
Nafter is the Number of individuals with that genotype in the following
generation (after selection)
Some philosophers have stated that mathematical expressions are
tautologies. For example Russel said: 'Pure mathematics consists of
tautologies, analogous to "men are men," but usually more
complicated.'[8] While noting that Russel limited his statement to
pure mathematics some may wish to insist that Wabs = Nafter/Nbefore
(and consequently SoF) is a tautology, since it refers to the same
idea expressed in two different forms. If so, then every
mathematical expression containing a single equal sign between two
sets of equivalent expressions must also be a tautology. This must
therefore include Newton's F=ma and Einstein's E=mc2.
DR> Typos: s/Russel/Russell/g
The above examples highlight the fact that some statements which may
be formally defined as tautologies, accurately describe real world
events.
DR> What's the reason for this section? Russell is correct about
DR> mathematics, which he found can be reduced to the formal
DR> manipulation of symbols according to certain rules. But this
DR> has little to do with scientific equations, which describe
DR> relationships with independently measurable quantities. When
DR> we write m=F/a, we relate mass, the amount of matter, to force
DR> (independently determined depending on the type of force, say
DR> gravitational or electromagnetic) and acceleration (a change in
DR> velocity). So not every equation is a tautology.
DR> Unfortunately for this section, Wabs is a tautology, since it's
DR> just a convenient renaming of a quotient.
The tautology argument is an attack against wording, not substance.
The argument against "Survival of the Fittest" as a tautology is
directed against the formulation of that phrase, not the theory it
describes. Darwin had previously been attacked for the words
"Natural Selection" when used to summarize his central idea. In
reply he wrote:
Others have objected that the term selection implies conscious
choice in the animals which become modified; and it has even been
urged that, as plants have no volition, natural selection is not
applicable to them! In the literal sense of the word, no doubt,
natural selection is a misnomer; but who ever objected to chemists
speaking of the elective affinities of the various elements? - and
yet an acid cannot strictly be said to elect the base with which it
will in preference combine. It has been said that I speak of
natural selection as an active power or Deity; but who objects to an
author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the movements
of the planets? Every one knows what is meant and is implied by
such metaphorical expressions; and they are almost necessary for
brevity.[9]
So it seems entirely possible that Darwin would have agreed that SoF
is, in the literal sense, a "misnomer" or "false phrase", but he
well knew that it is simply a descriptive label or suggestive
summary referring to one part of his theory.
DR> This section seems entirely misplaced. The charge that SoF is
DR> tautological is entirely independent of whether members of a
population
DR> exercise some conscious influence over the their selection.
Summary points:
Survival of the Fittest (SoF) does not include many key aspects
of evolution, like common descent, the nested hierarchy,
mutations, or speciation. What SoF does include is accepted by
most creationists as part of "microevolution". So why are they
attacking a part of evolution many of them agree with?
In SoF, fitness cannot be equivalent to survival because
characteristics generated by drift also survive, thus SoF cannot
be a tautology.
SoF was intended to be a synonym for Natural Selection (NS), but
NS is clearly not a tautology.
SoF is a descriptive label referring to part of Darwin's theory.
Attacking the label does not challenge the theory itself.
DR> This isn't true. If SoF is a synonym for NS, then SoF is label
DR> for a mechanism, and it's the mechanism that creationists
DR> attack
Semantic and logical tautologies are substantially different.
Switching from the semantic to the logic definition in mid
argument produces incoherent nonsense.
DR> Both types are based on logic axioms. I can't find where
DR> anyone (Coulter?) switches form one type to the other.
SoF (expressed as Wabs = Nafter/Nbefore) is a tautology only in
the same sense that F=ma and E=mc2 are tautologies.
DR> This isn't true. Wabs is a definition and has no independent
DR> meaning aside from the quotient. All the terms in the force
DR> and energy equations have meanings separate from the equations.
Fitness refers to specific characteristics, not some abstract
and unknown generality, and so can be tested against the real
world in the same way m in F=ma can be checked. There is
nothing tautological about survival of the longest fur, longest
tail feathers, or most bark-like coloration.
SoF generates results that can often predict future events in
the real world, such as the results of further experiments, and
is therefore not empty words.
--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
Creationists commonly formulate the Tautology argument somewhat as
follows:
DR> "Formulate" and "somewhat" clash a bit, and "formulate" seems
DR> far too rigorous for creationist thinking. A somewhat better
DR> formulation: " Creationists commonly advance the tautology
DR> argument, which states ...." Why is "Tautology" capitalized
DR> here?
The Theory of evolution is built around the phrase "Survival of the
Fittest" (SoF), but since the only measure of "fitness" is the
survival rate, this phrase actually reduces to "Survival of the
survivors" which is circular and thus an empty tautology.
DR> Even for creationists, the objection isn't to the phrase but to
DR> the concept. Why the scare quotes on "fitness"? I'm not sure
DR> SoS is circular, and "empty tautology" is redundant. Perhaps:
DR> "The theory of evolution depends on the concept of "Survival of
DR> the Fittest" (SoF), but since the only measure of fitness is
DR> survival rate, Survival of the Fittest means no more than
DR> Survival of the Survivors, a tautology and thus without any
DR> explanatory force." Capitalization seems random. Why cap-T
DR> Theory? Why cap-F fitness in SoF, but lower-s survivors in
DR> SoS?
However, on examining this argument we see that it is an attack only
against the wording used to describe one of the core concepts in
evolution. It is not a challenge to the observable phenomenon to
which SoF actually refers.
DR> I don't think this is true. You make it sound like the
DR> objection is to word selection. It's a claim that fitness has
DR> no measure beyond survival.
SoF refers to the fact that given a certain selective regime in the
real world, a population will tend to evolve in the same direction
over and over, and we can often predict in advance what the response
will be.
DR> This is awkward. Refers to the fact that given? The real
DR> world, as opposed to the imaginary? "SoF names the tendency of
DR> populations to evolve in predictable ways in response to the
DR> selective regimes of their environments." "Over and over"
DR> sounds like you can run selection experiments on the same
DR> populations in the "real world" and get the same results. Not
DR> only is that impossible, other aspects of evolution would
DR> probably dictate different outcomes, no?
For example, black moths will increase in frequency if trees are
dark, and gray moths will increase in frequency if trees are covered
in gray lichen. It isn't just "whatever survives survives"; it is
that particular traits are preserved depending on environment. Thus
SoF isn't empty wording, it is a description of events in the real
world.
DR> Wouldn't your examples be stronger if you point to multiple
DR> instances in which species evolve with the color of their
DR> surroundings or make the same type of adaptation to the cold?
While this summarizes the core of the argument, owing principally to
the many possible meanings of "tautology" this discussion is often
seen in alternative forms, raising a variety of different issues,
which are touched on in the following.
DR> Consider deleting the previous sentence. What little it adds
DR> is defeated by two passive verbs and clauses that if not
DR> actually dangling are hanging on for dear life.
Historical introduction to the tautology argument
The tautology argument grew out of a change made by Darwin between
the fourth[1] and fifth[2] editions of his "On the Origin of
Species".
DR> Does this sound odd to you or is it just me: what's between
DR> the fourth and fifth editions, the 4 1/2? We know it's his
DR> book, the title of which should be italicized.
He changed the title of the fourth chapter from "NATURAL SELECTION"
to "NATURAL SELECTION; OR THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST." (SoF) He
wrote: "This preservation of favourable variations, and the
destruction of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection, or
the Survival of the Fittest." and thereafter used the two terms as
synonyms.
