Darwin on Natural Selection leading to the extinction of less improved forms.
backspace
"....conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase
so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to
Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the
Extinction of less improved forms...".
=== rephrase ===
Natural Selection entails Divergence of Character and the Extinction
of less improved forms.
=== rephrase ===
Natural Selection entails the Extinction of less improved forms.
Question:
Other than noting that the dinosaurs are dead how did Darwin manage to
figure out they were less improved?
backspace
> === rephrase ===
> Natural Selection entails the Extinction of less improved forms.
> Question:
> Other than noting that the dinosaurs are dead how did Darwin manage to
> figure out they were less improved?
And here is the answer: http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology
=== concept ===
A rhetorical tautology can also be defined as a series of statements
that comprise an argument, whereby the statements are constructed in
such a way that the truth of the propositions are guaranteed or that
the truth of the propositions cannot be disputed by defining a term in
terms of another self referentially. Consequently the statement
conveys no useful information regardless of its length or complexity
making it [[Unfalsifiable]]. It is formulating a description in a way
that masquerades as an explanation when the real reason for the
phenomena cannot be independently derived. The statement ''"If you
can't find something (that you lost), you are not looking in the right
place"'' is tautological. It is true and can't be disputed, but
conveys no useful information. As a physical example, to play a game
of darts where the dart board was full of bullseyes could be called a
"tautological" game. The player would not lose. Any argument
containing a tautology is flawed and must be considered a [[Logical
fallacy]].
A tautological argument is not an argument; a tautological game is not
a game. Mathematical equations, such as '''E = mc<sup>2</sup>''', are
not tautologies. The terms on both sides of the equation are defined
elsewhere independently. The equal sign does not mean "is defined by"
but rather equal to, establishing an equivalence. It doesn't define
one term in term's of another. Acceleration and mass independently
don't equal force but their product '''MA''' as derived by Newton
does, hence the equation '''F=MA''' isn't a tautology. '''X=X''' could
be a logical validity,''mathematical redundancy'' or a logical
tautology depending on the [[pragmatics]] or motive behind it. A
[[Truism]] is defined as something which is true by definition, it is
not a tautology but can be reformulated in a tautological manner in
order to disguise the truistic nature of the original statement and
underlying [[Premise]]s. The dividing line between a [[Truism]] and an
observation is [[pragmatics]]. Neither is [[Begging the question]] a
tautology. A [[Truism]] is embedded inside an argument in an attempt
to disguise that the conclusion based on the argument's core is a
[[Non sequitur (logic)]]. ''The sun shines'' is an observation, it
becomes a [[Truism]] if used in an argument to influence the hearer to
come to a conclusion which doesn't follow logically from the core of
the argument. The truism in such a case should be considered a [[Red
herring (logical fallacy)]] an irrelevant piece of trivia employed as
a rhetorical [[smoke screen]]. Tautologies and [[Truism]]s are used
together as a rhetorical device in a deceptive attempt to argue for a
view if it isn't possible to independently establish the real reason
for the viewpoint elsewhere. The seeming complexity of such an
argument might comes across as well reasoned but is really just the
articulation of a [[world view]] that can't be [[Falsified]].
Rhetorical tautologies are a [[synonymous]] play with words that
alludes to the same fact but in doing so presents itself as an
explanation giving the illusion of uncovering the actual reason for
the observation. An example of this word play would be the following
tautological proposition: ''favorable traits become more common and
unfavorable traits become less common.'' The word ''favorable'' and
the term ''more common'' are a synonymous play on words that alludes
to the same observation that traits increased but it doesn't tell us
the actual reason the traits become more common. Furthermore the
[[Premise]] of the tautological statement must be questioned because
it might contain circularity into which a [[Truism]] was embedded and
the tautological reformulation of this [[Truism]] was an attempt to
disguise the original circular reasoning or other [[Logical
fallacies]].
=== Identify tautology ===
Identify the terms in the sentence used in the ''synonymous'' sense.
Take any of the synonymous terms are reformulate the sentence as a
question.
