Revised Tautology FAQ - Thread-5
Friar Broccoli
suggestion, I removed almost all references to falsification
thereby cutting about 25% of the text. I also cut or rewrote
most of the other arguments.
I suspect I am pretty close to a final version so I hope as many
people as possible will attack as viciously as possible.
_______________________________________________________________
Summary:
~~~~~~~~
The claim that evolutionary theory is unscientific or
unfalsifiable [1] because it is a tautology, results from a focus
on and a misunderstanding of the expression "Survival of the
Fittest" (SoF) as well as a muddling of the various possible
meanings of tautology.
Historical Introduction to the Tautology Argument
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The tautology argument grew out of a change made by Darwin to
the fifth edition (published Feb. 10 1869) of his "On the Origin
of Species". He changed the title of the fourth chapter from
"NATURAL SELECTION" to "NATURAL SELECTION; OR THE SURVIVAL OF
THE FITTEST." (SoF) He wrote that he did this because "Several
writers have misapprehended or objected to the term Natural
Selection" on the basis that nature can't "select" in the way
that man can "select".
Beginning from Samuel Butler's charge in 1879 that natural
selection is a "truism", this led 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.
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.
A Current version of the Tautology attack
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A recent version of the tautology argument can be found in
Ann Coulter's 2005 book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism"
where she says:
"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."
(pp. 212-213) [2].
Some basic reality checks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Before proceeding it may be useful to step back for a reality
check:
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:
"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." (p. 202)
But this reveals a contradiction. SoF doesn't refer 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, or even 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
this is precisely what 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?
However, a more fundamental problem with Coulter's argument is
that it sets up an equivalence between survival and fitness.
"Who are the "fittest"? The ones who survive! Why look - it
happens _every_ time!" (emphasis added) But if that is true,
then all differential survival must 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 [3]. We
couldn't do that if selection were just "those that survive
survive".
We now turn to a more detailed examination of tautologies.
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 definition we immediately note a key
difference. Saying the same thing twice, if the statement is
false can't be necessarily true, so the semantic form must refer
to circularity, or lack of comparative content. So the
tautological attack on SoF by creationists is an attack on empty
meaning, not on necessary truth.
Are tautological statements verifiable?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Again, asking if an empty repetitive statement is verifiable may
seem silly, but since a tautology is just the same idea
expressed in two different formulations, if one can establish
that one of the formulations is false, then the statement must
be false. An examination of some examples shows that properties
of commonly cited tautologies vary in this respect.
Lets consider six examples such as "married husband" (or more
formally "all husbands are married men") "free gift", "cold
ice", "tuna fish", "horned unicorn" and "lubricating grease".
All these cases are considered to be tautologies because an
adjective (like lubricating) describes one of the necessary
properties of the subject (here grease). Note that some can
also be viewed as tautologies because the subject (grease again)
is an obligate member of the class (lubricants) which modifies
it. Thus we have moved from saying that a tautology is a
repetition of the "same thing" to repeating the "thing" and one
of its _necessary_ properties or one of the classes of which it
is a member.
Now looking more closely at our examples we note that they can,
for the most part, be sorted into two groups:
necessary: those whose meanings are necessary only from the
words, including ,"all husbands are married men"
"lubricating grease", "horned unicorn", and "free
gift".
contingent: those whose meanings are contingent on an
examination of associated real world facts
including "all tuna are fish" and "cold ice".
We can see this difference clearly if we consider what would
happen during a process of verification. If in a survey one
found an unmarried husband, one would simply exclude him from
the category of husband and move on. Hence, it is a _necessary_
truth that a husband is married. Similar reasoning applies to
"lubricating grease" [4], "free gift" and "horned unicorn" since
all are human constructs, not independent realities.
By contrast tuna and ice exist independently of human
classification. Thus, even though the idea of a tuna which is
not a fish may seem absurd, the fact that tuna are fish is
_contingent_ on observation. Tuna are fish (and dolphins are
not) because morphologic examination and genetic testing have
confirmed their position in the tree of life. The case against
"cold ice" as necessary is just as clear because it is
possible, at least in principle, that we may one day see warm
ice, as a result of manipulation of water with additives, or in
cleverly designed magnetic fields or under extremely high
pressures etc. Hence, it _can_ be (or could have been) false
that ice is cold or tuna are fish.
Having established that tautologies that can be classified
as contingent are verifiable the question is: Is SoF
necessarily true or is its truth contingent on observation? To
answer this question it is useful to look at SoF as a
mathematical expression.
Survival of Characteristics, not Individuals
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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:
W_abs_ = N_after_/N_before_
where:
W_abs_ is absolute fitness
N_before_ is the Number of individuals with some genotype
in a first generation (before selection)
N_after_ is the Number of individuals with an alternative genotype
in the following generation (after selection)
Note that in the above statement there are absolutely no
surviving individuals. Thus Coulter's question and answer
"_Who_ are the "fittest"? The ones who survive!" fundamentally
misrepresents the intended meaning of SoF. In the evolutionary
timescale individuals never survive, hence fitness refers to
survival rates of some specific heritable _characteristic_ in a
population over time.
Specific heritable characteristics include things like:
- visual sensitivity to yellow
- densest fur
- longest tail feathers
There is simply nothing tautological or circular about survival
of long tail feathers. That "fitness" is intended to refer to
specific characteristics is the core to understanding that
SoF is not a tautology, because by observation we can establish
that those Arctic foxes with the densest fur survive to pass on
that characteristic.
Mathematical Expressions of Scientific Laws as Tautologies
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
However, suppose that we continue by accepting that
W_abs_ = N_after_/N_before_
is itself a tautology, perhaps because, as we saw above the
equivalence of the same idea expressed in a different form is a
tautology. If so, then all mathematical expressions containing
a single equal sign between two sets of equivalent expressions
must also be tautologies. This must therefore include Newton's
F=ma and Einstein's E=MC^2.
F=ma is of particular interest in this respect because although
we are here defining it as a tautology, it has in fact been, at
least partially, falsified. That is, Newton's gravitational
laws are true only outside relativistic frameworks, a fact
which has been observationally verified. The fact that
Newton's laws of motion have been at least partially falsified
leaves no doubt that mathematical formulas are not empty
circular tautologies.
As we saw above, _drift_ as an alternative mechanism to
_fitness_ similarly partially falsifies SoF, thus SoF can not be
a tautology in either its linguistic or mathematical
formulations.
SoF does not have a propositional form
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
An additional, problem with the Coulter's argument arises from
the fact that tautologies must be formally expressible as
_propositions_, thus:
"married husband" is "all husbands are married men"
"tuna fish", is "all tuna are fish"
"horned unicorn" is "all unicorns have horns"
What about "survival of the fittest"? As presented it is not a
proposition. If this statement had a propositional form it
would read something like: "all the fittest are survivors" or
"all survivors are the fittest". But both these statements are
transparently false since no one believes the fit always
survive. In short SoF cannot be a tautology because it is not
expressed as a proposition. It is more a descriptive label or
suggestive summary intended to outline of part of Darwin's
theory.
Summary Points:
- Survival of the Fittest (SoF) was intended to be a synonym for
Natural Selection (NS), but NS is clearly not a tautology.
- In SoF fitness cannot be equivalent to survival because
characteristics generated by drift also survive, thus SoF
cannot be a tautology.
- 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 (but
not all) creationists as part of "microevolution". So why are
they attacking the only part of evolution many of them agree
with?
- SoF is a descriptive outline of part of Darwin's theory. It
cannot be a tautology because it isn't expressed as a
proposition as in 'All survivors are the fittest'.
- Purely semantic tautologies like "All husbands are married
men" are by definition necessarily true, but "tautologies"
that make reference to verifiable facts in the real world such
as "All tuna are fish", are observationally _contingent_ and
thus can be verified. Since statements about fit
characteristics can be checked against real world observations
they cannot be _necessary_ truths.
- SoF (expressed as W_abs_ = N_after_/N_before_) is a tautology
only in the same sense that F=ma and E=mc^2 are tautologies.
- Since fitness refers _not_ to individuals but to
_characteristics_ passed to the next generation, those
characteristics can be plugged into mathematical formulas for
testing 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.
[1] The word unfalsifiable will be linked to John's FAQ:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html
[2] Temporary Info: I got the Coulter quote here:
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/is_natural_selection_a_tautology/
[3] The word "drift" will be linked to the drift FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html)
[4] Note: Since water is sometimes a lubricant "lubricating
grease" is dependent on human classification.
John Harshman
> I am back sooner than predicted because at John Harshman's
> suggestion, I removed almost all references to falsification
> thereby cutting about 25% of the text. I also cut or rewrote
> most of the other arguments.
>
> I suspect I am pretty close to a final version so I hope as many
> people as possible will attack as viciously as possible.
[snip]
Much better. I think the main argument is quite strong.
Tapestry
All-seeing-I
[cut to a specific point]
> A recent version of the tautology argument can be found in
> Ann Coulter's 2005 book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism"
> where she says:
>
> ย "The second prong of Darwin's "theory" is generally nothing but
> ย a circular statement: Through the process of natural
> ย selection, the "fittest" survive. ย Who are the "fittest"? ย The
> ย ones who survive! ย Why look - it happens every time! ย The
> ย "survival of the fittest" would be a joke if it weren't part
> ย of the belief system of a fanatical cult infesting the
> ย Scientific Community. ย The beauty of having a scientific
> ย theory that's a tautology is that it can't be disproved."
> ย (pp. 212-213) [2].
Ann is exactly correct. She is also very perceptive when she mentions
there is a fanatical cult infesting the Scientific Community.
Who is to say if a stronger species did not die out to allow survival
of the weakest in some cases? No one really knows the unknown
variables that were in play on the earth millions of years ago. Any
one of those unknowns could have allowed for the weakest to survive
instead.
All mammals and birds have offspring that are handicapped with
infantile helplessness. Infantile helplessness is a direct challenge
to Darwinism. So much so that unless Darwinists can explain
"altricial" births properly, Creationists can say Darwinism is
disproved on that basis alone.
I will have to admit Dawkins` brilliance. He has foisted evolution
into the forefront with arguments in his books that, on first
appearance, seen logical, even seem acceptable. But evolution is all
smoke and mirrors. It is nothing more then a dog and pony show.
Evolutionists are like those cute little seals blowing their cute
little horns that play Dawkin-Tunes on golden pond. But if you listen
to the song they are playing carefully you will notice it is out of
tune. It does not harmonize with the rest of Earth or with all of the
other processes on the earth. It does not even harmonize within
itself.
IOW evolution is not a natural theory. If forces the round pegs of
valid information into the square holes of disinformation.
--
! Watch those crazy evolutionist play their tunes with:
The All Seeing I
Robert Camp
The resolute determination with which you resist education would be
admirable, in a weird sort of way, if it weren't so pathological.
RLC
RAM
Silly
wf3h
> Ann is exactly correct. She is also very perceptive when she mentions
> there is a fanatical cult infesting the Scientific Community.
yeah. we like to learn. the creationists?
2000 years of failure.
and now creationism has morphed into a death cult where terrorism is
permissible because it's god's will
>
> Who is to say if a stronger species did not die out to allow survival
> of the weakest in some cases?
meaningless. how do you measure this?
see...that's what you creationsits never understand: science MEASURES
things. creationism jusst handwaves...
No one really knows the unknown
> variables that were in play on the earth millions of years ago. Any
> one of those unknowns could have allowed for the weakest to survive
> instead.
more gibberish
>
> All mammals and birds have offspring that are handicapped with
> infantile helplessness. Infantile helplessness is a direct challenge
> to Darwinism.
really? why? oh. you don't say. you just make it up. after all,
creationists make up a view of the bible that's nonsense, so bald
faced lying, not to mention the death cult of their beliefs, is not
surprising
>
> I will have to admit Dawkins` brilliance. He has foisted evolution
> into the forefront with arguments in his books that, on first
> appearance, seen logical, even seem acceptable.
surprisingly enough, evolution was in great shape before dawkins.
guess the creationist doesn't know this
But evolution is all
> smoke and mirrors. It is nothing more then a dog and pony show.
says the believer in the death cult known as creationism
> Evolutionists are like those cute little seals blowing their cute
> little horns that play Dawkin-Tunes on golden pond. But if you listen
> to the song they are playing carefully you will notice it is out of
> tune. It does not harmonize with the rest of Earth or with all of the
> other processes on the earth. It does not even harmonize within
> itself.
>
and creationism is at best an easter bunny view of nature, where, when
you click your heels together, strange and magical things happen
> IOW evolution is not a natural theory. If forces the round pegs of
> valid information into the square holes of disinformation.
>
2000 years of failure...it's tough being a creationist!
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
OK. Let's look at one of my "pathological" points. I claim that no one
really knows the unknown variables that were in play on the earth
millions of years ago. Therefore Darwin's claim that "Survival Of The
Fittest" is an outrageous and erroneous claim.
Today scientists tell us that the Swine Flu may kill those that are
healthy and younger before it kills the older and weaker. Not because
of a prior immunity but because the younger have a healthier immune
system that would set of a "storm" of inflammation in the lungs
causing a secondary disease.
Clearly that is a case of survival of the weakest by natural
selection; And, could be an example of an unknown that existed
millions of years ago which allowed the survival of the weakest
instead of survival of the fittest. Thereby effectivly destroying
Darwin's Survival Of The Fittest notion.
The only ones with a resolute determination to resist education would
be..
Y
O
U
that think you have all of the answers.
It really is THAT simple.
--
It is all about connecting the dots with...
The All Seeing I
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
Then, assuming that you aren't merely resorting epistemological
nihilism, show us why anyone should accept your claim that no one really
know the unknown variables that were in play on the earth millions of
years ago. How did physics change and why did it change? Show your work.
>Today scientists tell us that the Swine Flu may kill those that are
>healthy and younger before it kills the older and weaker. Not because
>of a prior immunity but because the younger have a healthier immune
>system that would set of a "storm" of inflammation in the lungs
>causing a secondary disease.
Notice the 'may' and the fact that we are learning about it. Notice also
that we had a similar problem with the Spanish Flu just after World War
I. This isn't just nonsense.
>Clearly that is a case of survival of the weakest by natural
>selection; And, could be an example of an unknown that existed
>millions of years ago which allowed the survival of the weakest
>instead of survival of the fittest. Thereby effectivly destroying
>Darwin's Survival Of The Fittest notion.
No, this is not.
>The only ones with a resolute determination to resist education would
>be..
>
>Y
> O
> U
>
>that think you have all of the answers.
>
>It really is THAT simple.
You really are that simple, dishonest, arrogant, foolish, and unwilling
to learn.
--
Here is what Jesus said would happen to those who are intentionally
ignorant:
"Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten
talents. For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an
abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from
him. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where
there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Friar Broccoli
>
> [cut to a specific point]
>
> > A recent version of the tautology argument can be found in
> > Ann Coulter's 2005 book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism"
> > where she says:
>
> > "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."
> > (pp. 212-213) [2].
>
> Ann is exactly correct. She is also very perceptive when she mentions
> there is a fanatical cult infesting the Scientific Community.
>
> Who is to say if a stronger species did not die out to allow survival
> of the weakest in some cases? No one really knows the unknown
> variables that were in play on the earth millions of years ago. Any
> one of those unknowns could have allowed for the weakest to survive
> instead.
Although you refuse to discuss horses and zebras, you are constantly
claiming that change from one species to another has *never* been
*observed*, so now you are arguing that "survival of the weakest"
(which has never been observed) is God's rule?
And why is this an issue for you anyway, since you believe God
just poofs new (nearly identical) species into existence when
their predecessors have gone extinct? Clearly you believe that
neither the fit nor the unfit survive long.
> All mammals and birds have offspring that are handicapped with
> infantile helplessness. Infantile helplessness is a direct challenge
> to Darwinism. So much so that unless Darwinists can explain
> "altricial" births properly, Creationists can say Darwinism is
> disproved on that basis alone.
Uhh, what is the point of having the young running around and
hard for the parents to find for feeding, if they are best protected
by remaining hidden where they are?
> I will have to admit Dawkins` brilliance. He has foisted evolution
> into the forefront with arguments in his books that, on first
> appearance, seen logical, even seem acceptable. But evolution is all
> smoke and mirrors. It is nothing more then a dog and pony show.