DR> The tautology argument was a response to a change that Darwin
DR> made in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species. The
DR> title of Chapter 4 in the fourth edition read "NATURAL
DR> SELECTION." In the fifth edition, Darwin changed that to
DR> "NATURAL SELECTION; OR THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST." He
DR> thereafter used the terms interchangeably.
DR> On the US side of the pond, commas and periods go inside
DR> quotes; semicolons and colons go outside; exclams and question
DR> marks go where the sense takes them; on the British side,
DR> commas and periods go outside the quotes. Choose a standard
DR> and stick with it.
In 1879 Samuel Butler[3] charged that natural selection is a
"truism", leading to a focus on the phrase SoF and the assertion
that because survival rates define fitness, "'fittest' has no force"
and thus natural selection and hence the whole of the theory of
evolution explains nothing.
DR> I can't tell where Samuel Butler leaves off and you're
DR> commentary begins. Is "'fittest' has no force" Butler's? Does
DR> he focus on SoF? It would help if you attached your footnotes
DR> to the quotes and not the quoted.
Here, note that an attack launched against the phrase SoF
immediately incorporates its synonym "Natural Selection", despite
the obvious fact that selection by nature is no more tautological
than selection by man. Thereafter, as usual, the attack is widened
to include all of evolution.
DR> Do we need this note? If Darwin used the terms synonymously,
DR> then obviously an attack on one is an attack on the other. And
DR> where does artificial selection come in? And if NS falls,
DR> isn't fair to say that evolution goes with it?
A current version of the tautology critique
A recent version of the tautology argument was made by Ann Coulter who
said:
"The second prong of Darwin's "theory" is generally nothing but
a circular statement: Through the process of natural selection,
the "fittest" survive. Who are the "fittest"? The ones who
survive! Why look - it happens every time! The "survival of the
fittest" would be a joke if it weren't part of the belief system
of a fanatical cult infesting the Scientific Community. The
beauty of having a scientific theory that's a tautology is that
it can't be disproved."[4]
Most creationists agree that the fittest survive
Note that the foregoing 'argument' characterizes as a "joke" the
idea that it is the best adapted (fittest) parents who have most
offspring. So what do creationists propose as an alternative? - that
it is the worst adapted who are most fertile; that it is the arctic
fox with the shortest fur who fathers the most pups generation after
generation?
No, apparently not, Coulter like many other fundamentalists, accepts
that such adaptation occurs, but denies that adaptation below the
level of species (microevolution) is really evolution. She says:
DR> Run-on sentence above.
"Natural selection has never been demonstrated to change anything
fancier than the shape of a bird's beak."[5]
"Evolution is not the capacity of bacteria to develop antibiotic
resistance, but which never evolves into anything but more bacteria.
Evolution is not the phenomenon of an existing species changing over
the course of may years for example."
DR> Typo: s/may/many/
But this reveals a contradiction. SoF refers to only one element of
evolution, not the entire theory. SoF refers to no aspect of
"macroevolution"; not to the creation of new species, or to the tree
of common descent generated by speciation, or the nested hierarchy
of characteristics within that tree; nor does it refer to mutations
as the cause of variation. While supposing that Coulter, like many
creationists, believes that all characteristics are preloaded into
the genome by design she also clearly knows that species do change
in response to changes in their environment. But such changes (like
beak shape in response to varying circumstances) are precisely the
part of evolution that SoF describes! So why are creationists
arguing that a position they already accept is a "joke"? Could it
be they don't understand their own argument?
DR> This needs to be less rhetorical and more pointed. Thus
DR> But this reveals a contradiction. In her haste to deny the
DR> large changes of "macroevolution," she has accepted the very
DR> mechanism of natural selection that she had just denounced as a
DR> joke. Even Ann Coulter believes that bacteria that develop
DR> antibiotic resistance are fitter to survive than their
DR> susceptible relatives.
DR> Is it worthwhile to get sidetracked on Coulter's conflation of
DR> natural selection with the whole of evolution? It seems worth
DR> no more than a short aside, which certainly shouldn't obscure
DR> your lead: Coulter contradicts herself: she admits that
DR> species change in response to environmental changes toward more
DR> fitness.
Survival due to specific characteristics
Coulter's argument asks: `Who are the "fittest"? The ones who
survive!', apparently a variant of "survival of the survivors", but
it is not abstract individuals who survive, but individuals with
specific heritable characteristics. These characteristics cause
improved survival in predicable and often testable ways.
Specific heritable characteristics may include:
visual sensitivity to yellow
densest fur
longest tail feathers
There is simply nothing tautological (in the circular sense) about
survival of long tail feathers. That "fitness" is intended to refer
to specific characteristics is the core to understanding that SoF is
not in any sense a tautology, because by observation we can, for
example, establish that those arctic foxes with the densest fur
survive to pass on that characteristic. Similarly in a changing
environment we may note that in dry years it is the finches with the
strongest beaks that survive, while in wet years those with the
longest beaks are retained. Hence, instances of SoF are clearly
observationally contingent, and repeated failures to see the
obvious, would disprove SoF.
DR> This is confusing. The first sentence is a denial without
DR> explanation, and your reader has to diagram the second sentence
DR> to follow it. I think you mean to say that SoF is an
DR> observation taken from the correlation of the changes in a
DR> population to the changes in the environment in which the
DR> members of the population live. When we measure these changes,
DR> we find that certain ones of them come to be fixed in the
DR> population and others disappear. (Is that what
DR> "observationally contingent" means? It can't mean contingent
DR> on observation.) We might imagine a world in which a
DR> population of arctic foxes reaches some equilibrium of
DR> long-haired coat and short-haired coat in the event of colder
DR> and colder winters. But that's not what we see in our
DR> biosphere.
Sometimes survival isn't determined by fitness
Another problem with Coulter's argument is that it sets up full
equivalence between survival and fitness. "Who are the "fittest"?
The ones who survive! Why look - it happens every time!"(emphasis
added). If that were true, then all differential survival would
necessarily be selection. But we have a name for differential
survival that isn't selection; it is called drift (basically,
changes in a population's gene pool due to chance). And in fact we
can often perform tests that distinguish selection from drift. We
couldn't do that if selection were just "those that survive
survive".
We now briefly examine two aspects of tautologies themselves.
Are all tautologies necessarily true?
Asking if tautologies are necessarily true may seem ridiculous,
after all, isn't that the definition of a tautology? In fact there
are a number of definitions. Two common formulations are:
Semantic: redundancy or saying the same thing twice (which can be dated
to 1581[7]).
examples: The gift is free; Her wet nose is moist.
Logic: a statement that is necessarily true due to its form.
examples: Socrates is mortal or he is not; Husbands are married men.
DR> I find this section particularly opaque. Perhaps it has to
DR> do with the false distinction between semantic and logical
DR> tautologies. A tautology is a statement axiomatically true
DR> from its form, i.e., independent of its content. The semantic
DR> tautologies rely on the equivalence of a proposition with
DR> itself ( A<-->A, A iff A). So if a gift is a free transfer,
DR> saying that a gift is free tells you nothing more than that
DR> there is a gift. No matter what the attribute is, the form is
DR> still true: "The gift is a transfer." You find a second type
DR> of logic tautology in the statement about Socrates. This type
DR> is derived from the law of the excluded middle in which a
DR> proposition or its denial, one or the other but not both is
DR> true. (A v ~A, A or not A). Your second example about husbands
DR> is a tautology of the first type, not the second.