== Tautological expressions and propositions ==
The tautological expression (''an unmarried bachelor'') contains a
redundant word ("unmarried"), but has meaning and can be used to form
a meaningful proposition, e.g. "John is an unmarried bachelor". This
proposition is not a rhetorical tautology because the intent isn't to
deceive. It could be considered as unnecessarily language verbosity.
The tautological proposition (''all bachelors are unmarried'') stated
in a class on formal logic theory on the other hand, gives us no
information that is not already contained in the definition of the
word "bachelor". The [[Pragmatics]] or context with 'unmarried
bachelor' by the user would determine whether it is a tautology or
language verbosity. In an academic setting such as a peer reviewed
journal propositions are put forward in an attempt at deriving an
independent explanation for an observation. Tautologies in such a
setting would be a tautological proposition and unacceptable.
Tautological expressions used in an informal setting such as a sports
event with its associated colloquial speech is acceptable because of
the [[pragmatics]] with it. The dividing line between a tautological
proposition and expression is [[pragmatics]].
== Example of a tautological proposition ==
''The geological record features episodes of high dying, during which
extinction-prone groups are more likely to disappear, leaving
extinction-resistant groups as life's legacy.''
:S.J. Gould & N. Eldredge, "Punctuated equilibrium comes of age",
'''Nature (1993) 366:223-7, p. 225'''.
'''Question:''' How was this "extinction-proneness" measured, except
by noting that the groups disappeared?
Gould formulated the proposition so that it cannot be disputed:
"''..certain groups were extinction prone because they
disappeared..''" But the real reason for their extinction needs be
derived independently elsewhere. Nothing is explained by stating that
because they were ''extinction prone'' they disappeared, their
disappearance implies that they were ''extinction prone.''
''Extinction'' and ''disappear'' are a synonymous play with words that
alludes to the same fact but masquerades as an explanation.
== Darwin on propositions which cannot be disputed ==
There are key passages dealing with Darwin's concept of [[natural
selection]] where he motivates for it by using ''propositions which
cannot be disputed''.
:'''OoS''' For if each part is liable to individual variations at all
ages, and the variations tend to be inherited at a corresponding or
earlier age--'''''propositions which cannot be disputed'''''--then the
instincts and structure of the young could be slowly modified as
surely as those of the adult; and both cases must stand or fall
together with the whole theory of [[natural selection]]. <ref>http://
darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?
itemID=F373&viewtype=side&pageseq=1</ref>
:'''OoS''' That many and serious objections may be advanced against
the ''theory of descent with modification'' through variation and
[[natural selection]], I do not deny. I have endeavoured to give to
them their full force. Nothing at first can appear more difficult to
believe than that the more complex organs and instincts have been
'''perfected''', not by means superior to, though analogous with,
human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight
variations, each '''good''' for the individual possessor.
Nevertheless, this difficulty, though appearing to our imagination
insuperably great, cannot be considered real if we admit the following
''propositions'', namely, that all parts of the organisation and
instincts offer, at least individual differences--that there is a
struggle for existence leading to the '''preservation''' of
'''profitable''' deviations of structure or instinct--and, lastly,
that gradations in the state of '''perfection''' of each organ may
have existed, each '''good''' of its kind. ''''' The truth of these
propositions cannot, I think, be disputed. '''''<ref>http://darwin-
online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=side&pageseq=1</
ref>
The words ''preservation'', ''profitable'', ''perfection'',
''perfected'' and ''good'' are a synonymous play with words that
alludes to same fact as shown by reducing the passage it to its core
proposition which cannot be disputed: Species are engaged in a
struggle for existence leading to the ''preservation'' of those
''profitable'' structures that allowed them to survive.
:'''OoS:'''IF under changing conditions of life organic beings present
individual differences in almost every part of their structure, and
this '''cannot be disputed'''; if there be, owing to their geometrical
rate of increase, a severe struggle for life at some age, season, or
year, and this '''certainly cannot be disputed'''; then, considering
the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each
other and to their conditions of life, causing an infinite diversity
in structure, constitution, and habits, to be '''advantageous''' to
them, it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variations had ever
occurred '''useful''' to each being’s own welfare, in the same manner
as so many variations have occurred useful to man. But if variations
useful to any organic being ever do occur, '''assuredly''' individuals
thus characterised will have the '''best''' chance of being
'''preserved''' in the struggle for life; and from the strong
principle of inheritance, these will tend to produce offspring
similarly characterised. This principle of '''preservation''', or the
[[survival of the fittest]], I have called [[Natural Selection]]. It
leads to the '''improvement''' of each creature in relation to its
organic and inorganic conditions of life, and consequently, in most
cases, to what must be regarded as an '''advance''' in
organisation.<ref>http://www.bartleby.com/11/4011.html</ref>
'''Question:''' Other than noting the offspring survived how was their
[[fitness]] measured?