> Evolutionists are like those cute little seals
Speaking of seals, do you know what this is:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/tests/Mistery_skel.jpg
wf3h
>
> OK. Let's look at one of my "pathological" points. I claim that no one
> really knows the unknown variables that were in play on the earth
> millions of years ago.
which, of course, is wrong. we can look at rock samples, isotope
concentrations, etc.
creationism is clueless about how science works
Therefore Darwin's claim that "Survival Of The
> Fittest" is an outrageous and erroneous claim.
so let's see. you're wrong about conditions on earth because you're a
creationist
SOOOO....you come to a wrong conclusion about evolution.
no surprise
>
> Today scientists tell us that the Swine Flu may kill those that are
> healthy and younger before it kills the older and weaker. Not because
> of a prior immunity but because the younger have a healthier immune
> system that would set of a "storm" of inflammation in the lungs
> causing a secondary disease.
uh...no. what we know is that older people have been exposed to
variants of the swine flu that younger people haven't been exposed to
hell, you're remarkably ignorant, even for a guy who loves bin laden
>
> Clearly that is a case of survival of the weakest by natural
> selection; And, could be an example of an unknown that existed
> millions of years ago which allowed the survival of the weakest
> instead of survival of the fittest. Thereby effectivly destroying
> Darwin's Survival Of The Fittest notion.
uh...no. what it means is that people whose immune systems have
already been SELECTED (the older folks who survived an earlier bout
with swine flu) have already faced an environment challenge that
younger folks havent
jesus fuck you're stupid. honestly. a real fucking idiot
when you're not praising bin laden and the destruction of the world
trade center
thus creationism
heekster
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Oct 25, 1:16๏ฟฝpm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>[cut to a specific point]
>
>> A recent version of the tautology argument can be found in
>> Ann Coulter's 2005 book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism"
>> where she says:
>>
>> ๏ฟฝ "The second prong of Darwin's "theory" is generally nothing but
>> ๏ฟฝ a circular statement: Through the process of natural
>> ๏ฟฝ selection, the "fittest" survive. ๏ฟฝWho are the "fittest"? ๏ฟฝThe
>> ๏ฟฝ ones who survive! ๏ฟฝWhy look - it happens every time! ๏ฟฝThe
>> ๏ฟฝ "survival of the fittest" would be a joke if it weren't part
>> ๏ฟฝ of the belief system of a fanatical cult infesting the
>> ๏ฟฝ Scientific Community. ๏ฟฝThe beauty of having a scientific
>> ๏ฟฝ theory that's a tautology is that it can't be disproved."
>> ๏ฟฝ (pp. 212-213) [2].
>
>Ann is exactly correct.
No. Like you, she is an imbecile. She is not qualified by work,
education or study to define evolution, or to redefine it, as she so
feebly attempted. She isn't a scientist, she's a pundit, and a
provable idiot. Just like you. Well, you suck as a pundit, too.
I must say your blatant intellectual dishonesty, in selecting the
above quote, while snipping the entire subsequent point by point
debunking, boggles the mind of most thinking people.
Are you that stupid, that you did not think anyone would notice your
bumbling quackery?
Go mount your cambrian mammal, and shut the fuck up.
John Harshman
John Harshman
> On Oct 25, 1:16 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [cut to a specific point]
>
>> A recent version of the tautology argument can be found in
>> Ann Coulter's 2005 book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism"
>> where she says:
>>
>> "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."
>> (pp. 212-213) [2].
>
> Ann is exactly correct. She is also very perceptive when she mentions
> there is a fanatical cult infesting the Scientific Community.
>
> Who is to say if a stronger species did not die out to allow survival
> of the weakest in some cases? No one really knows the unknown
> variables that were in play on the earth millions of years ago. Any
> one of those unknowns could have allowed for the weakest to survive
> instead.
I believe you have confused strength with fitness. You have also
confused natural selection with species selection.
> All mammals and birds have offspring that are handicapped with
> infantile helplessness. Infantile helplessness is a direct challenge
> to Darwinism. So much so that unless Darwinists can explain
> "altricial" births properly, Creationists can say Darwinism is
> disproved on that basis alone.
What creationists say that? More important, why would they say that?
What makes you think that altriciality can't be an advantage in some
environments?
> I will have to admit Dawkins` brilliance. He has foisted evolution
> into the forefront with arguments in his books that, on first
> appearance, seen logical, even seem acceptable. But evolution is all
> smoke and mirrors. It is nothing more then a dog and pony show.
> Evolutionists are like those cute little seals blowing their cute
> little horns that play Dawkin-Tunes on golden pond. But if you listen
> to the song they are playing carefully you will notice it is out of
> tune. It does not harmonize with the rest of Earth or with all of the
> other processes on the earth. It does not even harmonize within
> itself.
Do you have any actual arguments to make?
> IOW evolution is not a natural theory. If forces the round pegs of
> valid information into the square holes of disinformation.
Do you have any argument to back up your claims? If so, could you
present it?
All-seeing-I
DENIAL
It is not just a river in Egypt FreeLunch.
But i hear there are meds for such disorders.
I suggest :
SEEK PROFESSIONAL HELP!
DO IT SOON!
John Harshman
You actually have part of a point here. It's very difficult to show
selection happening in any individual case in the remote past. But that
point has nothing to do with whether natural selection is a tautology.
(It isn't). Nor does it have anything to do with whether evolution
actually happened in the remote past. (It did.)
And you mistake the claims of evolutionary biology. We generally don't
try to show selection happening in the remote past, only in the present.
We can infer long past selection only from DNA sequences, and only
statistically. And we can ask, if similar events have happened many
times, we can infer the factors correlated with those events. None of
this is what you think.
> Today scientists tell us that the Swine Flu may kill those that are
> healthy and younger before it kills the older and weaker. Not because
> of a prior immunity but because the younger have a healthier immune
> system that would set of a "storm" of inflammation in the lungs
> causing a secondary disease.
>
> Clearly that is a case of survival of the weakest by natural
> selection; And, could be an example of an unknown that existed
> millions of years ago which allowed the survival of the weakest
> instead of survival of the fittest. Thereby effectivly destroying
> Darwin's Survival Of The Fittest notion.
Again, you confuse what fitness means. Whatever gives an individual an
advantage is fitter in that circumstance than whatever doesn't.
Characters that increase fitness in one situation may indeed decrease it
in another.
The first step toward correcting your ignorance would be admitting it.
David Hare-Scott
When you haven't the faintest idea what is being said insert a sufficiently
mystical reference and you might appear clever. Or perhaps not.
David
T Pagano
1. Natural Selection is an inappropriate anthropomorphism.
Nature---that is, natural law conjoined to chance----does nothing
analogous to an intelligent agent making selections.
2. The label "natural selection," per se, does not refer to some
observable set of attributes of nature or even some naturalistic
process. Therefore it has little, if any, scientific value.
3. The label "fitness" is also not a directly observable attribute of
any biological entity, but an a posteriori, situational, book keeping
of the differential survival and differential reproductive rates of
individuals within a particular breeding population.
4. The fit survive and reproduce because the survivors are fit.
"Survival of the Fitest" is unavoidably tautologous. If the atheists
were smart they would remove "SoF" from their lexicon and purge it
from the schools. It makes for good theatre in those over-simplified
Discovery Channel evolutionary fables and nothing more.
5. My opinion is that Darwin undoubtedly had Malthus's theory in mind
when he used terms like, "survival of the fitest." It was Malthus's
theory which "sparked" Darwin to create his Theory of Evolution.
Recall that Malthus considered the struggle for limited resources as a
driving force; he argued that populations will consume every resource
within some circumscribed area causing a relentless struggle for
survival. This "Malthusian" struggle for survival under conditions of
dwindling resources was considered by Darwin to be a driving force of
transformational evolution.
6. We know today that Malthus's theory is quite false; that is, most
ecological systems are balanced. The driving force upon which Darwin
relied for his theory is false. No such relentless Malthusian
pressure exists (at least not as a general rule).
7. "SoF" was never an observable attribute, was always largely
tautologous, never had any scientific probabative value and relied on
Malthus's false theory. Yet Darwin's theory lived on. Why? Because
Darwin's theory never really depended upon it. In other words this
is much ado about nothing---certainly nothing scientific. When the
atheists are terrified of useless verbalism the good ship ediacara
must be taking on water.
8. Anyone taking bets whether the philosopher-comedian Wilkins or the
hall monitor Harshman will go down with the ship or be making
miraculous conversions?
Regards,
T Pagano
snip
wf3h
>>
> 1. ย Natural Selection is an inappropriate anthropomorphism.
> Nature---that is, natural law conjoined to chance----does nothing
> analogous to an intelligent agent making selections. ย
no one cares. your comment is irrelevant. the term describes the
process. if you're confused because of your religious beliefs, then i
suggest you educate yourself and quit whining that we scientists
confuse you
> 2. ย The label "natural selection," per se, does not refer to some
> observable set of attributes of nature or even some naturalistic
> process. ย Therefore it has little, if any, scientific value.
we scientists disagree. the term is embedded in a wider concept of
differential reproduction via natural selection. again this is an
issue of your under-educated fundamentalist viewpoint
> 3. ย The label "fitness" is also not a directly observable attribute of
> any biological entity, but an a posteriori, situational, book keeping
> of the differential survival and differential reproductive rates of
> individuals within a particular breeding population. ย
well....no. we can actually calculate fitness by comparing the
percentage of genes in a daughter population compared to those in a
parent population
so it is directly MEASUREABLE which is what a good scientific theory
has...a MEASUREABLE effect
> 4. The fit survive and reproduce because the survivors are fit.
> "Survival of the Fitest" is unavoidably tautologous. ย
nope. if this were true there wouldn't be multiple mechanisms of
evolution like genetic drift. you creationists are uneducated,
believing that 'god did it' explains something so believe that science
is tautologous.
If the atheists
> were smart they would remove "SoF" from their lexicon and purge it
> from the schools. ย It makes for good theatre in those over-simplified
> Discovery Channel evolutionary fables and nothing more.
nope. we're not going to let taliban christians have a veto power over
science. you guys tried that with galileo.
how'd that work out for you?
> 5. My opinion is that Darwin undoubtedly had Malthus's theory in mind
> when he used terms like, "survival of the fitest." ย It was Malthus's
> theory which "sparked" Darwin to create his Theory of Evolution.
> Recall that Malthus considered the struggle for limited resources as a
> driving force; he argued that populations will consume every resource
> within some circumscribed area causing a relentless struggle for
> survival. ย This "Malthusian" struggle for survival under conditions of
> dwindling resources was considered by Darwin to be a driving force of
> transformational evolution.
except, of course, darwin came up with the idea of differential
reproduction...which you completely ignore. no doubt due to your poor
taliban-like education
> 6. ย We know today that Malthus's theory is quite false; that is, most
> ecological systems are balanced. ย The driving force upon which Darwin
> relied for his theory is false. ย No such relentless Malthusian
> pressure exists (at least not as a general rule).
irrelevant. the driving force is variation in populations and the
effects these variations have on populations
again you're uneducated
ediacara
> must be taking on water.
> 8. ย Anyone taking bets whether the philosopher-comedian Wilkins or the
> hall monitor Harshman will go down with the ship or be making
> miraculous conversions? ย
>
gee pagano. you were wrong on every single assertion you made here.
any other buzz saws you want to walk in to or are you just going to go
off and sulk?
Bill
<snip>
>
> > 6. ย We know today that Malthus's theory is quite false; that is, most
> > ecological systems are balanced. ย The driving force upon which Darwin
> > relied for his theory is false. ย No such relentless Malthusian
> > pressure exists (at least not as a general rule).
Ah, so resources are not limited, that's a great relief. And all those
hatchling sea turtles running to the sea make it there without being
grabbed by the gulls, not just the fastest or luckiest ones. Truly,
this is the best of all possible worlds.
Kermit
Evolutionary theory never postulates that luck doesn't have a role.
Also, the environment may change rapidly; e.g. when the dino-killing
asteroid struck, it very suddenly became advantageous to be small
enough to hide under a rocky overhand.
Of *course scientists know there may have been factors at work that we
don't know about. It's Creationists who think they have all the
answers, remember?
This pathological "point" of yours only underscores you inability to
read and retain.
>
> Today scientists tell us that the Swine Flu may kill those that are
> healthy and younger before it kills the older and weaker. Not because
> of a prior immunity but because the younger have a healthier immune
> system that would set of a "storm" of inflammation in the lungs
> causing a secondary disease.
Yes. Note that it's science that is telling us this, and not
televangelists or tent revival preachers.
>
> Clearly that is a case of survival of the weakest by natural
> selection;
You've been told, but apparently could not understand: "the fittest"
does not mean the most robust, capable of doing the most push ups and
kicking sand in the face of nerds on the beach. It means most suited
for the current environment.
The fittest organisms have phenotypic traits (often but not always
inheritable) which, in a given environment, will most likely lead to
reproduction (not "absolutely and always will").
> And, could be an example of an unknown that existed
> millions of years ago which allowed the survival of the weakest
> instead of survival of the fittest. Thereby effectivly destroying
> Darwin's Survival Of The Fittest notion.
What sort of unknown would change what I wrote above?
>
> The only ones with a resolute determination to resist education would
> be..
>
> Y
> ย ย O
> ย ย ย U
Believing fantastic claims from a stranger on the internet with no
supporting evidence would be gullibility, not education.
>
> that think you have all of the answers.
Bwahahahaha!
Maddy, you have nothing but self-deception, and the sooner you realize
that the sooner you can get on with life. You might even consider
getting educated. Science knows we don't have all the answers, that's
why *we're *still *doing *science.
To learn the stuff we haven't figured out yet.
>
> It really is THAT simple.
Yes, but it's completely wrong, so it's difficult to say that
simplicity is a virtue in this case.
>
> --
> It is all about connecting the dots with...
Those are freckles, not data points.
>
> The All Seeing I
Kermit
Bill
That was a reply to Pagano, not to wf3h.
Ernest Major
<lu...@nofreelunch.us> writes
>>OK. Let's look at one of my "pathological" points. I claim that no one
>>really knows the unknown variables that were in play on the earth
>>millions of years ago. Therefore Darwin's claim that "Survival Of The
>>Fittest" is an outrageous and erroneous claim.
>
>Then, assuming that you aren't merely resorting epistemological
>nihilism, show us why anyone should accept your claim that no one
>really know the unknown variables that were in play on the earth
>millions of years ago. How did physics change and why did it change?
>Show your work.
>
>>Today scientists tell us that the Swine Flu may kill those that are
>>healthy and younger before it kills the older and weaker. Not because
>>of a prior immunity but because the younger have a healthier immune
>>system that would set of a "storm" of inflammation in the lungs
>>causing a secondary disease.
>
>Notice the 'may' and the fact that we are learning about it. Notice
>also that we had a similar problem with the Spanish Flu just after
>World War
>I. This isn't just nonsense.
Note that he has contradicted himself in successive posts. First he
claims that "Ann (Coulter) is exactly correct." when claiming that
Survival of the Fittest is a tautology. Then he claims that Survival of
the Fittest is erroneous, and offers a counter-example. If he hadn't
misrepresented the meaning of Survival of the Fittest he would have
proven that Survival of the Fittest wasn't a tautology.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<jhar...@pacbell.net> writes
>> Ann is exactly correct. She is also very perceptive when she
>>mentions
>> there is a fanatical cult infesting the Scientific Community.
>> Who is to say if a stronger species did not die out to allow
>>survival
>> of the weakest in some cases? No one really knows the unknown
>> variables that were in play on the earth millions of years ago. Any
>> one of those unknowns could have allowed for the weakest to survive
>> instead.
>
>I believe you have confused strength with fitness. You have also
>confused natural selection with species selection.
>
>> All mammals and birds have offspring that are handicapped with
>> infantile helplessness. Infantile helplessness is a direct challenge
>> to Darwinism. So much so that unless Darwinists can explain
>> "altricial" births properly, Creationists can say Darwinism is
>> disproved on that basis alone.
>
>What creationists say that? More important, why would they say that?
>What makes you think that altriciality can't be an advantage in some
>environments?
Oops. I've just written that he'd contradicted himself in successive
posts, but now I see more of the first post quoted, I see that he'd
contradicted himself in the first post alone. He can't reasonably claim
that Survival of the Fittest is a tautology, and then claim a
counterexample in the next breath.
--
alias Ernest Major
richardal...@googlemail.com
FALSEHOOD #1. It isn't an anthropomorphism at all, but a description
of a process which can be observed and measured on nature.
> Nature---that is, natural law conjoined to chance----does nothing
> analogous to an intelligent agent making selections. ย
FALSEHOOD #2. It clearly does, and this has been not only observed and
measured in nature and replicated in the laboratory, but has formed
the basis of computer programmes which optimise engineering solutions.
> 2. ย The label "natural selection," per se, does not refer to some
> observable set of attributes of nature or even some naturalistic
> process.
FALSEHOOD #3. It is a process which has been described in exhaustive
detail, and has been the subject of numerous scientific papers.
>ย Therefore it has little, if any, scientific value.
FALSEHOOD #4. The simple fact that natural selection is an integral
element of evolutionary theory 150 years after it was formulated shows
it's value.
> 3. ย The label "fitness" is also not a directly observable attribute of
> any biological entity, but an a posteriori, situational, book keeping
> of the differential survival and differential reproductive rates of
> individuals within a particular breeding population. ย
So it's a phenomenon which can be observed and measured. This is what
gives it scientific value.