Looking at these two formulations we immediately note a key
difference. Saying the same thing twice, if the repeated statement
is false can't be necessarily true. Hence the semantic and logic
forms are not equivalent.
DR> This seems inapt to me. In practice, the problem with
DR> tautological usage is in making a declaration A that everyone
DR> takes as true and drawing an implication from that statement to
DR> a second statement B, which you claim is independent but which
DR> is really identical to the first statement. The creationist
DR> argument goes, "Everybody concedes that survivors survive (A).
DR> Evolutionists declare a second statement, namely that
DR> populations have a property called more fitness (B), and that B
DR> -> A. That is more fitness implies more survival. But fitness
DR> is no more than another name for survival, so we have A->A.
DR> Which is a triviality.
The quote from Coulter begins by describing SoF as a "circular
statement" an apparent reference to the semantic meaning, but ends
by stating that tautologies "can't be disproved" presumably
referring to the definition in logic.
DR> Coulter is confused. No surprise there. A circular argument
DR> is different from a tautology. A circular argument says that
DR> if we agree that "if A is true then B and if B is true then A",
DR> then we may conclude that A and B are both true. (A->B & B->A)
DR> -> (A&B). We find this argument in fundamentalist argument
DR> that God is infallible because the Bible says so, and that the
DR> Bible is true because it's God's word and He's infallible. The
DR> problem is that the conclusion about A and B is erroneous.
DR> Assuming the circular argument tells us only that A and B have
DR> the same truth value.
This makes about as much sense as saying that a nocturnal mammal
that catches flying insects using echo location is the bat which I
use for hitting baseballs. This is definition switching. Does
Coulter believe bad puns can discredit evolutionary theory?
DR> I suggest that this is a non sequitur.
Mathematical expressions of scientific laws as tautologies
In population genetics SoF is represented mathematically. Therein
we see a formal variable called fitness (W) which is measured by the
proportion of a trait that survives into the next generation. The
simplest form of the equation looks like this:
Wabs = Nafter/Nbefore
where:
Wabs is absolute fitness
Nbefore is the Number of individuals with some genotype in a first
generation (before selection)
Nafter is the Number of individuals with that genotype in the following
generation (after selection)
Some philosophers have stated that mathematical expressions are
tautologies. For example Russel said: 'Pure mathematics consists of
tautologies, analogous to "men are men," but usually more
complicated.'[8] While noting that Russel limited his statement to
pure mathematics some may wish to insist that Wabs = Nafter/Nbefore
(and consequently SoF) is a tautology, since it refers to the same
idea expressed in two different forms. If so, then every
mathematical expression containing a single equal sign between two
sets of equivalent expressions must also be a tautology. This must
therefore include Newton's F=ma and Einstein's E=mc2.
DR> Typos: s/Russel/Russell/g
The above examples highlight the fact that some statements which may
be formally defined as tautologies, accurately describe real world
events.
DR> What's the reason for this section? Russell is correct about
DR> mathematics, which he found can be reduced to the formal
DR> manipulation of symbols according to certain rules. But this
DR> has little to do with scientific equations, which describe
DR> relationships with independently measurable quantities. When
DR> we write m=F/a, we relate mass, the amount of matter, to force
DR> (independently determined depending on the type of force, say
DR> gravitational or electromagnetic) and acceleration (a change in
DR> velocity). So not every equation is a tautology.
DR> Unfortunately for this section, Wabs is a tautology, since it's
DR> just a convenient renaming of a quotient.
The tautology argument is an attack against wording, not substance.
The argument against "Survival of the Fittest" as a tautology is
directed against the formulation of that phrase, not the theory it
describes. Darwin had previously been attacked for the words
"Natural Selection" when used to summarize his central idea. In
reply he wrote:
Others have objected that the term selection implies conscious
choice in the animals which become modified; and it has even been
urged that, as plants have no volition, natural selection is not
applicable to them! In the literal sense of the word, no doubt,
natural selection is a misnomer; but who ever objected to chemists
speaking of the elective affinities of the various elements? - and
yet an acid cannot strictly be said to elect the base with which it
will in preference combine. It has been said that I speak of
natural selection as an active power or Deity; but who objects to an
author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the movements
of the planets? Every one knows what is meant and is implied by
such metaphorical expressions; and they are almost necessary for
brevity.[9]
So it seems entirely possible that Darwin would have agreed that SoF
is, in the literal sense, a "misnomer" or "false phrase", but he
well knew that it is simply a descriptive label or suggestive
summary referring to one part of his theory.
DR> This section seems entirely misplaced. The charge that SoF is
DR> tautological is entirely independent of whether members of a
population
DR> exercise some conscious influence over the their selection.
Summary points:
Survival of the Fittest (SoF) does not include many key aspects
of evolution, like common descent, the nested hierarchy,
mutations, or speciation. What SoF does include is accepted by
most creationists as part of "microevolution". So why are they
attacking a part of evolution many of them agree with?
In SoF, fitness cannot be equivalent to survival because
characteristics generated by drift also survive, thus SoF cannot
be a tautology.
SoF was intended to be a synonym for Natural Selection (NS), but
NS is clearly not a tautology.
SoF is a descriptive label referring to part of Darwin's theory.
Attacking the label does not challenge the theory itself.
DR> This isn't true. If SoF is a synonym for NS, then SoF is label
DR> for a mechanism, and it's the mechanism that creationists
DR> attack
Semantic and logical tautologies are substantially different.
Switching from the semantic to the logic definition in mid
argument produces incoherent nonsense.
DR> Both types are based on logic axioms. I can't find where
DR> anyone (Coulter?) switches form one type to the other.
SoF (expressed as Wabs = Nafter/Nbefore) is a tautology only in
the same sense that F=ma and E=mc2 are tautologies.
DR> This isn't true. Wabs is a definition and has no independent
DR> meaning aside from the quotient. All the terms in the force
DR> and energy equations have meanings separate from the equations.
Fitness refers to specific characteristics, not some abstract
and unknown generality, and so can be tested against the real
world in the same way m in F=ma can be checked. There is
nothing tautological about survival of the longest fur, longest
tail feathers, or most bark-like coloration.
SoF generates results that can often predict future events in
the real world, such as the results of further experiments, and
is therefore not empty words.
--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
Friar Broccoli
Oct 16, 2012, 11:15:01 PM10/16/12
to
On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 22:58:37 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Dead rat's critism was sent to me by email earlier today. While many
minor changes are obvious, I am most concerned about the attack on the
section "Are all tautologies true" which in my view he has completely
disemboweled. Comments/suggestions on whether that section can be
repaired or recovered would be appreciated.
I'm unsure if his attack on the section: "Mathematical expressions of
scientific laws as tautologies" is valid or not since it seems to me
that Wabs refers to specific characteristics and is thus measured
independently from its frequency in the population. I would like to
hear the views of others on this.
wrote:
Dead rat's critism was sent to me by email earlier today. While many
minor changes are obvious, I am most concerned about the attack on the
section "Are all tautologies true" which in my view he has completely
disemboweled. Comments/suggestions on whether that section can be
repaired or recovered would be appreciated.
I'm unsure if his attack on the section: "Mathematical expressions of
scientific laws as tautologies" is valid or not since it seems to me
that Wabs refers to specific characteristics and is thus measured
independently from its frequency in the population. I would like to
hear the views of others on this.
Friar Broccoli
Oct 21, 2012, 4:49:10 PM10/21/12
to
Note first that on Oct 19th in:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
I removed the two sections that discuss what tautologies are since you
have demonstrated they contain statements that are at least doubtful.
