Is this statement unclear or misleading?
Mo
you state that "Darwinian theory rules out quite a lot...it rules out
the existence of inefficient organisms when more efficient organisms
are about."
In the short run in which organisms exist, this is exactly, precisely,
what the theory doesn't do and can't do. The existence of
"inefficient" organisms (if indeed such a weird, generalized phrase
makes any sense) is precisely the kind of variation that drives the
whole system. So let's assume for the sake of argument that we could
point to organisms we could identify as 'inefficient organisms.' They
still have to exist not only often, but all the time. Otherwise there
would be nothing for natural selection to select against. Gould may be
right that there are problems applying the concept this simplistically
in the long term view, as well. If one takes a longer view, don't
conditions change too much for the phrase "inefficient organism" to
make sense, since it has to be defined against a specific environment?
Whatever the merits of the other arguments on the page, this one needs
to be rephrased, or better defended, before the author can justifiably
dismiss the tautology argument, at least on those grounds.
The theory of evolution suffers terribly, and always has, from
ideological creep. Just as Darwin was strongly influenced by Malthus,
statements like these are based more on contemporary economic practice
than biological observation. Accountancy may indeed select this way in
corporate decision-making, but Gould may be right that biology
operates on a more complex and longer timescale.
Friar Broccoli
> On the pagehttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html,
In a month or two the following (with a few more modifications)
will be the main tautology FAQ:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9601558686f2fdc7
If you have criticisms of this version, I would be EXTREMELY
happy to read and consider them.
Note I have revised the section:
"Are all tautologies necessarily true?"
and will put that up here this evening.
Mitchell Coffey
> you state that "Darwinian theory rules out quite a lot...it rules out
> the existence of inefficient organisms when more efficient organisms
> are about."
> The theory of evolution suffers terribly, and always has, from
> ideological creep. Just as Darwin was strongly influenced by Malthus,
> statements like these are based more on contemporary economic practice
> than biological observation.
[1] What do you mean by "ideological creep"?
[2] Explain the relevance of your "Just as Darwin was strongly
influenced by Malthus" comment; the part of Malthusian theory that
influenced Darwin, that biological populations tend to expand to the
limits of available sustenance, is for the most part, and in context,
unassailable. Neither as such can it be dismissed as ideology.
[3] Defend your comment "statements like these are based more on
contemporary economic practice than biological observation" in face of
the vast amount of biological observation and experimentation
discussed in Darwin's works, and in it's own sake: what evidence is
there that statements like these are based on contemporary economic
practice, beyond similarities between the operation of natural
selection and what you conceive contemporary (mid-19th c. U.K.)[*]
economic practices to have been?
[*] Really, 1830s, when Darwin conceived his take on the importance of
natural selection. It might be a mistake to assume contemporary
economic practice were the same, depending on what you actually meant
by your comments.
Mitchell Coffey
All-seeing-I
> On the pagehttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html,
NOMINATED POTM
RAM
> On Nov 24, 11:30 am, Mo <mmad...@gmail.com> wrote:> On the pagehttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html,
> > you state that "Darwinian theory rules out quite a lot...it rules out
> > the existence of inefficient organisms when more efficient organisms
> > are about."
> [snip]
> > The theory of evolution suffers terribly, and always has, from
> > ideological creep. Just as Darwin was strongly influenced by Malthus,
> > statements like these are based more on contemporary economic practice
> > than biological observation.
>
> [snip]
>
> [1] What do you mean by "ideological creep"?
Madman?
RAM
Did you understand it.
Good. Now give and empirical measure of biological inefficiency.
What? You can't do it? Don't feel bad it is a small part of your
massive ignorance and besides, neither can he.
Friar Broccoli
> On Nov 24, 11:30 am, Mo <mmad...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> Note I have revised the section:
> "Are all tautologies necessarily true?"
> and will put that up here this evening.
Here it is:
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: saying the same thing twice (which dates from 1579).
Logic: a statement that is necessarily true.
Looking at these two definitions we immediately note a key
difference. Saying the same thing twice, if the statement is
false can't be necessarily true. Hence the semantic and logic
forms are not equivalent.
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. This makes about as much
sense as saying that bats are nocturnal mammals that catch
flying insects using echo location so I use mine to hit base
balls. This is definition switching. Is Coulter trying to beat
evolution to death with a pun?
For the remainder of this FAQ we will be using the semantic
definition because using the logical definition would, to some
extent, be presuming the conclusion.
John Wilkins
<a888e8df-1388-4766...@r31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>, Mo
<mma...@gmail.com> wrote:
As it happens I am terribly dissatisfied by the page in question, which
I wrote when I was an undergraduate. The entire page is to be replaced
by a better written and more nuanced FAQ (although that will stay
online for archival purposes).
However, if you want to read my own views, as they presently stand, you
can do so by downloading this:
http://www.box.net/shared/3hcbibehe7
I think that as a formal statement, NS actually is a tautology, in the
sense that it asserts formal equivalences that must be true whenever
the conditions for it pertain. However, NS *explanations* are not
tautological, because there is
1. Empirical fact about whether those conditions pertain, which might
be different
2. The explanation given is particularistic, and applies solely in each
case to that case alone (the stripes of the tiger are explained as
camouflage due to NS. This is not the explanation for the stripes on a
wasp, which has a different NS account, which nevertheless might be
formally the same).
Chris Thompson
news:b7d825d4-cf59-4aac...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
You are of course free to nominate this as a PotM, but it might be
better to provide support for the views expressed in the OP. John, after
all, posted this quite a few times, asking for comments and critiques.
Chris
John Harshman
a creationist.
heekster
heekster
No synaptic activity was involved in the making of this nomination.
T Pagano
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
SECONDED
Regards,
T Pagano
hersheyh
Ooooh! Ooooh! [Hand in the air.] I think I know. The biological
efficiency or inefficiency of a trait can be measured as its effect on
reproductive success relative to an alternate trait. Will this be on
the test?
John Harshman
Add Tony to the list of those who like everything they think is written
by a creationist, but who can't read well enough to figure out that it
isn't.