> 4. The fit survive and reproduce because the survivors are fit.
> "Survival of the Fitest" is unavoidably tautologous.
FALSEHOOD #5. Natural selection provides a model of the evolutionary
process which can be tested by the manipulation of the selective
environment. This is not tautologous.
ย > If the atheists
FALSEHOOD #6. Evolutionary biologists are not atheists. Scientists are
not atheists. Bearing in mind that your criteria for defining an
atheist makes the head of your own church an atheist, what on earth do
you seek to achieve by the repetition of such an absurd falsehood?
Or are you going to stick with your assertion that the Pope is a liar?
> were smart they would remove "SoF" from their lexicon and purge it
> from the schools. ย It makes for good theatre in those over-simplified
> Discovery Channel evolutionary fables and nothing more.
FALSEHOOD #7. Evolutionary theory is sound science, and natural
selection is an integral part of evolutionary biology. There is no
other scientific explanation for much of biology.
> 5. My opinion
What on earth gives you idea that anyone gives a flying fuck for the
opinion of a persistent liar who has labelled the head of his own
church as a liar?
> is that Darwin undoubtedly had Malthus's theory in mind
> when he used terms like, "survival of the fitest." ย It was Malthus's
> theory which "sparked" Darwin to create his Theory of Evolution.
> Recall that Malthus considered the struggle for limited resources as a
> driving force; he argued that populations will consume every resource
> within some circumscribed area causing a relentless struggle for
> survival. ย This "Malthusian" struggle for survival under conditions of
> dwindling resources was considered by Darwin to be a driving force of
> transformational evolution.
> 6. ย We know today that Malthus's theory is quite false;
FALSEHOOD #8. This is such a blatant falsehood that it is staggering
that you should think that anyone will believe you. Most organisms
produce vastly more offspring that can be maintained by the resources
available. This is a simple matter of fact.
> that is, most
> ecological systems are balanced.
FALSEHOOD #9. If you had any education in ecology you would learn that
most ecological systems are in a state of dynamic imbalance.
>ย The driving force upon which Darwin
> relied for his theory is false.
FALSEHOOD #10.
>ย No such relentless Malthusian
> pressure exists (at least not as a general rule).
FALSEHOOD #11.
> 7. ย "SoF" was never an observable attribute,
FALSEHOOD #12. It is something which can be observed and measured - as
you have stated previously in this post! Contradicting yourself does
not add weight to your argument.
> was always largely
> tautologous,
FALSEHOOD #13
> never had any scientific probabative value
FALSEHOOD #14
> and relied on
> Malthus's false theory.
FALSEHOOD #15
>ย Yet Darwin's theory lived on. ย Why? ย Because
> Darwin's theory never really depended upon it.
FALSEHOOD #16
Darwin's theory never relied on Darwin's theory? Mind you, Darwin's
theory *did* rely on the fact that reproduction capacity outstrips
resources, which is something which we can observe and measure in
nature.
>ย In other words this
> is much ado about nothing---certainly nothing scientific.
FALSEHOOD #17.
As Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is an integral
part of modern evolutionary theory, has been the subject of numerous
scientific papers, and is one of the underlying principles which gives
structure to much of the science of biology, one is left wondering
what you think you gain by such a blatant falsehood.
>ย When the
> atheists
FALSEHOOD #18.
No, Tony. It's the scientists. Your criteria make the Pope an atheist.
Your rationalisation that he is a liar hardly adds weight to your
argument.
> are terrified of useless verbalism
FALSEHOOD #19. And somewhat ironic as it comes from the most prominent
sources of useless verbalism on this forum.
>the good ship ediacara
> must be taking on water.
> 8. ย Anyone taking bets whether the philosopher-comedian Wilkins or the
> hall monitor Harshman will go down with the ship or be making
> miraculous conversions? ย
You mean the posters who have shredded your arguments?
By the way, you *still* haven't answered my simple question:
Is the Pope an atheist or is he a liar?
RF
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
> snip
Iain
> The claim that evolutionary theory is unscientific or
> unfalsifiable [1] because it is a tautology, results from a focus
> on and a misunderstanding of the expression "Survival of the
> Fittest" (SoF) as well as a muddling of the various possible
> meanings of tautology.
For the millionth time, you're crediting the tautology argument with
too much relevance.
The theory is not that the fittest survive.
The theory is that the survival of the fittest is what determines the
course of evolution.
"The fittest survive" may or may not be a tautology; it wouldn't
matter.
The real theory doesn't even have the illusion of tautology.
--Iain
Friar Broccoli
> In message <Qd-dnbs5e6SPnXjX4p2d...@giganews.com>, John Harshman
> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> writes
[snipping]
> He can't reasonably claim
> that Survival of the Fittest is a tautology, and then claim a
> counterexample in the next breath.
Actually, I think he can. The way I now understand one of the
meanings
of "tautology" (different from earlier drafts), it is simply a
repetition
of meaning in a statement. He could show that either or both the two
halves
of the statement make a false reference using a counterexample,
thereby
showing the statement to be false.
wf3h
<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 3:14ย am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> FALSEHOOD #6. Evolutionary biologists are not atheists. Scientists are
> not atheists. Bearing in mind that your criteria for defining an
> atheist makes the head of your own church an atheist, what on earth do
> you seek to achieve by the repetition of such an absurd falsehood?
>
> Or are you going to stick with your assertion that the Pope is a liar?
this is becoming quite a common attack method for creationists.
although i'm an atheist, and have no problem with atheism, the view is
becoming more common among creationists that evolution is atheism,
because there's something 'wrong' with being an atheism
it's a form of ignorance AND a form of bigotry. creationists excel at
both.
Friar Broccoli
> On Oct 25, 6:16 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The claim that evolutionary theory is unscientific or
>> unfalsifiable [1] because it is a tautology, results from a focus
>> on and a misunderstanding of the expression "Survival of the
>> Fittest" (SoF) as well as a muddling of the various possible
>> meanings of tautology.
.
> For the millionth time, you're crediting the tautology argument with
> too much relevance.
Just for record, I personally give the argument no credit at
all. It was almost by chance that I found myself drafting this
revised faq. The idea that an argument about grammar or syntax
could somehow be considered relevant to a physical theory is
completely beyond me. On the other hand creationists do tend
to take this type of argument seriously, so the points need to
be addressed, and clearly so.
> The theory is not that the fittest survive.
More that the fittest (most adaptive) characteristics are passed on.
> The theory is that the survival of the fittest is what determines the
> course of evolution.
I do not see that tacking on "is what determines the course of
evolution" substantively effects the (admittedly silly) attack
on clause "the survival of the fittest". Can you explain your
thinking here in more detail please?
> "The fittest survive" may or may not be a tautology; it wouldn't
> matter.
In different words I believe I made this point in the
sections titled "Are all tautologies necessarily true?" and
"Are tautological statements verifiable?" Do you have a
problem with these arguments?
In my view, to make the claim: "it does not matter" I must be
able to say why it does not matter, and must therefore directly
address the claim.
> The real theory doesn't even have the illusion of tautology.
I believe this is the point I made in the third paragraph,
although again the formulation was very different.
I note that you wrote away from the introductory summary, which
I am sure is not as good as it could be, so I am certainly open
to suggestions for improvement there.
Thanks for bringing the discussion back on the topic.
John Harshman
If all you're doing here is claiming that the term is infelicitous, that
seems a weak criticism indeed. As long as we know what the label means,
and find it useful, nothing else is important.
> 2. The label "natural selection," per se, does not refer to some
> observable set of attributes of nature or even some naturalistic
> process. Therefore it has little, if any, scientific value.
Who are you to judge, when evolutionary biologists find it useful? It
describes a phenomenon, the differential reproduction of individuals
correlated with genotype. Do you deny that this phenomenon exists, or do
deny that we need to refer to it? Either seems silly.
> 3. The label "fitness" is also not a directly observable attribute of
> any biological entity, but an a posteriori, situational, book keeping
> of the differential survival and differential reproductive rates of
> individuals within a particular breeding population.
So? It may be a posteriori, but it's repeatable. Of course it's
situational: we expect fitness to change with environment. Why is this a
problem.
> 4. The fit survive and reproduce because the survivors are fit.
> "Survival of the Fitest" is unavoidably tautologous.
Did you even read the FAQ? This claim is answered in it. All you do here
is reveal either your laziness or your lack of reading comprehension.
> If the atheists
> were smart they would remove "SoF" from their lexicon and purge it
> from the schools. It makes for good theatre in those over-simplified
> Discovery Channel evolutionary fables and nothing more.
I will make the usual pro forma objection that you are using "atheist"
when you mean "evolutionary biologist", and Francisco Ayala at least
would be offended by your presumption. Evolutionary biologists do not
generally use the term "survival of the fittest", so your first request
has been granted.
> 5. My opinion is that Darwin undoubtedly had Malthus's theory in mind
> when he used terms like, "survival of the fitest." It was Malthus's
> theory which "sparked" Darwin to create his Theory of Evolution.
> Recall that Malthus considered the struggle for limited resources as a
> driving force; he argued that populations will consume every resource
> within some circumscribed area causing a relentless struggle for
> survival. This "Malthusian" struggle for survival under conditions of
> dwindling resources was considered by Darwin to be a driving force of
> transformational evolution.
> 6. We know today that Malthus's theory is quite false; that is, most
> ecological systems are balanced. The driving force upon which Darwin
> relied for his theory is false. No such relentless Malthusian
> pressure exists (at least not as a general rule).
Yes it does. Ecological systems may be balanced, but they also involve
competition among individuals for limited resources, and generally many
more offspring than are necessary to maintain a stable population. If
it's your claim that the conditions necessary for natural selection
seldom obtain in nature, this is easy to show wrong. You don't need an
expanding population.
It's also good evidence that natural selection isn't a tautology, since
there are apparently conditions in which it doesn't happen, which you
would have known had you bothered to read the FAQ before jumping in.
> 7. "SoF" was never an observable attribute, was always largely
> tautologous, never had any scientific probabative value and relied on
> Malthus's false theory. Yet Darwin's theory lived on. Why? Because
> Darwin's theory never really depended upon it. In other words this
> is much ado about nothing---certainly nothing scientific. When the
> atheists are terrified of useless verbalism the good ship ediacara
> must be taking on water.
I believe you have conflated two separate theories: natural selection as
agent of adapation and common descent. You are correct that one doesn't
rely on the other, though creationists seldom admit this. However,
natural selection has proven an extraordinarily useful concept in
explaining all manner of observed phenomena, from seasonal changes in
the inversions of Drosophila chromosomes to sex ratios in elk. Try
reading some of the scientific literature instead of wallowing in ignorance.
> 8. Anyone taking bets whether the philosopher-comedian Wilkins or the
> hall monitor Harshman will go down with the ship or be making
> miraculous conversions?
I bet neither. And I still don't know what you mean by "hall monitor".
Any bets on how long it takes Tony to run away from this thread?
Steven L.
> I am back sooner than predicted because at John Harshman's
> suggestion, I removed almost all references to falsification
> thereby cutting about 25% of the text. I also cut or rewrote
> most of the other arguments.
>
> I suspect I am pretty close to a final version so I hope as many
> people as possible will attack as viciously as possible.
> _______________________________________________________________
>
>
> Summary:
> ~~~~~~~~
> The claim that evolutionary theory is unscientific or
> unfalsifiable [1] because it is a tautology, results from a focus
> on and a misunderstanding of the expression "Survival of the
> Fittest" (SoF) as well as a muddling of the various possible
It's a definite improvement over previous versions.
But isn't it possible to include somewhere that claiming the ToE is a
tautology ends up negating most of the other attacks by creationists
against the ToE?
Creationists attack the ToE by claiming,as Ann Coulter did, "The beauty
of having a scientific theory that's a tautology is that it can't be
disproved."
But then on the other hand, they still spend a huge amount of time
trying to disprove the ToE by critiquing the evidence (fossils, geology,
radioactive dating, etc.) offered in support of the ToE.
Is this not a contradiction? How can creationists on the one hand claim
that the ToE is a tautology that can't be disproved, and then on the
other hand try like hell to disprove it with evidence? If the ToE
*could* be disproved with scientific evidence (and we've seen
creationists here on this NG claim that's doable), then it's not a
tautology, right?
It's an example of the technique "Let's sling as much mud as we can in
hopes that something will stick."
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Steven L.
And ecological systems are not "in balance" the way Pagano is implying.
The mathematical equations of predator-prey relationships are
nonlinear, leading to a chaotic system. It fluctuates dramatically, but
tends to remain not too far from an attractor.
I'll bet you that chaotic fluctuations around an attractor (which
characterizes most predator-prey ecological systems) is not what Pagano
meant by "in balance."
John Harshman
Please don't confuse ToE with SoF. Natural selection is a part of
evolution, but not all of it. If natural selection were a tautology,
most of evolution could still be false.
Creationists do make the mistake of supposing that natural selection is
both a tautology and false, but that's not what you're saying here. And,
as is already pointed out in the FAQ, natural selection is a mechanism
of microevolution, which is the part of evolution that creationists
often accept. They're trying to attack the little bit they accept
without seeming to realize it. Consistency is neither an achievement nor
a goal for them.
Dan Listermann
"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
news:7f8689bc-3346-476f...@l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
OK. Let's look at one of my "pathological" points. I claim that no one
really knows the unknown variables that were in play on the earth
millions of years ago. Therefore Chriatian's claim of divine creation is an
outrageous and erroneous claim.
It is all about connecting the dots with...
.
Boikat
You're an idiot.
>
> 1. ย Natural Selection is an inappropriate anthropomorphism.
> Nature---that is, natural law conjoined to chance----does nothing
> analogous to an intelligent agent making selections.
You cannot make an observed phenomenon "go away" by claiming it's an
anthropomorphism. The surfe sorting sediment according to grain and
specific gravity is also not analogous to an "intelligent agent making
decisions", and yet, sand on a beach is pretty uniform in size. How
do you explain that?
ย
> 2. ย The label "natural selection," per se, does not refer to some
> observable set of attributes of nature or even some naturalistic
> process. ย Therefore it has little, if any, scientific value.
Bullcrap, pure and simple.Natural selection is not only observed, but
has been utiized by man for hundreds of years in agriculture, even if
the phenomenon had no formalized name. Farmers routinely kept grain
from crops that grew better and produced more as seed for the
following year. Now, you can whine that since farmers were doing the
selection, and therefore, it's not "natural selection", but the
principle is exactly the same, so you whine is irrelevent.
> 3. ย The label "fitness" is also not a directly observable attribute of
> any biological entity, but an a posteriori, situational, book keeping
> of the differential survival and differential reproductive rates of
> individuals within a particular breeding population. ย
So what? Are you saying that, in general, those individuals within a
breeding population that successfully reproduce are "unfit"?
> 4. The fit survive and reproduce because the survivors are fit.
> "Survival of the Fitest" is unavoidably tautologous.
If it's self-evidently true, how can you claim the phenomenon of NS
does not exist?
> ย If the atheists
> were smart they would remove "SoF" from their lexicon and purge it
> from the schools.
SoF only really carreis a "negtive" conotation in the minds of anti-
evolution fanatics, and only seondarily in the minds of pro-evolution
advocates because of the negative conotation imagined by the anti-
evolution idiots, who attempt top spin the negative into the ToE in
general, in a dishonest attempt to cast the ToE in a negative manner
by claiming SoF justifies all manner of evilness.
>ย It makes for good theatre in those over-simplified
Especially in the minds of creationists.
> Discovery Channel evolutionary fables and nothing more.
I guess you have a weak mind, then.
> 5. My opinion is that Darwin undoubtedly had Malthus's theory in mind
> when he used terms like, "survival of the fitest." ย It was Malthus's
> theory which "sparked" Darwin to create his Theory of Evolution.
> Recall that Malthus considered the struggle for limited resources as a
> driving force; he argued that populations will consume every resource
> within some circumscribed area causing a relentless struggle for
> survival. ย This "Malthusian" struggle for survival under conditions of
> dwindling resources was considered by Darwin to be a driving force of
> transformational evolution.
Irrelevent.
> 6. ย We know today that Malthus's theory is quite false; that is, most
> ecological systems are balanced. ย The driving force upon which Darwin
> relied for his theory is false. ย No such relentless Malthusian
> pressure exists (at least not as a general rule).
NS is always at work, even in a stable environment, since there will
usually still be individuals withing the population that have
variations unsuited for that environment.
> 7. ย "SoF" was never an observable attribute, was always largely
> tautologous, never had any scientific probabative value and relied on
> Malthus's false theory. ย Yet Darwin's theory lived on. ย Why? ย Because
> Darwin's theory never really depended upon it.
Then why are you whinging about it?
> In other words this
> is much ado about nothing---certainly nothing scientific.
Agreed. The "ado" comes from moronic creationists.
>ย When the
> atheists are terrified of useless verbalism the good ship ediacara
> must be taking on water.