Since a tautology FAQ must have some discussion of what tautologies
actually are, they will be replaced.
>Survival of the fittest (SoF) is testable
>
>Creationists commonly formulate the Tautology argument somewhat as
>follows:
>
>DR> "Formulate" and "somewhat" clash a bit, and "formulate" seems
>DR> far too rigorous for creationist thinking. A somewhat better
>DR> formulation: " Creationists commonly advance the tautology
>DR> argument, which states ...." Why is "Tautology" capitalized
>DR> here?
fixed.
>The Theory of evolution is built around the phrase "Survival of the
>Fittest" (SoF), but since the only measure of "fitness" is the
>survival rate, this phrase actually reduces to "Survival of the
>survivors" which is circular and thus an empty tautology.
.
>DR> Even for creationists, the objection isn't to the phrase but to
>DR> the concept.
Not true. That was the point of showing further down that creationists
explicitly accept the facts to which SoF/NS refers as part of
microevolution.
>DR> Why the scare quotes on "fitness"? I'm not sure
I'm not certain that *I* will ever know.
>DR> Perhaps:
other normal mortal would either. Also equating tautology to "without
explanatory force" feels like the creation of a strawman for easy
demolition. That is, it seems too remote from the original assertion.
>DR>Capitalization seems random. Why cap-T
that phrase, and the possible implications of that description, not the
substance of SoF/NS. Again, creationist style micro-evolution accepts
everything SoF/NS describe.
Since you, and possibly two others, have missed this obvious point so
completely, I will look at making this "attack on wording" argument more
explicit in the last section
>SoF refers to the fact that given a certain selective regime in the
>real world, a population will tend to evolve in the same direction
>over and over, and we can often predict in advance what the response
>will be.
>
>DR> This is awkward. Refers to the fact that given?
I will see if I can come up with something more direct.
>DR> The real world, as opposed to the imaginary?
Yes, that imaginary world creationists construct by focusing on words
and not the reality to which they refer. (Think it's a subset of the
category error fallacy)
>DR>"SoF names the tendency of
>For example, black moths will increase in frequency if trees are
>dark, and gray moths will increase in frequency if trees are covered
>in gray lichen. It isn't just "whatever survives survives"; it is
>that particular traits are preserved depending on environment. Thus
>SoF isn't empty wording, it is a description of events in the real
>world.
>
>DR> Wouldn't your examples be stronger if you point to multiple
>DR> instances in which species evolve with the color of their
>DR> surroundings or make the same type of adaptation to the cold?
Maybe, but the moth experiment is better known, and cold is used later
in a different example.
>While this summarizes the core of the argument, owing principally to
>the many possible meanings of "tautology" this discussion is often
>seen in alternative forms, raising a variety of different issues,
>which are touched on in the following.
>
>DR> Consider deleting the previous sentence. What little it adds
>DR> is defeated by two passive verbs and clauses that if not
>DR> actually dangling are hanging on for dear life.
I've deleted this temporarily because now there is no discussion left of
the various meanings of "tautology", however a transition phrase is/will
be needed.
>Historical introduction to the tautology argument
>
>The tautology argument grew out of a change made by Darwin between
>the fourth[1] and fifth[2] editions of his "On the Origin of
>Species".
>
>DR> Does this sound odd to you or is it just me: what's between
>DR> the fourth and fifth editions, the 4 1/2?
I think it's just you.
>DR>We know it's his
>He changed the title of the fourth chapter from "NATURAL SELECTION"
>to "NATURAL SELECTION; OR THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST." (SoF) He
>wrote: "This preservation of favourable variations, and the
>destruction of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection, or
>the Survival of the Fittest." and thereafter used the two terms as
>synonyms.
>
>DR> The tautology argument was a response to a change that Darwin
>DR> made in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species. The
>DR> title of Chapter 4 in the fourth edition read "NATURAL
>DR> SELECTION." In the fifth edition, Darwin changed that to
>DR> "NATURAL SELECTION; OR THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST." He
>DR> thereafter used the terms interchangeably.
By reversing the time order you've made it difficult for people of my
intelligence and below to follow the sentence.
>DR> On the US side of the pond, commas and periods go inside
>DR> quotes; semicolons and colons go outside; exclams and question
>DR> marks go where the sense takes them; on the British side,
>DR> commas and periods go outside the quotes. Choose a standard
>DR> and stick with it.
Done - British side I hope.
>In 1879 Samuel Butler[3] charged that natural selection is a
>"truism", leading to a focus on the phrase SoF and the assertion
>that because survival rates define fitness, "'fittest' has no force"
>and thus natural selection and hence the whole of the theory of
>evolution explains nothing.
>
>DR> I can't tell where Samuel Butler leaves off and you're
>DR> commentary begins. Is "'fittest' has no force" Butler's? Does
>DR> he focus on SoF? It would help if you attached your footnotes
>DR> to the quotes and not the quoted.
I find Butler's writing almost impossible to follow. I parsed it to
make it comprehensible. And yes he very definitely does focus on SoF,
referring to NS and then switching to SoF to make his attack.
>Here, note that an attack launched against the phrase SoF
>immediately incorporates its synonym "Natural Selection", despite
>the obvious fact that selection by nature is no more tautological
>than selection by man. Thereafter, as usual, the attack is widened
>to include all of evolution.
>
>DR> Do we need this note? If Darwin used the terms synonymously,
>DR> then obviously an attack on one is an attack on the other. And
>DR> where does artificial selection come in? And if NS falls,
>DR> isn't fair to say that evolution goes with it?
Hopefully this point has been covered in the preceding comments.
>A current version of the tautology critique
>
>A recent version of the tautology argument was made by Ann Coulter who
>said:
>
> "The second prong of Darwin's "theory" is generally nothing but
> a circular statement: Through the process of natural selection,
> the "fittest" survive. Who are the "fittest"? The ones who
> survive! Why look - it happens every time! The "survival of the
> fittest" would be a joke if it weren't part of the belief system
> of a fanatical cult infesting the Scientific Community. The
> beauty of having a scientific theory that's a tautology is that
> it can't be disproved."[4]
>
>Most creationists agree that the fittest survive
>
>Note that the foregoing 'argument' characterizes as a "joke" the
>idea that it is the best adapted (fittest) parents who have most
>offspring. So what do creationists propose as an alternative? - that
>it is the worst adapted who are most fertile; that it is the arctic
>fox with the shortest fur who fathers the most pups generation after
>generation?
>
>No, apparently not, Coulter like many other fundamentalists, accepts
>that such adaptation occurs, but denies that adaptation below the
>level of species (microevolution) is really evolution. She says:
.
>DR> Run-on sentence above.
fixed.
> "Natural selection has never been demonstrated to change anything
> fancier than the shape of a bird's beak."[5]
>
> "Evolution is not the capacity of bacteria to develop antibiotic
> resistance, but which never evolves into anything but more bacteria.
> Evolution is not the phenomenon of an existing species changing over
> the course of may years for example."
>
>DR> Typo: s/may/many/
fixed.
>But this reveals a contradiction. SoF refers to only one element of
>evolution, not the entire theory. SoF refers to no aspect of
>"macroevolution"; not to the creation of new species, or to the tree
>of common descent generated by speciation, or the nested hierarchy
>of characteristics within that tree; nor does it refer to mutations
>as the cause of variation. While supposing that Coulter, like many
>creationists, believes that all characteristics are preloaded into
>the genome by design she also clearly knows that species do change
>in response to changes in their environment. But such changes (like
>beak shape in response to varying circumstances) are precisely the
>part of evolution that SoF describes! So why are creationists
>arguing that a position they already accept is a "joke"? Could it
>be they don't understand their own argument?