"Evolutionists" are not concerned with the term, except for the
missrepresentation, and negative connotation, used by creationist
whiners, like you.
> 8. ย Anyone taking bets whether the philosopher-comedian Wilkins or the
> hall monitor Harshman will go down with the ship or be making
> miraculous conversions? ย
Anyone willing to take any bets that you'll ever pull your head out of
your ass? Anyone? Hello? Is this thing on?
Boikat
Friar Broccoli
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
> > I am back sooner than predicted because at John Harshman's
> > suggestion, I removed almost all references to falsification
> > thereby cutting about 25% of the text. I also cut or rewrote
> > most of the other arguments.
>
> > I suspect I am pretty close to a final version so I hope as many
> > people as possible will attack as viciously as possible.
> > _______________________________________________________________
>
> > Summary:
> > ~~~~~~~~
> > The claim that evolutionary theory is unscientific or
> > unfalsifiable [1] because it is a tautology, results from a focus
> > on and a misunderstanding of the expression "Survival of the
> > Fittest" (SoF) as well as a muddling of the various possible
> > meanings of tautology.....
>
> It's a definite improvement over previous versions.
Thank you, and thanks to Harshperson.
> But isn't it possible to include somewhere that claiming the ToE is a
> tautology ends up negating most of the other attacks by creationists
> against the ToE?
I don't think so for reasons detailed below, but a more
general reason is that the faq is (in my opinion) already too
damn long and that after cutting a lot of arguments that I was
strongly attached to.
> Creationists attack the ToE by claiming,as Ann Coulter did, "The beauty
> of having a scientific theory that's a tautology is that it can't be
> disproved."
Much of the point of my discussion was to show that the type of
tautology they are refering to (repetition of meaning) CAN be
disproved.
> But then on the other hand, they still spend a huge amount of time
> trying to disprove the ToE by critiquing the evidence (fossils, geology,
> radioactive dating, etc.) offered in support of the ToE.
As John has already pointed out, arguments on common descent
and past species etc are completely distinct from arguments
about NS/SoF, so there is no necessary contradiction here.
Also, pointing out that arguing against SoF is arguing against
adaptation, just about the only thing most creationists accept,
points to a more direct contradiction.
> Is this not a contradiction? How can creationists on the one hand claim
> that the ToE is a tautology that can't be disproved, and then on the
> other hand try like hell to disprove it with evidence? If the ToE
> *could* be disproved with scientific evidence (and we've seen
> creationists here on this NG claim that's doable), then it's not a
> tautology, right?
Well no, that was the main point of my discussion of
tautologies. A tautology that is a repetition of meaning (like
the once true: All Fords are black) is not necessarily true, it
is contingent on observation.
Just pointing out that tautologies of the type they are
refering to CAN be disproven is more direct.
> It's an example of the technique "Let's sling as much mud as we can in
> hopes that something will stick."
If I were to make the point you are asking me to make, I would
have to begin by saying:
- well supposing that creationists are correct when they switch
from using one definition of tautology to the other
and
- supposing that they are correct to equate NS/SoF with common
descent and the rest of evolutionary theory
then
- ...
I like the argument you are proposing (and have used it myself)
because it is simple and direct, but it just does not seem to
fit well with the facts as I now understand them. I used to
include a TagLine with all my posts that read: "I consider ALL
arguments in support of my views". Sadly some of the
arguments that support my (correct) views are invalid.
I am sure the faq can be improved, but I don't believe this
particular argument is the right way to get there.
On the other hand I think I need to add something clear about
definition switching between the two meanings of tautology in
the fifth summary point to reduce the potential for confusion
here. Or maybe even add an additional summary point.
Iain
> ย I do not see that tacking on "is what determines the course of
> ย evolution" substantively effects the (admittedly silly) attack
> ย on clause "the survival of the fittest". ย Can you explain your
> ย thinking here in more detail please?
The verb is different.
a) The fittest survive...
b) This survival determines the course of evolution.
...are two different claims. A) may appear to be a tautology, but only
B) is the actual ToE. It would not matter if A) were a tautology. As
long as A) means something at all, B is not a tautology. And B is the
ToE.
As it happens, A) is just another way of saying 'The environment
influences who does and doesn't reproduce'. This isn't a tautology,
but it isn't a very novel or interesting idea either. But that doesn't
matter because that's not what the theory is. The survival of the
fittest is just an element within the theory.
--Iain
Friar Broccoli
> On Oct 26, 12:24 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I do not see that tacking on "is what determines the course of
>> evolution" substantively effects the (admittedly silly) attack
>> on clause "the survival of the fittest". Can you explain your
>> thinking here in more detail please?
>
> The verb is different.
>
> a) The fittest survive...
> b) This survival determines the course of evolution.
I see a number of problems here:
First, one of the main problems with "survival of the fittest"
is that it can be misread to mean survival of individuals rather
than survival of traits carried by those individuals into the
next generation. Your rewrite does not correct this key
problem leading to misunderstandings of what SoF means.
Second, SoF does not determine the course of evolution since
there are other factors including drift.
Third, you have rewritten the phrase, without providing
supporting evidence that that is what Darwin meant, or what
modern evolutionary biologists mean. Consequently, if I made
the change you are suggesting people who followed your advice
would be open to the attack of having made an unjustifiable
alteration to a central tenant of the ToE.
> ...are two different claims. A) may appear to be a tautology, but only
> B) is the actual ToE. It would not matter if A) were a tautology. As
> long as A) means something at all, B is not a tautology. And B is the
> ToE.
Well, of course B isn't the actual ToE, since speciation
(usually caused by isolation) is logically distinct from NS/SoF,
so I guess you meant "is part of". But in any case, I cannot
just arbitrarily rewrite SoF and declare that creationists must
accept my new wording. They won't do that of course, and
recommending that other evolutionists try that seems like an
invitation to disaster.
> As it happens, A) is just another way of saying 'The environment
> influences who does and doesn't reproduce'. This isn't a tautology,
> but it isn't a very novel or interesting idea either. But that doesn't
> matter because that's not what the theory is. The survival of the
> fittest is just an element within the theory.
This leads to another problem. As you will have noticed I have
argued (actually it comes from Harshperson) that the attack on
SoF narrowly defined is an attack on what most creationists
already accept (that species adapt to their environment). This
and probably other good arguments would need to be thrown out
if I change to defending the entire ToE.
Finally, as mentioned in my previous post, I really do not see
that I need to make such a circuitous argument when Darwin's own
words tell us that NS and SoF were intended as synonyms, so
rather than pointing to a new phrase that I've made up and
saying it's not a tautology, I can just point to NS to say it's
not.
Rereading the above, I feel that my comments above are
so pointed as to be rude. I am sorry about that, rudeness
is not my intent, clarity is.
Iain
> On Oct 26, 5:09 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 26, 12:24 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> ย I do not see that tacking on "is what determines the course of
> >> ย evolution" substantively effects the (admittedly silly) attack
> >> ย on clause "the survival of the fittest". ย Can you explain your
> >> ย thinking here in more detail please?
>
> > The verb is different.
>
> > a) The fittest survive...
> > b) This survival determines the course of evolution.
>
> I see a number of problems here:
>
> First, one of the main problems with "survival of the fittest"
> is that it can be misread to mean survival of individuals rather
> than survival of traits carried by those individuals into the
> next generation. ย Your rewrite does not correct this key
> problem leading to misunderstandings of what SoF means.
But it may as well refer to the fittest individuals. No trait is fit
in isolation from other traits in the same individual. The full set of
traits in an individual = the individual.
There is, however, yet another quibble to be made here. 'Survival of
the fittest' and 'The fittest survive' have two different meanings.
The first is a mere noun-phrase; the name of a phenomenon. It is not a
claim, or assertion, therefore certainly not a tautology. The second
is a statement about what happens. We may at least begin to consider
whether it be a tautology.
By attempting to explain, at length, how 'survival of the fittest' is
not a tautology, one is unwittingly conceding that the matter is less
obvious than it is. It is not a tautology, for it is not a statement.
That is all.
By trying to explain, at length, how 'the fittest survive' is not a
tautology, one is unwittingly implying that it is the main part of the
theory, whereas in truth it is merely a premise. It would not matter
of 'the fittest survive' were a tautology. That would still not render
'The survival of the fittest influences the course of a speces'
evolution' a tautology.
If one needs to explain why 'the fittest survive' is not a tautology,
one must refer directly to the implied second thing, the thing being
befitted: the environment. Only then does the non-tautological meaning
become plain. But one must add that even a non-tautological statement
such as 'the fittest survive', does not comprise Darwin's main,
original and controversial idea.
'The fittest survive' is not a point worth making, unless it is a
premise to a much greater and less obvious theory. By defending 'The
fittest survive' at length, one is giving the impression that you
believe that it is a point worth making in isolation, when it is not.
This is the where the illusion of tautology comes from.
> Second, SoF does not determine the course of evolution since
> there are other factors including drift.
SoF influences the course of evolution. Matter resolved.
> Third, you have rewritten the phrase, without providing
> supporting evidence that that is what Darwin meant,
Darwin made his meaning plain in his writing. I could provide
supporting evidence, but I can't be bothered. We've both read the book
(probably), and we both know what he meant.
> or what
> modern evolutionary biologists mean. ย Consequently, if I made
> the change you are suggesting people who followed your advice
> would be open to the attack of having made an unjustifiable
> alteration to a central tenant of the ToE.
>
> > ...are two different claims. A) may appear to be a tautology, but only
> > B) is the actual ToE. It would not matter if A) were a tautology. As
> > long as A) means something at all, B is not a tautology. And B is the
> > ToE.
>
> Well, of course B isn't the actual ToE, since speciation
> (usually caused by isolation) is logically distinct from NS/SoF,
> so I guess you meant "is part of". ย But in any case, I cannot
> just arbitrarily rewrite SoF and declare that creationists must
> accept my new wording. ย They won't do that of course, and
> recommending that other evolutionists try that seems like an
> invitation to disaster.
But the rewrite of Darwin's original wording is a way of elucidating
why his words were not tautological to begin with. "The survival of
those befitting the environment", for example, is a perfectly
appropriate rewording which works with Darwin, not against him.
> > As it happens, A) is just another way of saying 'The environment
> > influences who does and doesn't reproduce'. This isn't a tautology,
> > but it isn't a very novel or interesting idea either. But that doesn't
> > matter because that's not what the theory is. The survival of the
> > fittest is just an element within the theory.
>
> This leads to another problem. ย As you will have noticed I have
> argued (actually it comes from Harshperson) that the attack on
> SoF narrowly defined is an attack on what most creationists
> already accept (that species adapt to their environment). ย This
> and probably other good arguments would need to be thrown out
> if I change to defending the entire ToE.
Yes, that is their gross hypocrisy: accepting microevolution and while
claiming that microevolution can only be described in tautological
terms.
> Finally, as mentioned in my previous post, I really do not see
> that I need to make such a circuitous argument when Darwin's own
> words tell us that NS and SoF were intended as synonyms, so
> rather than pointing to a new phrase that I've made up and
> saying it's not a tautology, I can just point to NS to say it's
> not.
'Survival of the fittest' is a rather imperfect description of NS, for
two reasons. Firstly, it doesn't identify the thing being befitted.
Secondly, the central thing here is reproduction, not survival. If
somehow one can reproduce after death, evolution goes on.
--Iain
Walter Bushell
<e1399a7b-fede-4a0f...@k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
"richardal...@googlemail.com"
<richardal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> FALSEHOOD #18.
> No, Tony. It's the scientists. Your criteria make the Pope an atheist.
> Your rationalisation that he is a liar hardly adds weight to your
> argument.
As far as I know he is. You really think the Church would put a
*believer* in that position?
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Eric Root
> On Oct 25, 3:02ย pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2009-10-25 12:41:02 -0700, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> said:
>
> > > On Oct 25, 1:16ย pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > [cut to a specific point]
>
> > >> A recent version of the tautology argument can be found in
> > >> Ann Coulter's 2005 book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism"
> > >> where she says:
>
> > >> ย "The second prong of Darwin's "theory" is generally nothing but
> > >> ย a circular statement: Through the process of natural
> > >> ย selection, the "fittest" survive. ย Who are the "fittest"? ย The
> > >> ย ones who survive! ย Why look - it happens every time! ย The
> > >> ย "survival of the fittest" would be a joke if it weren't part
> > >> ย Scientific Community. ย The beauty of having a scientific
> > >> ย theory that's a tautology is that it can't be disproved."
>
> > > Ann is exactly correct. She is also very perceptive when she mentions
> > > there is a fanatical cult infesting the Scientific Community.
>
> > > Who is to say if a stronger species did not die out to allow survival
> > > of the weakest in some cases? No one really knows the unknown
> > > variables that were in play on the earth millions of years ago. Any
> > > one of those unknowns could have allowed for the weakest to survive
> > > instead.
>
> > > infantile helplessness. Infantile helplessness is a direct challenge
> > > to Darwinism. So much so that unless Darwinists can explain
> > > "altricial" births properly, Creationists can say Darwinism is
> > > disproved on that basis alone.
>
> > > into the forefront with arguments in his books that, on first
> > > appearance, seen logical, even seem acceptable. But evolution is all
> > > smoke and mirrors. It is nothing more then a dog and pony show.
> > > Evolutionists are like those cute little seals blowing their cute
> > > little horns that play Dawkin-Tunes on golden pond. But if you listen
> > > to the song they are playing carefully you will notice it is out of
> > > tune. It does not harmonize with the rest of Earth or with all of the
> > > other processes on the earth. It does not even harmonize within
> > > itself.
>
> > > IOW evolution is not a natural theory. If forces the round pegs of
> > > valid information into the square holes of disinformation.
>
> > The resolute determination with which you resist education would be
> > admirable, in a weird sort of way, if it weren't so pathological.
>
> > RLC- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> really knows the unknown variables that were in play on the earth
>
> Today scientists tell us that the Swine Flu may kill those that are
> healthy and younger before it kills the older and weaker. Not because
> of a prior immunity but because the younger have a healthier immune
> system that would set of a "storm" of inflammation in the lungs
> causing a secondary disease.
>
> millions of years ago which allowed the survival of the weakest
> instead of survival of the fittest. Thereby effectivly destroying
> Darwin's Survival Of The Fittest notion.
>
> be..
>
> Y
> ย ย O
> ย ย ย U
>
>
>
> It is all about connecting the dots with...
>
LOL, we have admitted many times that we don't have all the answers,
so, the All Stealing Lie is just lying again.
Eric Root
Eric Root
And what does he do in the woods?
Eric Root
Dan Listermann
"Eric Root" <er...@swva.net> wrote in message news:5e724937-5675-4d2c-afdd->
> Is the Pope an atheist or is he a liar?
>
> RF
>
>
>
> > Regards,
> > T Pagano
>
> > snip
"And what does he do in the woods?"
Are bears Catholic?
.
el cid
> 1. ย Natural Selection is an inappropriate anthropomorphism.
> Nature---that is, natural law conjoined to chance----does nothing
> analogous to an intelligent agent making selections. ย
I was tempted to agree. Yet the problem you cite is centered
on the point to be understood, and so, while confusion is
possible and likely, the opportunity for insight is there. I
vote to keep it for the advanced students.
Explicitly, the notion of "intelligence" is mistakenly added
by the reader when they see "selection". The point is that
selection can occur without intelligence, just as with a
sieve. It is the mistake of the lazy thinker/reader to jump
to the conclusion that selection requires intelligence. Thanks
for adding this point. The obvious dove-tail into the whole
ID nonsense is fun.
> 2. ย The label "natural selection," per se, does not refer to some
> observable set of attributes of nature or even some naturalistic
> process. ย Therefore it has little, if any, scientific value.
I disagree. It refers to the mathematics of differential reproductive
success over multiple generations whenever there is a reproductive
bias. That effect over multiple generation is a natural phenomenon.
It cannot be avoided. And by this I mean both the mathematical
consequence over multiple generations and the necessary bias
toward some phenotypes over others.
> 3. ย The label "fitness" is also not a directly observable attribute of
> any biological entity, but an a posteriori, situational, book keeping
> of the differential survival and differential reproductive rates of
> individuals within a particular breeding population. ย
This is the hardest point.
There is a natural notion of fitness which is basically out best
guess at what would confer an advantage of one phenotype over
another. The reality is that we are often mistaken in our
guess a priori, especially in mostly stable environments.
In stable environments, 2nd order and even third order
effects become important.
Further, fitness has been redefined to be the result of generation
to generation success so as to enable population genetics to
use "fitness" as a key variable. This brings mathematics into
evolution and that is a good thing.
> 4. The fit survive and reproduce because the survivors are fit.
> "Survival of the Fitest" is unavoidably tautologous. ย If the atheists
> were smart they would remove "SoF" from their lexicon and purge it
> from the schools. ย It makes for good theatre in those over-simplified
It is a problem that people think they understand before they do.
I agree this is a problem. It needs more work in the educational
process but it will probably always remain. That's OK. Education
can be a continuous process.
> Discovery Channel evolutionary fables and nothing more.
> 5. My opinion is that Darwin undoubtedly had Malthus's theory in mind
> when he used terms like, "survival of the fitest." ย
Bad place for an off the cuff opinion when the history of
the term and Darwin's usage of it is well known.
> It was Malthus's
> theory which "sparked" Darwin to create his Theory of Evolution.
> Recall that Malthus considered the struggle for limited resources as a
> driving force; he argued that populations will consume every resource
> within some circumscribed area causing a relentless struggle for
> survival. ย This "Malthusian" struggle for survival under conditions of
> dwindling resources was considered by Darwin to be a driving force of
> transformational evolution.
And here it comes.
> 6. ย We know today that Malthus's theory is quite false; that is, most
> ecological systems are balanced. ย
You are confusing concepts.
It's like being puzzled that legs are just long enough to reach
the ground, if you legs were shorter you would be floating
in air!
Systems reach a balance after a time. The processes of
getting to that balance is rather informative. Take something
out of the system and you may see major shifts in the
balance. But this is all well known and you are either
being deliberately ignorant or disingenuous.
>The driving force upon which Darwin
> relied for his theory is false. ย No such relentless Malthusian
> pressure exists (at least not as a general rule).
Terms like "pressure" are so deceptive. Whenever more
offspring are born than will likely survive to reproduce, there
is indeed a "pressure" for selection. How much bias there
is between phenotypes determines how much fitness
based selection takes place. The spread between
phenotypic fitness will reduce rapidly because the
compounding math of evolution works so well. Don't
let the fact that evolution has already done most of
its work in a particular population make you think
it hasn't done work in the past.
> 7. ย "SoF" was never an observable attribute, was always largely
> tautologous, never had any scientific probabative value and relied on
> Malthus's false theory. ย Yet Darwin's theory lived on. ย Why? ย
It remains observable, the tautology reflects its truth and its
value is seen in that, despite its obvious truth, some still
seem to not understand or even deny it. Thanks for playing.
Your denial of the obvious is part of the proof of the value
ion stating something that is mathematically trivial.
> Because
> Darwin's theory never really depended upon it. ย In other words this
> is much ado about nothing---certainly nothing scientific. ย When the
> atheists are terrified of useless verbalism the good ship ediacara
> must be taking on water.
Your poetic whimsy is wanting.
> 8. ย Anyone taking bets whether the philosopher-comedian Wilkins or the
> hall monitor Harshman will go down with the ship or be making
> miraculous conversions? ย
You are ever the valuable foil.
Friar Broccoli
> On Oct 26, 10:59 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 26, 5:09 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> On Oct 26, 12:24 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I do not see that tacking on "is what determines the course of
>>>> evolution" substantively effects the (admittedly silly) attack
>>>> on clause "the survival of the fittest". Can you explain your
>>>> thinking here in more detail please?
>
>>> The verb is different.
>
>>> a) The fittest survive...
>>> b) This survival determines the course of evolution.
>
>> I see a number of problems here:
>
>> First, one of the main problems with "survival of the fittest"
>> is that it can be misread to mean survival of individuals rather
>> than survival of traits carried by those individuals into the
>> next generation. Your rewrite does not correct this key
>> problem leading to misunderstandings of what SoF means.
.
> But it may as well refer to the fittest individuals. No trait is fit
> in isolation from other traits in the same individual. The full set of
> traits in an individual = the individual.
I don't believe this interpretation is supportable since
neither individuals nor their unique package of traits ever
*survive*. In sexually reproducing species all that survives,
are the individual traits passed from generation to generation.
Certainly we can not make meaningful measurements of the
fitness of unique individuals, because we can never have more
than one data point.
> There is, however, yet another quibble to be made here. 'Survival of
> the fittest' and 'The fittest survive' have two different meanings.
> The first is a mere noun-phrase; the name of a phenomenon. It is not a
> claim, or assertion, therefore certainly not a tautology. The second
> is a statement about what happens. We may at least begin to consider
> whether it be a tautology.
>
> By attempting to explain, at length, how 'survival of the fittest' is
> not a tautology, one is unwittingly conceding that the matter is less
> obvious than it is. It is not a tautology, for it is not a statement.
> That is all.
The proposed faq makes no particular effort to show that SoF is
not a tautology, only that it is not a circular definition
(which is one form of tautology). Tautologies can be grouped
in a number of different ways, but if we grant that SoF is a
tautology it is in the group that includes mathematical
formulas which can be compared with reality and shown to be
true or false.
Part of the problem is definition switching by creationists
between various different meanings for which we use the same
word. You are the third person in this thread who has not seen
this so it is obvious that I have not made this point
sufficiently clearly in the faq. I will try to fix this. I
will also try to bring out the non-circularity better as well.
> By trying to explain, at length, how 'the fittest survive' is not a
> tautology, one is unwittingly implying that it is the main part of the
> theory, whereas in truth it is merely a premise. It would not matter
> of 'the fittest survive' were a tautology. That would still not render
> 'The survival of the fittest influences the course of a speces'
> evolution' a tautology.
SoF isn't *merely* a premise it is a key observation.
It is so obvious that creationists rarely deny it, so
there is simply no point in running away from it.
But, even assuming your argument was better than the direct
one; you have argued with creationists enough to know that
this tact simply will not work, since the creationists will
want to refocus on the "premise" in isolation. Attacking
premises is entirely valid, so your reformulation will achieve
nothing.
> If one needs to explain why 'the fittest survive' is not a tautology,
> one must refer directly to the implied second thing, the thing being
> befitted: the environment. Only then does the non-tautological meaning
> become plain. But one must add that even a non-tautological statement
> such as 'the fittest survive', does not comprise Darwin's main,
> original and controversial idea.
No "implied second thing" is needed. Simply pointing out that
fitness is a variable which can be replaced by individual
characteristics makes it evident that "survival of the
furriest" for example, is not a tautology or a circular definition.
> 'The fittest survive' is not a point worth making, unless it is a
> premise to a much greater and less obvious theory. By defending 'The
> fittest survive' at length, one is giving the impression that you
> believe that it is a point worth making in isolation, when it is not.
> This is the where the illusion of tautology comes from.
Again, SoF is such a powerful observation that creationists
rarely deny the fact, and are forced to retreat to the
position that variation cannot increase from undirected
mutations.
>> Second, SoF does not determine the course of evolution since
>> there are other factors including drift.
>
> SoF influences the course of evolution. Matter resolved.
>
>> Third, you have rewritten the phrase, without providing
>> supporting evidence that that is what Darwin meant,
>
> Darwin made his meaning plain in his writing. I could provide
> supporting evidence, but I can't be bothered. We've both read the book
> (probably), and we both know what he meant.
I haven't read Origins, but granting you are correct, doesn't
help because you are suggesting a circuitous argument when a
clear and direct argument is more effective.
I don't think it is hypocrisy, just blindness. I didn't see it
till Harshman pointed it out to me, so I have no reason to
expect a creationist to notice it. They become hypocrites
after it has been pointed out, assuming they understood and
remembered, neither of which is likely.
>> Finally, as mentioned in my previous post, I really do not see
>> that I need to make such a circuitous argument when Darwin's own
>> words tell us that NS and SoF were intended as synonyms, so
>> rather than pointing to a new phrase that I've made up and
>> saying it's not a tautology, I can just point to NS to say it's
>> not.
>
> 'Survival of the fittest' is a rather imperfect description of NS, for
> two reasons. Firstly, it doesn't identify the thing being befitted.
> Secondly, the central thing here is reproduction, not survival. If
> somehow one can reproduce after death, evolution goes on.
Propagation_of_the_most_adaptive_characteristics seems to me to
be a better, more direct reading, since it does nothing except
make the meaning of the original words clearer. To John
Harshman: do you like that phrase?
I will conclude with a more general point. I liked your
suggestion when you first made it several months ago, but
abandoned it when I realized that I couldn't make it work since
creationists would just force me back to the original phrase.
On the other hand I don't think your argument is actually bad,
I just think it is unlikely to convince anyone.
More broadly, I don't see the FAQ as the statement of any
particular argument. In my view its purpose is to describe
the issues clearly and understandably so people can argue the
case without being unexpected blindsided by a novel
presentation. To do this it is important to deal directly with
the core issues, here SoF and tautology, and not get
sidetracked by secondary issues. (It was for this reason that
Harshman encouraged me to get rid of the falsification stuff
and Wilkins urged me to dump the ontology points).
In my view you are essentially requesting me to broaden the
discussion to include more aspects of evolution. But that's
not what this FAQ is about. It's about tautologies and SoF,
and that is what the reader has come to learn about. The
entire argument may be (actually is) irrelevant, but its not my
job to avoid the core ideas for that reason.
On the other hand I am finding this discussion very useful
because it has drawn my attention to several areas where I was
not as clear as I could have been.
Thanks
ivar
> On Oct 26, 9:40 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Creationists attack the ToE by claiming,as Ann Coulter did, "The beauty
> > of having a scientific theory that's a tautology is that it can't be
> > disproved."
>
> ย Much of the point of my discussion was to show that the type of
> ย tautology they are refering to (repetition of meaning) CAN be
> ย disproved.
I don't believe that the creationists are using the "Semantic" version
of a tautology. I think that they think that they are using the
"Logic" version.
Here is a brief summary of their argument:
a) "Natural Selection" and "the Survival of the Fittest" are
different names for the same process.
b) But who are the fittest? Answer: the survivors.
c) Hence, the basic prediction of Natural Selection is that the
survivors will survive, i.e., the survivors are the survivors.
d) This has the logical form: "X is X." "X is X" is always true. It
is impossible to devise a test that might show that X is not X.
e) Hence, Natural Selection is a (logical) tautology that cannot be
false.
A "semantic" tautology is merely a statement that is unnecessarily
wordy because it includes words that repeat the same idea. A semantic
tautology could be true or false. It could be testable.
I gather that some philosophers (e.g., the early Popper) suspect that
some defenders of evolution use arguments that aren't much better than
those used by the creationists to attack evolution.
The critical issue is not whether "natural selection" or "the survival
of the fittest" is a tautology. Rather, the critical issue even for
the creationists is whether natural selection is testable and, hence,
a legitimate scientific concept.
Ivar
Iain
Here's the thing...
The fittest are not defined as 'the survivors'. The fittest are
defined as 'those who are fit to survive'.
The fittest can be _recognised_ by their survival, but not _defined_
by it.
But, although this takes us away from it being a tautology, it does
result in the idea 'The survival of those most fit to survive'. On its
own, this isn't a point worth making, which is why Creationists
(mistakenly thinking that this is the whole theory), feel that the
idea is genuinely lacking in substance.
One must immediately follow this idea up by putting it where it belong
in the theory.
--Iain
Friar Broccoli
> On Oct 26, 1:19 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 26, 9:40 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > Creationists attack the ToE by claiming,as Ann Coulter did, "The beauty
> > > of having a scientific theory that's a tautology is that it can't be
> > > disproved."
>
> > Much of the point of my discussion was to show that the type of
> > tautology they are refering to (repetition of meaning) CAN be
> > disproved.
>
> I don't believe that the creationists are using the "Semantic" version
> of a tautology. I think that they think that they are using the
> "Logic" version.
>
> Here is a brief summary of their argument:
>
> a) "Natural Selection" and "the Survival of the Fittest" are
> different names for the same process.
>
> b) But who are the fittest? Answer: the survivors.
>
> c) Hence, the basic prediction of Natural Selection is that the
> survivors will survive, i.e., the survivors are the survivors.
>
> d) This has the logical form: "X is X." "X is X" is always true. It
> is impossible to devise a test that might show that X is not X.
This is a quick response. I am sure I can do better.
a) "Mass energy equivalence" and "E=mc^2" are
different names for the same process.
b) But who are the mc_squarest? Answer: the E_est.
c) Hence, the basic prediction of Mass energy equivalence is that the
E_est are E_est, i.e., that E is E.
d) This has the logical form: "X is X." "X is X" is always true. It
is impossible to devise a test that might show that X is not X.
No. Not after you have allowed the substitution.
Right now this looks like a good form of the point, so
I will try and see if I can directly address this substitution
form in the FAQ. The problem again is length.
Thanks.
ivar
>
> ย This is a quick response. ย I am sure I can do better.
>
> a) ย "Mass energy equivalence" and "E=mc^2" are
> ย ย different names for the same process.
>
> b) ย But who are the mc_squarest? ย Answer: the E_est.
>
> c) ย Hence, the basic prediction of Mass energy equivalence is that the
> ย ย E_est are E_est, i.e., that E is E.
>
> d) ย This has the logical form: "X is X." ย "X is X" is always true. ย It
> ย ย is impossible to devise a test that might show that X is not X.
>
> ย No. ย Not after you have allowed the substitution.
"E=mc^2" is not a tautology. It is a scientific theory. It could be
false. A-bombs when tested do go BANG but, conceivably, in some
circumstances, e.g., near a black hole, they don't.
"W_abs_ = N_after_/N_before_" is a tautology because it is a
definition. Definitions are always true.
People have argued that "F=ma" is a definition, implying that it is a
tautology. Their reasoning (and I may be wrong about this) was that,
historically, there was no way to measure the force of gravity except
by measuring mass and acceleration and calculating the force.
Regardless, Ann Coulter and other creationists are not saying "E=mc^2"
or "F=ma" are tautologies. They are saying that "the survivors are
survivors" is a tautology. And, it is hard to argue with that claim.
Of course, this does not mean that "Natural Selection" is a
tautology. But, then, one needs a statement of the theory of Natural
Selection that is something more than "survivors are survivors."
Arguably, this is vicious post as requested in post 1 of this thread.
Ivar
All-seeing-I
> All-seeing-I wrote:
> > On Oct 25, 3:02 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 2009-10-25 12:41:02 -0700, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> said:
>
> >>> [cut to a specific point]
> >>>> A recent version of the tautology argument can be found in
> >>>> Ann Coulter's 2005 book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism"
> >>>> where she says:
> >>>> ย "The second prong of Darwin's "theory" is generally nothing but
> >>>> ย a circular statement: Through the process of natural
> >>>> ย selection, the "fittest" survive. ย Who are the "fittest"? ย The
> >>>> ย ones who survive! ย Why look - it happens every time! ย The
> >>>> ย "survival of the fittest" would be a joke if it weren't part
> >>>> ย of the belief system of a fanatical cult infesting the
> >>>> ย theory that's a tautology is that it can't be disproved."
> selection happening in any individual case in the remote past. But that
> point has nothing to do with whether natural selection is a tautology.
> (It isn't). Nor does it have anything to do with whether evolution
> actually happened in the remote past. (It did.)
>
> And you mistake the claims of evolutionary biology. We generally don't
> try to show selection happening in the remote past, only in the present.
> We can infer long past selection only from DNA sequences, and only
> statistically. And we can ask, if similar events have happened many
> times, we can infer the factors correlated with those events. None of
> this is what you think.
You can ask that but you have no way of showing it; No way to verify
it with tests.
Evolutionary science makes correlations from what can be observed
today with what you think may have happened in the past. Then an
inference that has to take place based on the available data to arrive
at your conclusions. But that does not necessarily mean you have all
available data. Which was my point.
Hypothetically, You may find a fossil that is 50 MYO and then another
that is 10 MYO and then, based on modern observations and DNA, infer
that the two are related. But your inference is based on very little
data considering the amount of time that has passed. In actuality you
have no idea what was taking place on a dynamic earth back then. To
make such a claim as "survival of the fittest", while an appealing
idea; is simply not reality.
I have just shown you that the survival of the fittest notion can be
proved inaccurate because of "unknowns" that may have existed millions
of years ago like the swine flu.
You need "survival of the fittest" because it is a key component of
Darwin's ToE.
You also need divergence. But there is no observations of that either.
Both are inferred on data that is incomplete and inconclusive. Couple
that with a dynamic earth and no one can say with any certainty what
happened millions of years ago.
All you can do is "infer" and "correlate" as you have clearly stated
above,
Now, common sense would dictate the more data available to you the
stronger your correlations and inferences will be. Well, your data is
spread out over many millions of years; Some of it is incomplete
unless you have evidence of all the viruses from millions of years
ago.
I hardly call data spread out over millions of years strong evidence
for the type of evolution that would produce a human from a distant
ape-like creature via divergence and survival of the fittest. IOW the
corelations and inferences are interpretations based on weak
evidences.
>
> > Today scientists tell us that the Swine Flu may kill those that are
> > healthy and younger before it kills the older and weaker. Not because
> > of a prior immunity but because the younger have a healthier immune
> > system that would set of a "storm" of inflammation in the lungs
> > causing a secondary disease.