>
>DR> This needs to be less rhetorical and more pointed. Thus
>
>DR> But this reveals a contradiction. In her haste to deny the
>DR> large changes of "macroevolution," she has accepted the very
>DR> mechanism of natural selection that she had just denounced as a
>DR> joke. Even Ann Coulter believes that bacteria that develop
>DR> antibiotic resistance are fitter to survive than their
>DR> susceptible relatives.
While researching this article I read many (perhaps three) "less
rhetorical" versions of this argument. I was completely mystified by
the argument until I stumbled on a version that spelled out what SoF/NS
excluded. I want this FAQ to be understandable to people who aren't
exceptionally intelligent or don't completely understand evolution.
On the other hand, maybe this is not the place to spell out the fact
that preloading of characteristics by God has no effect on SoF/NS.
>DR> Is it worthwhile to get sidetracked on Coulter's conflation of
>DR> natural selection with the whole of evolution? It seems worth
>DR> no more than a short aside, which certainly shouldn't obscure
>DR> your lead: Coulter contradicts herself: she admits that
>DR> species change in response to environmental changes toward more
>DR> fitness.
As explained above, there are independent reasons for itemizing the
aspects of evolution not covered by SoF/NS.
However, I have highlighted: "she also clearly knows that species do
change in response to changes in their environment" to help prevent the
central point from being lost in the other verbiage.
I have changed:
"Hence, instances of SoF are clearly responses to changes in the real
world,"
I've temporarily removed this section. I accept that I have
misclassified Semantic and Logical tautologies. I will rewrite this
section using the concepts of necessary and contingent, a section I had
previously deleted.
"The gift is free; Her wet nose is moist." are contingent because they
could be false in instances in the real world.
"Socrates is mortal or he is not; Husbands are married men." are
necessary because there can be no instances in the real world where they
could be found false.
A version of the necessary/contingent argument can be found in an old
version of the FAQ here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/sandbox/Keith/kwork/Ver5_tautology.html
in the section titled:
"Are tautological statements verifiable?"
The argument there is not well made and is confusing, but I would
appreciate your opinion on whether or not that model can be made to work
as a description of why SoF is valid.
I need to think about this. I don't think I'll be using any part of
this but find the Cheshire cat's assertion that Alice is mad because
everybody here is mad, a better example of circular reasoning because it
avoids the unnecessary and alienating secondary attack on religion.
Appears to me that my argument is invalid and will need to be thrown
out. I presume the argument fails because Wabs = Nafter/Nbefore doesn't
capture the (usually environmental) changes driving selection. That is
this equation doesn't completely doesn't completely capture what SoF
refers to, just as the expression SoF itself does not completely capture
everything it refers to. If you disagree with this analysis, please say
so explicitly.
Your explanation here may help me understand why El Cid was insisting,
before his death, that we needed to be arguing that SoF *is* a tautology
but that not all tautologies are bad. I don't think he ever suggested
how such an argument could work, but I'll go back and reread his posts
to see if I can figure it out.
True, but Darwin's reply that tangling/confounding a possible problem
with the *description* with the *facts* described is useful for both
arguments.
>
>Summary points:
>
> Survival of the Fittest (SoF) does not include many key aspects
> of evolution, like common descent, the nested hierarchy,
> mutations, or speciation. What SoF does include is accepted by
> most creationists as part of "microevolution". So why are they
> attacking a part of evolution many of them agree with?
>
> In SoF, fitness cannot be equivalent to survival because
> characteristics generated by drift also survive, thus SoF cannot
> be a tautology.
>
> SoF was intended to be a synonym for Natural Selection (NS), but
> NS is clearly not a tautology.
>
.
> SoF is a descriptive label referring to part of Darwin's theory.
> Attacking the label does not challenge the theory itself.
>
>DR> This isn't true. If SoF is a synonym for NS, then SoF is label
>DR> for a mechanism, and it's the mechanism that creationists
>DR> attack
But they cannot be attacking the mechanism, because they agree that
selection actually occurs.
> Semantic and logical tautologies are substantially different.
> Switching from the semantic to the logic definition in mid
> argument produces incoherent nonsense.
>
>DR> Both types are based on logic axioms. I can't find where
>DR> anyone (Coulter?) switches form one type to the other.
OK.
>
> SoF (expressed as Wabs = Nafter/Nbefore) is a tautology only in
> the same sense that F=ma and E=mc2 are tautologies.
>
>DR> This isn't true. Wabs is a definition and has no independent
>DR> meaning aside from the quotient. All the terms in the force
>DR> and energy equations have meanings separate from the equations.
Thanks.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
I removed the two sections that discuss what tautologies are since you
have demonstrated they contain statements that are at least doubtful.
Since a tautology FAQ must have some discussion of what tautologies
actually are, they will be replaced.
>Survival of the fittest (SoF) is testable
>
>Creationists commonly formulate the Tautology argument somewhat as
>follows:
>
>DR> "Formulate" and "somewhat" clash a bit, and "formulate" seems
>DR> far too rigorous for creationist thinking. A somewhat better
>DR> formulation: " Creationists commonly advance the tautology
>DR> argument, which states ...." Why is "Tautology" capitalized
>DR> here?
>The Theory of evolution is built around the phrase "Survival of the
>Fittest" (SoF), but since the only measure of "fitness" is the
>survival rate, this phrase actually reduces to "Survival of the
>survivors" which is circular and thus an empty tautology.
.
>DR> Even for creationists, the objection isn't to the phrase but to
>DR> the concept.
explicitly accept the facts to which SoF/NS refers as part of
microevolution.
>DR> Why the scare quotes on "fitness"? I'm not sure
>DR> SoS is circular, and "empty tautology" is redundant.
I'm concerned that most readers won't know what a tautology is. Indeed,
I'm not certain that *I* will ever know.
>DR> Perhaps:
>DR> "The theory of evolution depends on the concept of "Survival of
>DR> the Fittest" (SoF), but since the only measure of fitness is
>DR> survival rate, Survival of the Fittest means no more than
>DR> Survival of the Survivors, a tautology and thus without any
>DR> explanatory force."
I have no idea what "without any explanatory force" means and I doubt if
>DR> the Fittest" (SoF), but since the only measure of fitness is
>DR> survival rate, Survival of the Fittest means no more than
>DR> Survival of the Survivors, a tautology and thus without any
>DR> explanatory force."
other normal mortal would either. Also equating tautology to "without
explanatory force" feels like the creation of a strawman for easy
demolition. That is, it seems too remote from the original assertion.
>DR>Capitalization seems random. Why cap-T
>DR> Theory? Why cap-F fitness in SoF, but lower-s survivors in
>DR> SoS?
>
>However, on examining this argument we see that it is an attack only
>against the wording used to describe one of the core concepts in
>evolution. It is not a challenge to the observable phenomenon to
>which SoF actually refers.
>
>DR> I don't think this is true. You make it sound like the
>DR> objection is to word selection. It's a claim that fitness has
>DR> no measure beyond survival.
SoF is one of the phrases used to describe NS. The attack is against
>DR> SoS?
>
>However, on examining this argument we see that it is an attack only
>against the wording used to describe one of the core concepts in
>evolution. It is not a challenge to the observable phenomenon to
>which SoF actually refers.