>
> > Clearly that is a case of survival of the weakest by natural
> > selection; And, could be an example of an unknown that existed
> > millions of years ago which allowed the survival of the weakest
> > instead of survival of the fittest. Thereby effectivly destroying
> > Darwin's Survival Of The Fittest notion.
>
> Again, you confuse what fitness means. Whatever gives an individual an
> advantage is fitter in that circumstance than whatever doesn't.
> Characters that increase fitness in one situation may indeed decrease it
> in another.
So in the case of the swine flu the "fittest" is actually the weakest?
Now THAT is amusing. But I am not suprised.
The old and weak are now the ones selected fit to survive, but, the
old and the weak have less of a chance to reproduce.
Ain't it evolution that stresses those more able to reproduce are
generally the ones most fit to survive? Why yes! I think it is ToE
that said that.
Conclusion: The entire theory of evolution is a contradiction. It
becomes necessary to keep evolution in separate pieces so no one
notices the contradictions.
>
> The first step toward correcting your ignorance would be admitting it.
heh... wow. You should get an award. 3 tricks in one sentence. No
wonder you are 'king-o-the-apes'
Evolutionist Trickery #216
"When you cannot answer simply claim it is THEM that does not
understand"
Evolutionist Trickery #790b
"Hide your ignorance by claiming the other person is ignorant"
Evolutionist Trickery #27
"Redefing words is necessary to understand evolution"
OK Einstein. Define (or should I say REdefine) the word "fit" and
"survival" for the class.
All-seeing-I
Evolutionist Trickery #1c
"When we have no answer, we can make lame jokes"
All-seeing-I
OK. Let's flip a coin
Heads --- man was created. Tails --man evolved
[flip]
Sorry K. It's heads.
wf3h
>
> - Show quoted text -
meaningless.
wf3h
> On Oct 25, 8:59ย pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
And we can ask, if similar events have happened many
> > times, we can infer the factors correlated with those events. None of
> > this is what you think.
>
> You can ask that but you have no way of showing it; No way to verify
> it with tests.
>
> Evolutionary science makes correlations from what can be observed
> today with what you think may have happened in the past.
all science does this. chemistry does it. physics does it. that's one
reason we know the methodology of evolution is scientific, as opposed
to creationism which relies on authority, gossip and interpretation of
'ancient texts.'
>
> Hypothetically, You may find a fossil that is 50 MYO and then another
> that is 10 MYO and then, based on modern observations and DNA, infer
> that the two are related. But your inference is based on very little
> data considering the amount of time that has passed. In actuality you
> have no idea what was taking place on a dynamic earth back then.
actually we do. we know the mechanism of evolution. and, from
geology...an independent science...we can have some idea of what was
happening on earth then. the sciences check each other. which is
another reason evolution is science....while creationism is not.
To
> make such a claim as "survival of the fittest", while an appealing
> idea; is simply not reality.
in your opinion. but you have a tendency to cherry pick information
and to distort the methods of science, all in the name of some
arbitary view of religion
>
> I have just shown you that the survival of the fittest notion can be
> proved inaccurate because of "unknowns" that may have existed millions
> of years ago like the swine flu.
which, of course, is wrong. we can test 'survival of the fittest' in a
lab. you can't do that with creationism. and we SEE the results of
evolution in the fossil record. we match what we SEE and TEST in the
lab with comparable results we SEE in the fossil record. and, like any
science, we conclude that what we see in nature is due to the same
processes we test in the lab...that's how chemistry, physics and
evolution work. they're all sciences
creationism is not.
>
> You need "survival of the fittest" because it is a key component of
> Darwin's ToE.
> You also need divergence. But there is no observations of that either.
sure there is. the hawthorne fruitfly is undergoing divergence even as
we speak, as predicted by the theory of evolution. we can SEE this
happening.
we have NEVER seen 'creation' take place at all and no creationist can
tell us how it works.
again, you just ignore the data. you handwave it away saying it
doesn't fit with your religious ideas, so it's wrong. but you have no
data, nor a method to demonstrate this. so your claim is
unsubstantiated.
>
> All you can do is "infer" and "correlate" as you have clearly stated
> above,
which is how chemistry, physics and evolution work. all sciences do
this. you simply don't know science.
>
> ย I hardly call data spread out over millions of years strong evidence
> for the type of evolution that would produce a human from a distant
> ape-like creature via divergence and survival of the fittest. ย IOW the
> corelations and inferences are interpretations based on weak
> evidences.
really? lab tests are 'inferences'? since when? tests in nature are
'inferences?" since when? short term evaluations over a few million
years are inferences? since when?
but we KNOW creationism is wrong. if you question the evidence for
chemistry or evolution, then you MUST disregard creationism because we
have NO way to test what the gossipers claimed they say in ancient
texts.
>
> > Again, you confuse what fitness means. Whatever gives an individual an
> > advantage is fitter in that circumstance than whatever doesn't.
> > Characters that increase fitness in one situation may indeed decrease it
> > in another.
>
> So in the case of the swine flu the "fittest" is actually the weakest?
> Now THAT is amusing. But I am not suprised.
what's amusing is watching you spin the evidence in support of your
religion. if people who've survived a previous encounter with a virus
reproduce, then they pass this genetic capability on to later
generations...as evolution predicts. john is right and you are just
playing word games
compare that to creationism which attributes survival to ghosts,
goblins, sin, sacrifices, or other trash. that idea has, for
thousands of years, failed to tell us anything about nature at all.
>
> The old and weak are now the ones selected fit to survive, but, the
> old and the weak have less of a chance to reproduce.
wrong. what is 'old?'. what is 'weak?' if someone surives a virus, he
reproduces. if someone does not, they can't reproduce. that's what
darwin predicted and what's observed
creationism? it would have NO idea why one survived and the other
didn't.
>
> Ain't it evolution that stresses those more able to reproduce are
> generally the ones most fit to survive? Why yes! I think it is ToE
> that said that.
>
> Conclusion: The entire theory of evolution is a contradiction. It
> becomes necessary to keep evolution in separate pieces so no one
> notices the contradictions.
you yourself just demonstrated why it's NOT a contradiction. what you
DID demonstrate is you either don't know how evolution works OR choose
to ignore the evidence.
it's obvious you do both. because of your religious beliefs you're
unable to understand how science works. you select and interpretation
science methods to distort them, just like you do with history.
and you do so because you're a creationist.
> >
> Evolutionist Trickery #27
> "Redefing words is necessary to understand evolution"
all you have to do for creationism to succeed as science is tell us
where, in all of its 2000 year history, we can see creation at work
you can't.
bye bye!!
Burkhard
>
>>> Today scientists tell us that the Swine Flu may kill those that are
>>> healthy and younger before it kills the older and weaker. Not because
>>> of a prior immunity but because the younger have a healthier immune
>>> system that would set of a "storm" of inflammation in the lungs
>>> causing a secondary disease.
>>> Clearly that is a case of survival of the weakest by natural
>>> selection; And, could be an example of an unknown that existed
>>> millions of years ago which allowed the survival of the weakest
>>> instead of survival of the fittest. Thereby effectivly destroying
>>> Darwin's Survival Of The Fittest notion.
>> Again, you confuse what fitness means. Whatever gives an individual an
>> advantage is fitter in that circumstance than whatever doesn't.
>> Characters that increase fitness in one situation may indeed decrease it
>> in another.
>
> So in the case of the swine flu the "fittest" is actually the weakest?
> Now THAT is amusing. But I am not suprised.
>
Why is it amusing? The ToE does not identify "fittest" with "physically
strongest, even though extremely ill informed people sometimes make this
claim. In a society where the strongest and most aggressive go out and
kill each other in wars, and the weak but articulate poets stay behind
with the females, the reproductive chances of the poets are much higher.
> The old and weak are now the ones selected fit to survive, but, the
> old and the weak have less of a chance to reproduce.
>
Less of a chance than the dead? Hardly.
> Ain't it evolution that stresses those more able to reproduce are
> generally the ones most fit to survive? Why yes! I think it is ToE
> that said that.
Indeed. And the old and weak still have a higher chance to reproduce
than the dead - though it may of course be a species going towards
extinction if the reproductive rate of these is to low.
>
> Conclusion: The entire theory of evolution is a contradiction. It
> becomes necessary to keep evolution in separate pieces so no one
> notices the contradictions.
>
>
Conclusion: at least a very basic knowledge of the ToE is necessary to
criticise it without making a fool of yourself.
Friar Broccoli
> On Oct 28, 7:28 am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> This is a quick response. I am sure I can do better.
>
>> a) "Mass energy equivalence" and "E=mc^2" are
>> different names for the same process.
>
>> b) But who are the mc_squarest? Answer: the E_est.
>
>> c) Hence, the basic prediction of Mass energy equivalence is that the
>> E_est are E_est, i.e., that E is E.
>
>> d) This has the logical form: "X is X." "X is X" is always true. It
>> is impossible to devise a test that might show that X is not X.
>
>> No. Not after you have allowed the substitution.
>
> "E=mc^2" is not a tautology. It is a scientific theory. It could be
> false. A-bombs when tested do go BANG but, conceivably, in some
> circumstances, e.g., near a black hole, they don't.
E=mc^2 assumes as true that mass and energy are convertible one
to another, as confirmed by observation, and expresses that
relationship. This would not change at the edge of a black
hole, although the exact ratios may change possibly over time,
or perhaps under other special circumstances.
In any case E is thus defined by mc^2, or m by E/c^2 and this
will always be true, if the underlying assumption about the mass
energy relationship is true.
> "W_abs_ = N_after_/N_before_" is a tautology because it is a
> definition. Definitions are always true.
Point1: In the same sense that P=T/V is always true?
Point2: "W_abs_ = N_after_/N_before_" assumes as true that
animals adapt to their environment, which is *observationally*
confirmed (long hair in cold climates, adaptive coloration in
changing environments etc) and the above formula expresses that
relationship, although the ratios DO change depending on how
drastic the environmental pressure is.
> People have argued that "F=ma" is a definition, implying that it is a
> tautology. Their reasoning (and I may be wrong about this) was that,
> historically, there was no way to measure the force of gravity except
> by measuring mass and acceleration and calculating the force.
As far as I know (and I could be wrong) all existing methods for
measuring force reduce to ma, so the definition is sound except
for the relativistic modifications.
> Regardless, Ann Coulter and other creationists are not saying "E=mc^2"
> or "F=ma" are tautologies.
Because it would make it obvious that their positions are
ridiculous.
> They are saying that "the survivors are
> survivors" is a tautology. And, it is hard to argue with that claim.
There is no requirement that SoF not be a tautology, only that
if it is one, it is one that is dependent on *observation*, not
on arbitrary definitions. Again, "All tuna are fish" may be a
tautology, but it is an observationally dependent one.
> Of course, this does not mean that "Natural Selection" is a
> tautology. But, then, one needs a statement of the theory of Natural
> Selection that is something more than "survivors are survivors."
SoF is not about *individuals* who survive, it is about the
*characteristics* that enable survivors to survive. Note that
the formula above is not about the fitness of individuals, it is
about the fitness of characteristics.
.
> Arguably, this is vicious post as requested in post 1 of this thread.
Yes, and I find it very helpful. Hopefully it will aid me in
improving the FAQ.
John Harshman
Here you are wrong. You could do the concentrated changes test, or the
independent contrasts test, or any of a variety of others. There's quite
a sizeable literature on this, you know. Or, rather, you don't know.
> Evolutionary science makes correlations from what can be observed
> today with what you think may have happened in the past. Then an
> inference that has to take place based on the available data to arrive
> at your conclusions. But that does not necessarily mean you have all
> available data. Which was my point.
If that was your point, you forgot to state it. And of course you have
all available data. That's what "available" means. You don't have all
possible data, which is perhaps what you thought you were saying. But
this is always true, no matter what the question. Evolution is no
different in this respect from any other science, or from everyday life.
And yet we do know some things.
> Hypothetically, You may find a fossil that is 50 MYO and then another
> that is 10 MYO and then, based on modern observations and DNA, infer
> that the two are related. But your inference is based on very little
> data considering the amount of time that has passed. In actuality you
> have no idea what was taking place on a dynamic earth back then. To
> make such a claim as "survival of the fittest", while an appealing
> idea; is simply not reality.
I will first note that you have confused common descent with natural
selection. We don't have to know anything about natural selection to
reliably infer relationships. That paragraph is a non sequitur.
> I have just shown you that the survival of the fittest notion can be
> proved inaccurate because of "unknowns" that may have existed millions
> of years ago like the swine flu.
You have shown nothing at all.
> You need "survival of the fittest" because it is a key component of
> Darwin's ToE.
No, we need natural selection because it explains lots of data, mostly
the real-time sort you claim to like.
> You also need divergence. But there is no observations of that either.
> Both are inferred on data that is incomplete and inconclusive. Couple
> that with a dynamic earth and no one can say with any certainty what
> happened millions of years ago.
That's your intellectual nihilism talking again. If you require complete
data, it's not just the past we don't know anything about. It's
everything. Because we have no complete data.
> All you can do is "infer" and "correlate" as you have clearly stated
> above,
Yes, and that's how everything operates. It's how science and life work.
> Now, common sense would dictate the more data available to you the
> stronger your correlations and inferences will be. Well, your data is
> spread out over many millions of years; Some of it is incomplete
> unless you have evidence of all the viruses from millions of years
> ago.
>
> I hardly call data spread out over millions of years strong evidence
> for the type of evolution that would produce a human from a distant
> ape-like creature via divergence and survival of the fittest. IOW the
> corelations and inferences are interpretations based on weak
> evidences.
Again you have confused natural selection with common descent. It is
indeed difficult to determine just what environmental factors were
responsible for the separate adaptations (or presumed adaptation)
possessed by humans and chimps. But it's easy to tell that they're close
relatives. You don't need to invoke natural selection to do the latter.
>>> Today scientists tell us that the Swine Flu may kill those that are
>>> healthy and younger before it kills the older and weaker. Not because
>>> of a prior immunity but because the younger have a healthier immune
>>> system that would set of a "storm" of inflammation in the lungs
>>> causing a secondary disease.
>>> Clearly that is a case of survival of the weakest by natural
>>> selection; And, could be an example of an unknown that existed
>>> millions of years ago which allowed the survival of the weakest
>>> instead of survival of the fittest. Thereby effectivly destroying
>>> Darwin's Survival Of The Fittest notion.
>> Again, you confuse what fitness means. Whatever gives an individual an
>> advantage is fitter in that circumstance than whatever doesn't.
>> Characters that increase fitness in one situation may indeed decrease it
>> in another.
>
> So in the case of the swine flu the "fittest" is actually the weakest?
> Now THAT is amusing. But I am not suprised.
> The old and weak are now the ones selected fit to survive, but, the
> old and the weak have less of a chance to reproduce.
>
> Ain't it evolution that stresses those more able to reproduce are
> generally the ones most fit to survive? Why yes! I think it is ToE
> that said that.
>
> Conclusion: The entire theory of evolution is a contradiction. It
> becomes necessary to keep evolution in separate pieces so no one
> notices the contradictions.
This is your willful ignorance talking. The contradiction is entirely in
your head. If your claim is correct about the swine flu, then as a
selective agent it acts contrary to most other selection. It's no
surprise to see that. Many selective agents are opposed, and evolution
is replete with tradeoffs. Your contradiction exists only if you persist
in thinking that "fit" means "strong". If you're strong and swine flu
kills you, you aren't all that fit, as dead people have little chance of
reproducing.
>> The first step toward correcting your ignorance would be admitting it.
>
> heh... wow. You should get an award. 3 tricks in one sentence. No
> wonder you are 'king-o-the-apes'
>
> Evolutionist Trickery #216
> "When you cannot answer simply claim it is THEM that does not
> understand"
I did answer. That was extra advice.
> Evolutionist Trickery #790b
> "Hide your ignorance by claiming the other person is ignorant"
Do you really think you know more about the subject than I do?
> Evolutionist Trickery #27
> "Redefing words is necessary to understand evolution"
What words, exactly?
> OK Einstein. Define (or should I say REdefine) the word "fit" and
> "survival" for the class.
I've never liked "survival of the fittest" as a description of natural
selection. I prefer "differential reproductive success correlated with
genotype". But you are thinking of "fit" as something you can be by
sending off for that Charles Atlas course, when all it really means here
is a greater propensity for reproductive success.
And let's all face it. You really don't know much about this subject.
Steven L.
Agreed.
And I guess what I was saying was that some creationists take one side
of that issue, and other creationists take the other side of that issue;
both in their attempts to refute NS.
Some of them (e.g. "backspace" on this NG) claim that NS is not testable
(for macro-evolution of species) and hence it's not even a legitimate
scientific theory.
Others (e.g., "Seanpit" on this NG) have claimed that NS is provably false.