>
>DR> I don't think this is true. You make it sound like the
>DR> objection is to word selection. It's a claim that fitness has
>DR> no measure beyond survival.
that phrase, and the possible implications of that description, not the
substance of SoF/NS. Again, creationist style micro-evolution accepts
everything SoF/NS describe.
Since you, and possibly two others, have missed this obvious point so
completely, I will look at making this "attack on wording" argument more
explicit in the last section
>SoF refers to the fact that given a certain selective regime in the
>real world, a population will tend to evolve in the same direction
>over and over, and we can often predict in advance what the response
>will be.
>
>DR> This is awkward. Refers to the fact that given?
>DR> The real world, as opposed to the imaginary?
Yes, that imaginary world creationists construct by focusing on words
and not the reality to which they refer. (Think it's a subset of the
category error fallacy)
>DR>"SoF names the tendency of
>DR> populations to evolve in predictable ways in response to the
>DR> selective regimes of their environments." "Over and over"
>DR> sounds like you can run selection experiments on the same
>DR> populations in the "real world" and get the same results. Not
>DR> only is that impossible, other aspects of evolution would
>DR> probably dictate different outcomes, no?
Note the use of: *tend* to evolve ... *often* predict
>DR> selective regimes of their environments." "Over and over"
>DR> sounds like you can run selection experiments on the same
>DR> populations in the "real world" and get the same results. Not
>DR> only is that impossible, other aspects of evolution would
>DR> probably dictate different outcomes, no?
>For example, black moths will increase in frequency if trees are
>dark, and gray moths will increase in frequency if trees are covered
>in gray lichen. It isn't just "whatever survives survives"; it is
>that particular traits are preserved depending on environment. Thus
>SoF isn't empty wording, it is a description of events in the real
>world.
>
>DR> Wouldn't your examples be stronger if you point to multiple
>DR> instances in which species evolve with the color of their
>DR> surroundings or make the same type of adaptation to the cold?
in a different example.
>While this summarizes the core of the argument, owing principally to
>the many possible meanings of "tautology" this discussion is often
>seen in alternative forms, raising a variety of different issues,
>which are touched on in the following.
>
>DR> Consider deleting the previous sentence. What little it adds
>DR> is defeated by two passive verbs and clauses that if not
>DR> actually dangling are hanging on for dear life.
the various meanings of "tautology", however a transition phrase is/will
be needed.
>Historical introduction to the tautology argument
>
>The tautology argument grew out of a change made by Darwin between
>the fourth[1] and fifth[2] editions of his "On the Origin of
>Species".
>
>DR> Does this sound odd to you or is it just me: what's between
>DR> the fourth and fifth editions, the 4 1/2?
>DR>We know it's his
>DR> book, the title of which should be italicized.
Done.
>He changed the title of the fourth chapter from "NATURAL SELECTION"
>to "NATURAL SELECTION; OR THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST." (SoF) He
>wrote: "This preservation of favourable variations, and the
>destruction of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection, or
>the Survival of the Fittest." and thereafter used the two terms as
>synonyms.
>
>DR> The tautology argument was a response to a change that Darwin
>DR> made in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species. The
>DR> title of Chapter 4 in the fourth edition read "NATURAL
>DR> SELECTION." In the fifth edition, Darwin changed that to
>DR> "NATURAL SELECTION; OR THE SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST." He
>DR> thereafter used the terms interchangeably.
intelligence and below to follow the sentence.
>DR> On the US side of the pond, commas and periods go inside
>DR> quotes; semicolons and colons go outside; exclams and question
>DR> marks go where the sense takes them; on the British side,
>DR> commas and periods go outside the quotes. Choose a standard
>DR> and stick with it.
>In 1879 Samuel Butler[3] charged that natural selection is a
>"truism", leading to a focus on the phrase SoF and the assertion
>that because survival rates define fitness, "'fittest' has no force"
>and thus natural selection and hence the whole of the theory of
>evolution explains nothing.
>
>DR> I can't tell where Samuel Butler leaves off and you're
>DR> commentary begins. Is "'fittest' has no force" Butler's? Does
>DR> he focus on SoF? It would help if you attached your footnotes
>DR> to the quotes and not the quoted.
make it comprehensible. And yes he very definitely does focus on SoF,
referring to NS and then switching to SoF to make his attack.
>Here, note that an attack launched against the phrase SoF
>immediately incorporates its synonym "Natural Selection", despite
>the obvious fact that selection by nature is no more tautological
>than selection by man. Thereafter, as usual, the attack is widened
>to include all of evolution.
>
>DR> Do we need this note? If Darwin used the terms synonymously,
>DR> then obviously an attack on one is an attack on the other. And
>DR> where does artificial selection come in? And if NS falls,
>DR> isn't fair to say that evolution goes with it?
>A current version of the tautology critique
>
>A recent version of the tautology argument was made by Ann Coulter who
>said:
>
> "The second prong of Darwin's "theory" is generally nothing but
> a circular statement: Through the process of natural selection,
> the "fittest" survive. Who are the "fittest"? The ones who
> survive! Why look - it happens every time! The "survival of the
> fittest" would be a joke if it weren't part of the belief system
> of a fanatical cult infesting the Scientific Community. The
> beauty of having a scientific theory that's a tautology is that
> it can't be disproved."[4]
>
>Most creationists agree that the fittest survive
>
>Note that the foregoing 'argument' characterizes as a "joke" the
>idea that it is the best adapted (fittest) parents who have most
>offspring. So what do creationists propose as an alternative? - that
>it is the worst adapted who are most fertile; that it is the arctic
>fox with the shortest fur who fathers the most pups generation after
>generation?
>
>No, apparently not, Coulter like many other fundamentalists, accepts
>that such adaptation occurs, but denies that adaptation below the
>level of species (microevolution) is really evolution. She says:
>DR> Run-on sentence above.
fixed.
> "Natural selection has never been demonstrated to change anything
> fancier than the shape of a bird's beak."[5]
>
> "Evolution is not the capacity of bacteria to develop antibiotic
> resistance, but which never evolves into anything but more bacteria.
> Evolution is not the phenomenon of an existing species changing over
> the course of may years for example."
>
>DR> Typo: s/may/many/
>But this reveals a contradiction. SoF refers to only one element of
>evolution, not the entire theory. SoF refers to no aspect of
>"macroevolution"; not to the creation of new species, or to the tree
>of common descent generated by speciation, or the nested hierarchy
>of characteristics within that tree; nor does it refer to mutations
>as the cause of variation. While supposing that Coulter, like many
>creationists, believes that all characteristics are preloaded into
>the genome by design she also clearly knows that species do change
>in response to changes in their environment. But such changes (like
>beak shape in response to varying circumstances) are precisely the
>part of evolution that SoF describes! So why are creationists
>arguing that a position they already accept is a "joke"? Could it
>be they don't understand their own argument?
>
>DR> This needs to be less rhetorical and more pointed. Thus
>
>DR> But this reveals a contradiction. In her haste to deny the
>DR> large changes of "macroevolution," she has accepted the very
>DR> mechanism of natural selection that she had just denounced as a
>DR> joke. Even Ann Coulter believes that bacteria that develop
>DR> antibiotic resistance are fitter to survive than their
>DR> susceptible relatives.
rhetorical" versions of this argument. I was completely mystified by
the argument until I stumbled on a version that spelled out what SoF/NS
excluded. I want this FAQ to be understandable to people who aren't
exceptionally intelligent or don't completely understand evolution.
On the other hand, maybe this is not the place to spell out the fact
that preloading of characteristics by God has no effect on SoF/NS.
>DR> Is it worthwhile to get sidetracked on Coulter's conflation of
>DR> natural selection with the whole of evolution? It seems worth
>DR> no more than a short aside, which certainly shouldn't obscure
>DR> your lead: Coulter contradicts herself: she admits that
>DR> species change in response to environmental changes toward more
>DR> fitness.
aspects of evolution not covered by SoF/NS.
However, I have highlighted: "she also clearly knows that species do
change in response to changes in their environment" to help prevent the
central point from being lost in the other verbiage.
"Hence, instances of SoF are clearly observationally contingent"
to:
"Hence, instances of SoF are clearly responses to changes in the real
world,"
misclassified Semantic and Logical tautologies. I will rewrite this
section using the concepts of necessary and contingent, a section I had
previously deleted.
"The gift is free; Her wet nose is moist." are contingent because they
could be false in instances in the real world.
"Socrates is mortal or he is not; Husbands are married men." are
necessary because there can be no instances in the real world where they
could be found false.
A version of the necessary/contingent argument can be found in an old
version of the FAQ here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/sandbox/Keith/kwork/Ver5_tautology.html
in the section titled:
"Are tautological statements verifiable?"
The argument there is not well made and is confusing, but I would
appreciate your opinion on whether or not that model can be made to work
as a description of why SoF is valid.
this but find the Cheshire cat's assertion that Alice is mad because
everybody here is mad, a better example of circular reasoning because it
avoids the unnecessary and alienating secondary attack on religion.
out. I presume the argument fails because Wabs = Nafter/Nbefore doesn't
capture the (usually environmental) changes driving selection. That is
this equation doesn't completely doesn't completely capture what SoF
refers to, just as the expression SoF itself does not completely capture
everything it refers to. If you disagree with this analysis, please say
so explicitly.
Your explanation here may help me understand why El Cid was insisting,
before his death, that we needed to be arguing that SoF *is* a tautology
but that not all tautologies are bad. I don't think he ever suggested
how such an argument could work, but I'll go back and reread his posts
to see if I can figure it out.
with the *description* with the *facts* described is useful for both
arguments.
>
>Summary points:
>
> Survival of the Fittest (SoF) does not include many key aspects
> of evolution, like common descent, the nested hierarchy,
> mutations, or speciation. What SoF does include is accepted by
> most creationists as part of "microevolution". So why are they
> attacking a part of evolution many of them agree with?
>
> In SoF, fitness cannot be equivalent to survival because
> characteristics generated by drift also survive, thus SoF cannot
> be a tautology.
>
> SoF was intended to be a synonym for Natural Selection (NS), but
> NS is clearly not a tautology.
>
.
> SoF is a descriptive label referring to part of Darwin's theory.
> Attacking the label does not challenge the theory itself.
>
>DR> This isn't true. If SoF is a synonym for NS, then SoF is label
>DR> for a mechanism, and it's the mechanism that creationists
>DR> attack
selection actually occurs.
> Semantic and logical tautologies are substantially different.
> Switching from the semantic to the logic definition in mid
> argument produces incoherent nonsense.
>
>DR> Both types are based on logic axioms. I can't find where
>DR> anyone (Coulter?) switches form one type to the other.
>
> SoF (expressed as Wabs = Nafter/Nbefore) is a tautology only in
> the same sense that F=ma and E=mc2 are tautologies.
>
>DR> This isn't true. Wabs is a definition and has no independent
>DR> meaning aside from the quotient. All the terms in the force
>DR> and energy equations have meanings separate from the equations.
Friar Broccoli
Oct 21, 2012, 10:02:32 PM10/21/12
to
>For example, black moths will increase in frequency if trees are
>dark, and gray moths will increase in frequency if trees are covered
>in gray lichen. It isn't just "whatever survives survives"; it is
>that particular traits are preserved depending on environment. Thus
>SoF isn't empty wording, it is a description of events in the real
>world.
>
>DR> Wouldn't your examples be stronger if you point to multiple
>DR> instances in which species evolve with the color of their
>DR> surroundings or make the same type of adaptation to the cold?
http://www.natureinstitute.org/txt/ch/moth.htm
See the section on: "More to Melanism than Meets the Eye"
I'm sure you know about it already. I will switch to a better example.
deadrat
Nov 2, 2012, 2:26:55 AM11/2/12
to
On 10/21/12 3:49 PM, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 22:58:37 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
<snip/>
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 22:58:37 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> The Theory of evolution is built around the phrase "Survival of the
>> Fittest" (SoF), but since the only measure of "fitness" is the
>> survival rate, this phrase actually reduces to "Survival of the
>> survivors" which is circular and thus an empty tautology.
>
>> The Theory of evolution is built around the phrase "Survival of the
>> Fittest" (SoF), but since the only measure of "fitness" is the
>> survival rate, this phrase actually reduces to "Survival of the
>> survivors" which is circular and thus an empty tautology.
>
>> DR> Even for creationists, the objection isn't to the phrase but to
>> DR> the concept.
>
> Not true. That was the point of showing further down that creationists
> explicitly accept the facts to which SoF/NS refers as part of
> microevolution.
You have made the mistake of judging creationists by your own standards.
>> DR> the concept.
>
> Not true. That was the point of showing further down that creationists
> explicitly accept the facts to which SoF/NS refers as part of
> microevolution.
For you, intellectual honesty and the corrosive effects of cognitive
dissonance would prevent you from taking a position in one paragraph
that you concede is wrong in the next. You're not dealing with people
like you; you're dealing with creationists. As the maxim goes, "Honest,
informed, creationist: choose two."
>> DR> Why the scare quotes on "fitness"? I'm not sure
>> DR> SoS is circular, and "empty tautology" is redundant.
>
> I'm concerned that most readers won't know what a tautology is. Indeed,
> I'm not certain that *I* will ever know.
examining its terms. That is, it's true by the rules of logic, no
matter what the terms refer to. Let's take an example from mathematics.
A: Given the rules of arithmetic.
B: The integers are a metric space, with metric absolute value of
difference.
Don't worry. You won't need any advanced math. A metric space is just
some place that distances make sense, and distance is the same for
integers as it is on google maps: given any two points, you can
determine from them a non-negative number called the distance between
them. Distance follows the obvious rules: if (and only if) you don't
go anywhere, the distance is zero; the distance going is the same when
you retrace your steps back; it's longer to take a detour than going
straight there. For mathematical spaces distance is called a metric.
Does A->B? To show this, we have to demonstrate that the claimed metric
follows the rules. I won't provide the entire proof, but one of the
rules is that the distance between a point and itself must be zero.
Well, given any integer k, the difference between it and itself, i.e.,
k-k, is zero. I have to rely on A, the rules of arithmetic, but when I
apply them, I find that I can show that my claimed metric works.
Now, suppose I say
A: The integers are brillig.
Does A->A? That is, if the integers are brillig, are they brillig? The
answer is yes. You don't need to know what brillig is to know the
answer is true, you don't have to know whether the integers are actually
brillig or not, and in fact you can substitute slithy for brillig or for
that matter anything for brillig. You know the implication is true from
its form and not by reference to the meaning of any of its terms.
Another example, A v ~A, i.e., A is true or A is not true. Let's let A
be a famous unsolved problem in number theory called the Goldbach
conjecture. If I say, "The Goldbach conjecture is true or the Goldbach
conjecture is false." you know that statement is true even if you have
no idea what the Goldbach conjecture is. No matter what I substitute
for "Goldbach conjecture," the statement is still true: "The integers
are brillig or they are not brillig." Doesn't matter.