Perhaps there are two different kind of creationists: One type attempts
to refute NS by logic and semantics, the other type attempts to refute
NS by evidence.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
All-seeing-I
> All-seeing-I wrote:
>
> >>> Today scientists tell us that the Swine Flu may kill those that are
> >>> healthy and younger before it kills the older and weaker. Not because
> >>> of a prior immunity but because the younger have a healthier immune
> >>> system that would set of a "storm" of inflammation in the lungs
> >>> causing a secondary disease.
> >>> Clearly that is a case of survival of the weakest by natural
> >>> selection; And, could be an example of an unknown that existed
> >>> millions of years ago which allowed the survival of the weakest
> >>> instead of survival of the fittest. Thereby effectivly destroying
> >>> Darwin's Survival Of The Fittest notion.
> >> Again, you confuse what fitness means. Whatever gives an individual an
> >> advantage is fitter in that circumstance than whatever doesn't.
> >> Characters that increase fitness in one situation may indeed decrease it
> >> in another.
>
> > So in the case of the swine flu the "fittest" is actually the weakest?
> > Now THAT is amusing. But I am not suprised.
>
> Why is it amusing? The ToE does not identify "fittest" with "physically
> strongest, even though extremely ill informed people sometimes make this
> claim. In a society where the strongest and most aggressive go out and
> kill each other in wars, and the weak but articulate poets stay behind
> with the females, the reproductive chances of the poets are much higher.
A weak explanation. This is the /exception/ and not the rule. Also,
during times of war the children are also left behind and that insures
"survival of the fittest". In the case of a virus like the swine flu
we see evidence that children are targets too.
Also, War consumes the male resourses more then the female resourses.
But the swine flu is targeting the young as well as both sexes of the
species.
The rule of evolution and survival of the fittest is those with the
best chance to get their genes into the next generation pass their
traits onto the new generation thereby allowing evolution to take
place. With the younger women children and men gone the species may
not survive if it had to solely depend on the older of the population
to carry it forward.
And no one said anything about who was "physically" the strongest. But
it should be common knowledge that the younger and stronger of the
species has a better chance of passing their genes on. For evolution
to work, it needs all the hope and chances there are. Crossing one's
fingers helps too.
We witness with the swine flu a chance for the YOUNGER and stronger of
BOTH sexes to be killed off first.(if it were not for modern
medicine). The younger and stronger have a better chance at
reproduction if for no other reason they are younger and have more
years to reproduce.
If this type of virus was harsher and was world wide and happened two
hundred thousand years ago it would effectively killed off all of the
younger of the entire species; which in turn would severely limit the
reproduction of the species. How can that be misconstrued as the
fittest surviving?
But that is not the point. The point is there could have been any
number of unknown variables in play on an ancient and dynamic earth
that would impact the development of a species in ways that are
completely different then the ToE outlines.
Swine flu eludes to us an example of the most fittest not making it.
Now, one could argue that natural selection chose the older of the
species to survive. If that is the case then NS was attempting a
distinction and not an evolution for species survival. Because in
order for evolution to happen the best of the species gets it's genes
into the next generation, not the worse. The older of the species is
not generally considered to be the prime target for reproduction
within a species if for no other reason because of genetic damages
that has accumulated over time.
Either was you look at it the "survival of the fittest" is yet another
Achilles heel for evolution.
That is strike 2
1) You need survival of the fittest to be true for evolution to be
true
2) You need divergence to be true for evolution to be true.
There is no observed evidence of divergence that can be witnessed
other then variation. Now we see that other unknown variables could
impact species survival that contridicts the ToE.
[]
All-seeing-I
>
> read more ยป- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your arguments aways hinge on everyone being SO much dumber then you.
That is a sign of low self esteem pal.
First, No one said anything about who was "physically" the strongest.
But it should be common knowledge that the younger and stronger of the
species has a better chance of passing their genes on. For evolution
to work, it needs all the hope and chances there are. Crossing one's
fingers helps too. The younger and stronger is the best chance for
evolution to carry those susposed slight changes foward which in turn
allows a better chance for species survival.
Next, we witness with the swine flu a chance for the YOUNGER and
stronger of
BOTH sexes to be killed off first.(if it were not for modern
medicine). The younger and stronger have a better chance at
reproduction if for no other reason they are younger and have more
years to reproduce.
If this type of virus was harsher and was world wide and happened two
hundred thousand years ago it would effectively killed off all of the
younger male and female of the entire species; which in turn would
severely limit the reproduction of the species. How can that be
misconstrued as the fittest surviving?
But that is not the point. You keep missing the point. The point is
there could have been any number of unknown variables in play on an
ancient and dynamic earth
that would impact the development of a species in ways that are
completely different then the ToE outlines.
Swine flu eludes to us an example of the most fittest not making it.
It has the potential to remove the youngest of both sexes thereby
leaving the least viable behind for reproduction.
Now, one could argue that natural selection chose the older of the
species to survive. If that is the case then NS was attempting a
distinction and not an evolution for species survival.
Because in order for evolution to happen the best of the species gets
it's genes into the next generation, not the worse. The older of the
species is not generally considered to be the best prime target for
reproduction within a species if for no other reason because of
genetic damages that has accumulated over time.
Either was you look at it the "survival of the fittest" is yet another
Achilles heel for evolution.
That is strike 2
1) You need survival of the fittest to be true for evolution to be
true
2) You need divergence to be true for evolution to be true.
There is no observed evidence of divergence that can be witnessed
other then variation within the same "kind" of life. Now we see that
other unknown variables on an ancient and dynamic earth could impact
species survival that contradicts the ToE.
Burkhard
It is an example. The environemnt decides what coutns as fit, not some
predetermined idea of yours.
> Also,
> during times of war the children are also left behind and that insures
> "survival of the fittest". In the case of a virus like the swine flu
> we see evidence that children are targets too.
>
> Also, War consumes the male resourses more then the female resourses.
> But the swine flu is targeting the young as well as both sexes of the
> species.
>
> The rule of evolution and survival of the fittest is those with the
> best chance to get their genes into the next generation pass their
> traits onto the new generation thereby allowing evolution to take
> place.
Indeed. And when you are dead your chances are vastly reduced.
> With the younger women children and men gone the species may
> not survive if it had to solely depend on the older of the population
> to carry it forward.
>
So what? Extinctions happen
> And no one said anything about who was "physically" the strongest. But
> it should be common knowledge that the younger and stronger of the
> species has a better chance of passing their genes on.
"Common knowledge" is surprisingly often wrong. That's why we have
science, to test what we believe we know. If you have an environment
that selects against strength, then obviously the physically weaker
are fitter in this environment.
For evolution
> to work, it needs all the hope and chances there are. Crossing one's
> fingers helps too.
>
You confuse evolution with a person or a deity. It has not plans.
> We witness with the swine flu a chance for the YOUNGER and stronger of
> BOTH sexes to be killed off first.(if it were not for modern
> medicine). The younger and stronger have a better chance at
> reproduction if for no other reason they are younger and have more
> years to reproduce.
>
Obviously not if they die from swine flu first
> If this type of virus was harsher and was world wide and happened two
> hundred thousand years ago it would effectively killed off all of the
> younger of the entire species; which in turn would severely limit the
> reproduction of the species. How can that be misconstrued as the
> fittest surviving?
>
Well, if the species dies out, we have an extinction event, they do
happen. If the species survives, then those best fitted to _that_
environment survived, even of "best fitted" means "physically weak)
(not, your age is not a genetic trait of yours)
> But that is not the point. The point is there could have been any
> number of unknown variables in play on an ancient and dynamic earth
> that would impact the development of a species in ways that are
> completely different then the ToE outlines.
>
Care to mention one?
> Swine flu eludes to us an example of the most fittest not making it.
>
No, it doesn't. It is just one external, environmental factor. What
counts in this hypothetical scenario as "fittest" is "to be able to
reproduce regardless of the swine flu". If this selects for criteria
that under other circumstances would have been
better does not matter much (again, unless there is extinction). Or
put simple, in a cold environment other factors make you "fit" than in
a hot environment. Same here: swine flu is just an environmental
condition just like the temperature.
> Now, one could argue that natural selection chose the older of the
> species to survive.
You really should get away formthe age thing, as your actual age is
not a genetic trait.
>If that is the case then NS was attempting a
> distinction and not an evolution for species survival.
NS does not attempt anything, it is not a conscious agent.
>Because in
> order for evolution to happen the best of the species gets it's genes
> into the next generation, not the worse.
What counts as best or worse is the ability to get your genes into the
next species, not a predefined, absolute characteristic.
> The older of the species is
> not generally considered to be the prime target for reproduction
> within a species if for no other reason because of genetic damages
> that has accumulated over time.
>
> Either was you look at it the "survival of the fittest" is yet another
> Achilles heel for evolution.
Not for anyone who understands what it actually means.
Ye Old One
Using a two headed coin would be typical creationist dishonesty.
--
Bob.
Friar Broccoli
Since as Harshman mentioned in his message to you three days ago
"natural selection
is a mechanism of microevolution" (ie. it is a completely separate
concept from
speciation and has next to nothing to do with speciation) such
critisms completely
miss any possible valid point.
>
> Others (e.g., "Seanpit" on this NG) have claimed that NS is provably false.
>
> Perhaps there are two different kind of creationists: ย One type attempts
> to refute NS by logic and semantics, the other type attempts to refute
> NS by evidence.
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Email: ย sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.- Hide quoted text -
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
They are, immunity is not transferred very well.
It is interesting to note that those old people who were around for
the 1918 outbreak seem largely immune to the current swine flue
epidemic.
>
>Also, War consumes the male resourses more then the female resourses.
>But the swine flu is targeting the young as well as both sexes of the
>species.
So?
>
>The rule of evolution and survival of the fittest is those with the
>best chance to get their genes into the next generation pass their
>traits onto the new generation thereby allowing evolution to take
>place. With the younger women children and men gone the species may
>not survive if it had to solely depend on the older of the population
>to carry it forward.
>
>And no one said anything about who was "physically" the strongest. But
>it should be common knowledge that the younger and stronger of the
>species has a better chance of passing their genes on. For evolution
>to work, it needs all the hope and chances there are. Crossing one's
>fingers helps too.
>
>We witness with the swine flu a chance for the YOUNGER and stronger of
>BOTH sexes to be killed off first.(if it were not for modern
>medicine).
That is always the same with pandemics, mostly because the young have
not encountered the virus before. It was certainly the same in the
1918 outbreak.
> The younger and stronger have a better chance at
>reproduction if for no other reason they are younger and have more
>years to reproduce.
>
>If this type of virus was harsher and was world wide and happened two
>hundred thousand years ago it would effectively killed off all of the
>younger of the entire species;
No, because even two thousand years ago it would not have been
world-wide.
>which in turn would severely limit the
>reproduction of the species. How can that be misconstrued as the
>fittest surviving?
>
>But that is not the point. The point is there could have been any
>number of unknown variables in play on an ancient and dynamic earth
>that would impact the development of a species in ways that are
>completely different then the ToE outlines.
>
>Swine flu eludes to us an example of the most fittest not making it.
No, it just shows that your definition of "fittest" is not evolutions.
>
>Now, one could argue that natural selection chose the older of the
>species to survive. If that is the case then NS was attempting a
>distinction and not an evolution for species survival. Because in
>order for evolution to happen the best of the species gets it's genes
>into the next generation, not the worse. The older of the species is
>not generally considered to be the prime target for reproduction
>within a species if for no other reason because of genetic damages
>that has accumulated over time.
>
>Either was you look at it the "survival of the fittest" is yet another
>Achilles heel for evolution.
>
>That is strike 2
Not even remotely Mudbrain.
>
>1) You need survival of the fittest to be true for evolution to be
>true
>2) You need divergence to be true for evolution to be true.
>
>There is no observed evidence of divergence that can be witnessed
And yet we have a fossil record jam-packed with them.
>other then variation. Now we see that other unknown variables could
>impact species survival that contridicts the ToE.
>
>
>[]
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Friar Broccoli
.
I feel I need to add that Harshperson has been banging me
over the head on this and similar issues for almost five years,
and I only got it very recently - no doubt there is much else
that I still haven't got.
heekster
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
You lose again, and you are always wrong.
Tell us, what's it like, being the most ignorant indicvidual in this
group? I'm sure that your monumental ignotrance is not limited to
just this group. You're more than likely the most ignorant person in
all 158 known Milky Way globular clusters.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
That would be YOU, fuck face.
If you are going to call someone "the most ignorant indicvidual in
this group " shouldn't you be able to spell it right before you do?
You can't even spell a simple word like "individual"
mEgaBytes! of laughter!! hahahah!
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
OMG!! you misspelled "ignotrance" too!!
It is spelled I G N O R A N C E fuck face!
hahahahaha!!!
All-Seeing-I
> > healthy and younger before it kills the older and weaker. Not because
> > of a prior immunity but because the younger have a healthier immune
> > system that would set of a "storm" of inflammation in the lungs
> > causing a secondary disease.
>
> > Clearly that is a case of survival of the weakest by natural
> > selection; And, could be an example of an unknown that existed
> > millions of years ago which allowed the survival of the weakest
> > instead of survival of the fittest. Thereby effectivly destroying
> > Darwin's Survival Of The Fittest notion.
>
> > be..
>
> > Y
> > ย ย O
> > ย ย ย U
>
> > that think you have all of the answers.
>
> > It really is THAT simple.
>
> > --
> > It is all about connecting the dots with...
>
> > The All Seeing I
>
> LOL, we have admitted many times that we don't have all the answers,
> so, the All Stealing Lie is just lying again.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry Eric. That kind of bluffing only works with card games and women
heekster
Wow.
That's impressive.
For grade school, perhaps.
>If you are going to call someone "the most ignorant indicvidual in
>this group " shouldn't you be able to spell it right before you do?
>
>You can't even spell a simple word like "individual"
>
Sure I can, ament. That isn't a problem.
I have very large hands, with wide fingers, and sometimes I strike
more than one key.
If you weren't so unbelievably stupid, you would know that the letter
pairs c and v, and r and t, are adjacent on a qwerty style keyboard.
>mEgaBytes! of laughter!! hahahah!
>
Keep laughing, weinie boy. It only serves to illuminate your blinding
stupidity.
heekster
You're really a sad specimen. Is that the best you can come up with?
BTW, you are still an irremediable idiot.
Dana Tweedy
> Your arguments aways hinge on everyone being SO much dumber then you.
> That is a sign of low self esteem pal.
John's arguments don't depend on anyone being "dumber". It's your own
inablity to understand.
>
> First, No one said anything about who was "physically" the strongest.
You did.
> But it should be common knowledge that the younger and stronger of the
> species has a better chance of passing their genes on.
But that's not what "fitness" means in this case.
>For evolution
> to work, it needs all the hope and chances there are.
Evolution doesn't require "hope" or "chances".
> Crossing one's
> fingers helps too. The younger and stronger is the best chance for
> evolution to carry those susposed slight changes foward which in turn
> allows a better chance for species survival.
Again, the term "fitness" has little to do with youth, or strength. It's a
matter of traits that give some sort of survival advantage. Strength can
be one such trait, but it's not the only one. Survial of a species is not
the goal of evolution, in fact evolution has no goal. Evolution is not
"progress forward", it's just change to fit the environment.
>
> Next, we witness with the swine flu a chance for the YOUNGER and
> stronger of
> BOTH sexes to be killed off first.(if it were not for modern
> medicine). The younger and stronger have a better chance at
> reproduction if for no other reason they are younger and have more
> years to reproduce.
Youth doesn't matter as much as survival. An organism that dies young and
strong, still dies, and an organism that is "weak" but survives, still
leaves more offspring. That's how it works, fitness is enitrely relative
concept.
>
> If this type of virus was harsher and was world wide and happened two
> hundred thousand years ago it would effectively killed off all of the
> younger male and female of the entire species; which in turn would
> severely limit the reproduction of the species. How can that be
> misconstrued as the fittest surviving?
Because "fittest" doesn't mean "strongest", or "youngest". It means best
suited for the environment. If the environment includes a virus that
kills the "strong", then the weak are more fit.
>
> But that is not the point. You keep missing the point. The point is
> there could have been any number of unknown variables in play on an
> ancient and dynamic earth
> that would impact the development of a species in ways that are
> completely different then the ToE outlines.
The problem is that you have a wrong idea about what the theory outlines.
The theory of evolution is not about species getting "better" or "stronger"
or any idea of progress toward some goal.
>
> Swine flu eludes to us an example of the most fittest not making it.
No, it's an example of changing conditions, and that "fittest" is a relative
term.
> It has the potential to remove the youngest of both sexes thereby
> leaving the least viable behind for reproduction.
Being "weaker" does not mean an individual is less likely to pass on it's
genes, especially when being stronger may be a lethal trait.
>
> Now, one could argue that natural selection chose the older of the
> species to survive. If that is the case then NS was attempting a
> distinction and not an evolution for species survival.
Again, natural selection doesn't care about the species, or what's "good"
for that species. It's entirely impersonal, and only relates to the current
condition, not what may happen in the future.
>
> Because in order for evolution to happen the best of the species gets
> it's genes into the next generation, not the worse.
In this case, better or worse is an entirely subjective judgement. The
'best' of the species is that which passes on it's genes, not some other
asthetic or arbitrary trait.
> The older of the
> species is not generally considered to be the best prime target for
> reproduction within a species if for no other reason because of
> genetic damages that has accumulated over time.
It doesn't matter, as natural selection doesn't care. The ones that
survive get to pass on their genes, and if the stronger ones die, then they
aren't the most fit.
>
> Either was you look at it the "survival of the fittest" is yet another
> Achilles heel for evolution.
No, you simply don't understand the concept.
>
> That is strike 2
No, your pitch was entirely out of the ballpark.
>
> 1) You need survival of the fittest to be true for evolution to be
> true
No, natural selection is the better term, and it's well established.
> 2) You need divergence to be true for evolution to be true.
Divergence is easily seen in populations.
>
> There is no observed evidence of divergence that can be witnessed
> other then variation within the same "kind" of life.
all life is the same 'kind'. There's no distinction of life forms that
places them in "kinds".
> Now we see that
> other unknown variables on an ancient and dynamic earth could impact
> species survival that contradicts the ToE.
The theory of evolution involves population changes over time. Species
don't always survive, and in fact, the vast majority of species have become
extinct.
DJT
wf3h
and you can't spell 'perceive'.
live with it.
Ye Old One
>That would be me, fuck face.
>
>If you are going to call someone "the most ignorant indicvidual in
>this group " shouldn't you be able to spell it right before you do?
>
>You can't even spell a simple word like "individual"
>
>mEgaBytes! of laughter!! hahahah!
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
No, ignorance is spelt "A D M A N"
>
>hahahahaha!!!
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
ivar
Here are some definitions of tautology (the logical variety) from
various sources:
From the on-line edition of the Oxford English Dictionary:
"f. Mod. Logic. A compound proposition which is unconditionally true
for all the truth-possibilities of its elementary propositions and by
virtue of its logical form."
From the Wikipedia:
"In propositional logic, a tautology (from the Greek word
[tautologos]) is a propositional formula that is true under any
possible valuation (also called a truth assignment or an
interpretation) of its propositional variables. For example, the
propositional formula [(A)V(--A)] ("A or not-A") is a tautology,
because the statement is true for any valuation of A."
From The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Second Edition:
"Tautology, a proposition whose negation is inconsistent, or (self-)
contradictory, e.g., 'Socrates is Socrates'...."
From The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Second Edition:
"tautology. A well-formed formula [phi] of the propositional calculus
is a tautology if the formula is true whatever truth-values are
assigned to its basic (atomic) propositional components."
These definitions all say the same thing. A (logical) tautology is a
statement that cannot be false. If an observation can falsify a
statement, then that statement cannot be a tautology. The statement
that "either it is raining or it is not raining" is a tautology. It is
true regardless of whether rain is or is not observed. The statement
that "it is raining" cannot be a tautology because it is false if rain
is not observed. The statement "E = mc^2" is not a tautology because
it is conceivable that observed measurements of "E," "m," and "c"
could show the equation does not hold in some circumstance.
The creationists use the term correctly when they say (or, at least,
imply) that "survivors are survivors" is a tautology. They go astray
when they say or imply that "natural selection" is nothing more than
the assertion that "survivors survive."
Ivar
Eric Root
> On Oct 27, 2:42ย pm,EricRoot<er...@swva.net> wrote:
> > > healthy and younger before it kills the older and weaker. Not because
> > > of a prior immunity but because the younger have a healthier immune
> > > system that would set of a "storm" of inflammation in the lungs
> > > causing a secondary disease.
>
> > > Clearly that is a case of survival of the weakest by natural
> > > selection; And, could be an example of an unknown that existed
> > > millions of years ago which allowed the survival of the weakest
> > > instead of survival of the fittest. Thereby effectivly destroying
> > > Darwin's Survival Of The Fittest notion.
>
> > > The only ones with a resolute determination to resist education would
> > > be..
>
> > > Y
> > > ย ย O
> > > ย ย ย U
>
> > > that think you have all of the answers.
>
> > > It really is THAT simple.
>
> > > --
> > > It is all about connecting the dots with...
>
> > > The All Seeing I
>
> > LOL, we have admitted many times that we don't have all the answers,
> > so, the All Stealing Lie is just lying again.
>
> >EricRoot
>
>
> "When we have no answer, we can make lame jokes"
Creationist lie #4789: pretend an answer was a lame joke.
You lied and said we thought we knew all the answers. I pointed out
that we readily admit all the time that we don't know the answers.
You are the one who has no answer to this.
Eric Root
Eric Root
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
Does that mean that you have no answer to my accurate riposte, so you
will pretend that it doesn't matter, instead of doing the adult thing
and admitting you are wrong and never doing it again?
Eric Root
John Harshman
Please don't confuse ignorance with stupidity, or you with everyone. One
of my claims is that you (not everyone) are almost completely ignorant
(not stupid) on the subjects you discuss here. And I think you provide
abundant evidence of that claim.
> First, No one said anything about who was "physically" the strongest.
> But it should be common knowledge that the younger and stronger of the
> species has a better chance of passing their genes on. For evolution
> to work, it needs all the hope and chances there are. Crossing one's
> fingers helps too. The younger and stronger is the best chance for
> evolution to carry those susposed slight changes foward which in turn
> allows a better chance for species survival.
You are woefully ignorant and confused. First, I would like to point out
that youth is not a genetic characteristic and is not subject to
selection. Second, you are talking as if evolution is a god whose wishes
can be thwarted by that nasty swine flu. If there are genetic
differences in the population that cause some individuals to be more
resistant than others, that characteristic will, all else being equal,
increase in frequency in the population. None of what you say is meaningful.
> Next, we witness with the swine flu a chance for the YOUNGER and
> stronger of
> BOTH sexes to be killed off first.(if it were not for modern
> medicine). The younger and stronger have a better chance at
> reproduction if for no other reason they are younger and have more
> years to reproduce.
Again, you seem to understand nothing about natural selection. Youth is
not selectable.
> If this type of virus was harsher and was world wide and happened two
> hundred thousand years ago it would effectively killed off all of the
> younger male and female of the entire species; which in turn would
> severely limit the reproduction of the species. How can that be
> misconstrued as the fittest surviving?
Why, because the misconstruction is all yours. Fitness isn't a property
of species, but of individuals within populations. And it relates to
genetic differences. So far you haven't considered any genetic
differences at all. Had you noticed?
> But that is not the point. You keep missing the point. The point is
> there could have been any number of unknown variables in play on an
> ancient and dynamic earth
> that would impact the development of a species in ways that are
> completely different then the ToE outlines.
That's an illusory point. How can you say anything of that sort when you
have no idea what the ToE outlines?
> Swine flu eludes to us an example of the most fittest not making it.
> It has the potential to remove the youngest of both sexes thereby
> leaving the least viable behind for reproduction.
> Now, one could argue that natural selection chose the older of the
> species to survive. If that is the case then NS was attempting a
> distinction and not an evolution for species survival.
Natural selection attempts nothing. Stop personifying a simple, natural
process. Natural selection chooses nothing. What you're talking about
here isn't even natural selection, since it appears to involve no
genetic differences.
> Because in order for evolution to happen the best of the species gets
> it's genes into the next generation, not the worse. The older of the
> species is not generally considered to be the best prime target for
> reproduction within a species if for no other reason because of
> genetic damages that has accumulated over time.
>
> Either was you look at it the "survival of the fittest" is yet another
> Achilles heel for evolution.
Or perhaps you are looking at it wrong, because you have no idea what
natural selection is. It's really hard not to base arguments on your
ignorance, when your claims are based on ignorance.
> That is strike 2
>
> 1) You need survival of the fittest to be true for evolution to be
> true
> 2) You need divergence to be true for evolution to be true.
>
> There is no observed evidence of divergence that can be witnessed
> other then variation within the same "kind" of life. Now we see that
> other unknown variables on an ancient and dynamic earth could impact
> species survival that contradicts the ToE.
I hope I have shown, above, that you don't have the slightest idea what
you're talking about.
Friar Broccoli
> I am very dubious about the way that you using the word "tautology."
> Here are some definitions of tautology (the logical variety) from
> various sources:
>
> From the on-line edition of the Oxford English Dictionary:
>
> "f. Mod. Logic. A compound proposition which is unconditionally true
> for all the truth-possibilities of its elementary propositions and by
> virtue of its logical form."
>
> From the Wikipedia:
>
> "In propositional logic, a tautology (from the Greek word
> [tautologos]) is a propositional formula that is true under any
> possible valuation (also called a truth assignment or an
> interpretation) of its propositional variables. For example, the
> propositional formula [(A)V(--A)] ("A or not-A") is a tautology,
> because the statement is true for any valuation of A."
>
> From The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Second Edition:
>
> "Tautology, a proposition whose negation is inconsistent, or (self-)
> contradictory, e.g., 'Socrates is Socrates'...."
>
> From The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Second Edition:
>
> "tautology. A well-formed formula [phi] of the propositional calculus
> is a tautology if the formula is true whatever truth-values are
> assigned to its basic (atomic) propositional components."
Since I have already spent a long time looking up various
meanings of "tautology" I know that you ran across many other
definitions outside of propositional logic, so I won't bother
providing links to definitions I know you have already seen.
"Tautology" is a homonym or polyseme.
Ask yourself, is:
1) "All survivors are fit"
the same as:
2) "All survivors are fit or all survivors are not fit"?
The first uses what would be the semantic form (if creationists
were correct and the meaning was repetitive) the second use the
propositional logic form (like your rain example below), and
cannot possibly be false.
> These definitions all say the same thing.
Why, I wonder, didn't you acknowledge the existence of the
other definitions I know you saw?
> A (logical) tautology is a statement that cannot be false. If
> an observation can falsify a statement, then that statement
> cannot be a tautology. The statement that "either it is
> raining or it is not raining" is a tautology. It is true
> regardless of whether rain is or is not observed. The
> statement that "it is raining" cannot be a tautology because
> it is false if rain is not observed. The statement "E = mc^2"
> is not a tautology because it is conceivable that observed
> measurements of "E," "m," and "c" could show the equation does
> not hold in some circumstance.
"E = mc^2" provides a relativistic definition of Energy. As
long as we live in a universe were "m" and "c" actually exist
then some value will always be returned. It may not be the
same value as we see in this universe at this time, but some
value will be returned.
> The creationists use the term correctly when they say (or, at least,
> imply) that "survivors are survivors" is a tautology.
The Coulter quote actually described it as: "circular
statement". This is a clear reference to repetitive meaning.
The Wilkins' Butler quote here:
http://evolvingthoughts.net/2009/08/22/tautology-1b-butler/
"To the words "survival of the fittest" add what is elided, but
what is, nevertheless, unquestionably as much implied as though
it were said openly whenever these words are used, and without
which "fittest" has no force"
says the same thing (in MUCH denser prose) namely that
"fittest" is entirely defined by "survival", again repetitive
meaning.
No doubt there are some addled creationists out there who
imagine they are talking about a necessary truth, but this
just adds a level of incoherence to an already misguided
argument.
I'm sorry, but your interpretation here is just plain wrong.
> They go astray when they say or imply that "natural selection"
> is nothing more than the assertion that "survivors survive."
They incorrectly infer survival of individuals, which is
essentially meaningless in evolutionary terms, when it is the
adaptive characteristics which survive from generation to
generation.
ivar
logical version of tautology.
Henry Morris wrote on page 7 of his Scientific Creationism, Second
Edition:
"A theory [natural selection] which incorporates everything really
explains nothing! It is tautologous. Those who survive in the
struggle for existence are the fittest because the fittest are the
ones who survive."
Ann Coulter wrote in her "Godless" book (pages 212 & 213:
"Through the process of natural selection, the 'fittest' survive. Who
are the 'fittest'? The ones who survive.... The beauty of having a
scientific theory that's a tautology is that it can't be disproved."
As Coulter and Morris imply, it is logically impossible to test
whether the fittest are, in fact, the survivors if the definition of
fittest is that the survivors are the fittest. The fittest are the
survivors. The survivors are the fittest. Coulter and Morris are
claiming that "natural selection" is defined such that it must be
necessarily true, and, hence, it is a logical tautology that cannot be
refuted.
The circularity that Coulter refers to is, I think, that "fittest"
defines "survivors" and "survivors" defines "fittest."
Coulter and Morris could not hope to make the point that they were
trying to make, even among creationists, if they were interpreting
tautology merely as "repetitive meaning." A semantic tautology is
redundant but it is not necessarily circular. And there is nothing in
the concept of a semantic tautology that implies that scientific
testing of that kind of tautology is impossible.
In any case, the real issue is not whether some tautologies are
testable but, rather, whether natural selection is testable.
Ivar
Friar Broccoli
> I interpret the words of Coulter and Morris as references to the
> logical version of tautology.
>
> Henry Morris wrote on page 7 of his Scientific Creationism, Second
> Edition:
>
> "A theory [natural selection] which incorporates everything really
> explains nothing! It is tautologous. Those who survive in the
> struggle for existence are the fittest because the fittest are the
> ones who survive."
Note that the connective in the statement above that he is
describing as tautologous is "because" not "or" (followed by
a negation). This is a clear example of circularity (x is y
because y is x), thus he is clearly equating tautology with
circularity.
Thus he is (I presume since I haven't read his conclusions)
beginning with the semantic (circular) definition of tautology
and then using the logical definition in his argument.
> Ann Coulter wrote in her "Godless" book (pages 212 & 213:
>
> "Through the process of natural selection, the 'fittest' survive. Who
> are the 'fittest'? The ones who survive.... The beauty of having a
> scientific theory that's a tautology is that it can't be disproved."
>
> As Coulter and Morris imply, it is logically impossible to test
> whether the fittest are, in fact, the survivors if the definition of
> fittest is that the survivors are the fittest. The fittest are the
> survivors. The survivors are the fittest. Coulter and Morris are
> claiming that "natural selection" is defined such that it must be
> necessarily true, and, hence, it is a logical tautology that cannot be
> refuted.
.
> The circularity that Coulter refers to is, I think, that "fittest"
> defines "survivors" and "survivors" defines "fittest."
Yes, and note that this has almost exactly the same form as the
"because" statement above which Morris described as
"tautologous". They are beginning with one definition and then
switching to the other, as if I were to say: The bat in my
house hits baseballs during the day and catches flying insects
during the night.
> Coulter and Morris could not hope to make the point that they were
> trying to make, even among creationists, if they were interpreting
> tautology merely as "repetitive meaning."
If you think that creationists cannot be convinced on the basis
of absurd semantic equivalences, you need to spend some time
arguing with some real live creationists.
> A semantic tautology is redundant but it is not necessarily
> circular.
I'm fine with that.
> And there is nothing in the concept of a semantic tautology
> that implies that scientific testing of that kind of tautology
> is impossible.
I confuse easily, and would want to distinguish between the
tautology and what the tautology refers to, but otherwise I
have no problem with this either.
John Wilkins
<5cd421d1-a2a9-4f14...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 1, 7:09 am, ivar <ylvis...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > I interpret the words of Coulter and Morris as references to the
> > logical version of tautology.
> >
> > Henry Morris wrote on page 7 of his Scientific Creationism, Second
> > Edition:
> >
> > "A theory [natural selection] which incorporates everything really
> > explains nothing! It is tautologous. Those who survive in the
> > struggle for existence are the fittest because the fittest are the
> > ones who survive."
>
> Note that the connective in the statement above that he is
> describing as tautologous is "because" not "or" (followed by
> a negation). This is a clear example of circularity (x is y
> because y is x), thus he is clearly equating tautology with
> circularity.
>
> Thus he is (I presume since I haven't read his conclusions)
> beginning with the semantic (circular) definition of tautology
> and then using the logical definition in his argument.
Also notice that the tautology claim here formally doesn't follow:
All X is Y
does not imply
All Y is X.
Hence, "the survivors are the fittest"
does not imply
"the fittest are the ones who survive"
which is manifestly not the case. In other words, unless an identity
relation is drawn between them, it is a simple implication:
If X then Y;
"If they are fit, organisms will [tend to] survive".
We might have independent reasons for thinking they are fit.
Friar Broccoli
> In article
> <5cd421d1-a2a9-4f14-8bcf-4fb61bcdc...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
Although I had noticed that many times during past reflections,
I missed that here. Thanks for nailing the case shut.
Also, when will you getting back to the land of the wrong
way toilets? I want to make some additional demands of
your brain, but not until at least a week after you've
returned to give you a chance to settle in.
John Wilkins
<c99bd9d4-2cd6-45fc...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
Give me till after 15 November. I'm in the Enemy's territory right now
here at Notre Dame University (on a Sunday, no less!) and I don't want
my evil aura to give me away by thinking about things...