If the form gives you the truth of a statement without reference to its
terms, you have a tautology.
>> DR> Perhaps:
>> DR> "The theory of evolution depends on the concept of "Survival of
>> DR> the Fittest" (SoF), but since the only measure of fitness is
>> DR> survival rate, Survival of the Fittest means no more than
>> DR> Survival of the Survivors, a tautology and thus without any
>> DR> explanatory force."
>
> I have no idea what "without any explanatory force" means and I doubt if
> other normal mortal would either.
explanation connects a cause with an effect. We say A->B or "A implies
B" in logic, but we could just as well say "B follows from A." For
scientific endeavors, we'd like to find some mechanism for A->B, so we
can say "A causes B" or "A explains B." Without a mechanism, we might
be facing the dreaded correlation without causation.
How about an example? Take Kepler's Third Law of Planetary Motion: "The
square of a planet's orbital period is directly proportional to the cube
of its orbit's semi-major axis." Kepler figured this out by taking
measurements. In Kepler's day, this law was true because it was true,
and if you didn't believe Johannes, you could take your own measurements
and do your own calculations. There's no hint as to why it's true.
With Newton's laws of motion in hand, we can show that Kepler's law must
be true (actually to a very close approximation). If A represents
Newton's laws and B represents Kepler's, we can say A->B. Newton's laws
imply Kepler's or Newton's laws explain Kepler's. We've found one set
of physical circumstances that require another set to obtain.
> Also equating tautology to "without
> explanatory force" feels like the creation of a strawman for easy
> demolition. That is, it seems too remote from the original assertion.
arithmetic explain why you can measure distances with integers; Newton's
laws explain why Kepler's proportions worked. But a tautology tells you
nothing. When you tell your kid it's bedtime, and he asks "Why?" you
can say "Because I say so." But that doesn't answer his question.
You've told him he has to go to bed because he has to go to bed.
(The little brat, whom you suspect isn't yours anyway, probably realizes
that if he doesn't go to bed, you'll slap him into next week. But
that's no explanation either.)
And that's why creationists like to claim that SoF is a tautology: if
that's so, then SoF explains nothing, and if you're going to go for
nothing explanations, you might as well go for for Goddidit. At least
you get the book of neat stories, the inspiring music, and the costume
drama for free. Also a free pass to kill people whose beliefs differ
from yours. You can see the attraction.
>> DR>Capitalization seems random. Why cap-T
>> DR> Theory? Why cap-F fitness in SoF, but lower-s survivors in
>> DR> SoS?
>>
>> However, on examining this argument we see that it is an attack only
>> against the wording used to describe one of the core concepts in
>> evolution. It is not a challenge to the observable phenomenon to
>> which SoF actually refers.
>>
>> DR> I don't think this is true. You make it sound like the
>> DR> objection is to word selection. It's a claim that fitness has
>> DR> no measure beyond survival.
>
> SoF is one of the phrases used to describe NS. The attack is against
> that phrase, and the possible implications of that description, not the
> substance of SoF/NS. Again, creationist style micro-evolution accepts
> everything SoF/NS describe.
saying is that even if you're right about this topic, and somehow you
can measure fitness in an independent way, that still can't explain the
biosphere. Bacteria always remain bacteria, and there's no way to get
them to the point where they'll appreciate Ayn Rand. Assuming, of
course, that they don't already.
> Since you, and possibly two others, have missed this obvious point so
> completely, I will look at making this "attack on wording" argument more
> explicit in the last section
this obvious mistake."
<snip/>
free in a literal sense. That's because, if it's not free, i.e., the
recipient paid the donor, then what the former received from the latter
is not a gift.
> "Socrates is mortal or he is not; Husbands are married men." are
> necessary because there can be no instances in the real world where they
> could be found false.
>
> A version of the necessary/contingent argument can be found in an old
> version of the FAQ here:
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/sandbox/Keith/kwork/Ver5_tautology.html
>
> in the section titled:
> "Are tautological statements verifiable?"
>
> The argument there is not well made and is confusing, but I would
> appreciate your opinion on whether or not that model can be made to work
> as a description of why SoF is valid.
tautologies, "just the same idea expressed in different formulations."
These are said to fall into two categories, the _necessary_, "those
whose meanings are necessary only from the words", e.g, lubricating
grease; and _contingent_, those whose meanings are hinge on "real world
facts," e.g., tuna fish and cold ice.
The problem here is that these alleged tautologies aren't tautologies at
all. They're all variants on the logical argument "All men are mortal;
Socrates is a man; Socrates is mortal."
In logic symbolism:
A<B & a e A -> a e B
where I'm using "<" for the subset symbol and "e" for the epsilon
"element of" symbol. The "necessary" group, which refers only to
definitions, are redundancies, but the logic is the same.
A = the set of all greasy materials
B = the set of all lubricating materials
a = the particular grease under consideration
Given that greasy materials are all lubricants, any particular grease
must be a lubricant.
In the so-called "contingent" group, we have
A = the set of all fish
B = the genus Thunnus
a = a tuna
Given that Thunnus are fish, a tuna fish, i.e., an animal in Thunnus is
a fish.
These aren't tautologies because we can't tell the truth of the
statement from its form alone. We have to refer to an additional term,
the defining superset.
"Cold ice" is listed as contingent because it is claimed that we may one
day see warm ice produced by additives, magnetic fields, or high
pressure. A look at the phase diagram of water will reveal this to be
nonsense, but it doesn't matter as the whole section is based on a
misunderstanding of what a tautology is.
be). He's saying:
Anyone here is mad.
Alice is here.
Alice is mad.
It would be circular had the cat said, "Everyone here is mad, and you're
here, so you must be mad, and because you're mad, everyone here is too."
to be happening. But that never stopped me.
SoF doesn't completely capture its meaning in biology. I think what it
means is that given the operation of natural selection, populations on
average will come to resemble those who reproduce more successfully.
(By "operation of natural selection," I mean an environment in which 1)
the parent population passes information to the next generation
genetically, i.e., through reproduction and in a non-perfect way, and 2)
reproduction exceeds the capacity of all to survive.)
The first thing to note is that we can measure this by using your Wabs
equation. The idea may be obvious. As Huxley famously said (and I'm
paraphrasing here), "Doh!" When we study changes in populations, those
changes are suspiciously related to changes in the environment. It's
fairly clear when you feed bacteria nothing but pantyhose and they
develop the ability to produce nylonase. Can we rigorously capture the
relationship between the weather and the length of coats on arctic
foxes? Or is this just an evolutionary "Just So" story? Fitness in
this sense is likely complicated and involve more than one
characteristic. Sometime with more knowledge than me will have to
answer. Fortunately, the bar is fairly low here.
But suppose all we have is population genetics. Creationists scoff that
all we're doing to confirming the idea that everyone over six feet
measures more than 72 inches, but that misses the point, which is that
the theory of evolution is about change. The theory says that the
mechanisms it describes are sufficient to explain the diversity of the
biosphere.
And that's what creationists really object to, and that objection
surfaces in Coulter's concession that yes, natural selection changes
things the way scientists say, but the cumulative changes are too
limited to give us the diversity of species. Their attack is on the
insufficiency of the mechanism, and the tautology claim is simply
rhetoric designed to undermine those who claim otherwise.
To be as explicit as possible, let me say that creationists have taken a
measurement, Wabs, and objected that its definition doesn't explain
anything. Which means they're conflating the measurement with the
theory. But the central claim of evolution isn't about survivorship; it
about change in populations.
0 new messages