== Tautologies from Aristotle ==
(Aristotle, in his "Physicae Auscultationes" (lib.2, cap.8, s.2):
:'''OoS:'''"So what hinders the different parts (of the body) from
having this merely accidental relation in nature? as the teeth, for
example, grow by necessity, the front ones sharp, adapted for
dividing, and the grinders flat, and serviceable for masticating the
food; since they were not made for the sake of this, but it was the
result of accident. And in like manner as to other parts in which
there appears to exist an adaptation to an end. Wheresoever,
therefore, all things together (that is all the parts of one whole)
happened like as if they were made for the sake of something, these
were preserved, having been appropriately constituted by an internal
spontaneity; and whatsoever things were not thus constituted, perished
and still perish."<ref>http://www.bartleby.com/11/4011.html</ref>
The passage reduces to: Things appropriately constituted were
preserved and things not appropriately constituted perished.
''Appropriately constituted'' and ''preserved'' are a synonymous play
with words that alludes to the same fact but it doesn't independently
derive the actual reason something was preserved.
== Is survival of the fittest a tautology ==
Try and contact [[Herbert Spencer]] and if you find him ask: ''Other
than noting the species survived how was their fitness measured?''
== Examples of tautological expressions ==
A common form of tautology or ''improvised poetry'' depending on the
[[Pragmatics]] is using two forms of the same word in the same
construction. E.g., the British [[supermarket]] [[Tesco]] sells a
brand of [[Thyme|lemon thyme]] which it describes as having an
"aromatic aroma".{{Fact|date=June 2008}} [[Synonyms]] may also produce
a tautology; "free gift" is tautologous because a gift, by definition,
is something given without charge. Other such examples of tautology
include "sufficiently adequate" and "new innovation". In phrases,
tautology is present in sayings such as "I can see it with my own
eyes", "suddenly, without warning" and "forward planning"/"planning
ahead". Another common example is "reason why" which contains
repetition because a "reason" is already by definition a description
of why something happens. Compare; "This is the reason why it
happens", "This is the reason it happens" and "This is why it
happens".
marks...@yahoo.com
I think the issue here is the meaning of "Improved form" or as put
elsewhere "fittest" . The survivor in reproductive terms is the
fittest or most improved or it would not have survived. Google
tautology.
backspace
> On Mar 15, 2:13 pm, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Darwin:
> > "....conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase
> > so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to
> >Extinctionof less improved forms...".
>
> > === rephrase ===
> >NaturalSelectionentails Divergence of Character and theExtinction
> > of less improved forms.
>
> > === rephrase ===
>
> > Question:
> > Other than noting that the dinosaurs are dead how did Darwin manage to
> > figure out they were less improved?
>
> I think the issue here is the meaning of "Improved form" or as put
> elsewhere "fittest" . The survivor in reproductive terms is the
> fittest or most improved or it would not have survived. Google
> tautology.
Or lets take the meaning of "accumulation"
1) There was an accumulation of rocks over time on the mountain - no
intent.
2) There was an accumulation of fish by the fishermen. - intent.
English is not like Greek single words are used to communicate the
intent. First you must figure out what your concept is and then use
words such as 'selection' , accumulation to communicate that concept
from signal sender to signal receiver.
What would be the intent with "fittest" and "improved form" the
meanings could be anything you want to make it mean really.
backspace
>
> > Question:
> > Other than noting that the dinosaurs are dead how did Darwin manage to
> > figure out they were less improved?
> I think the issue here is the meaning of "Improved form" or as put
> elsewhere "fittest" . The survivor in reproductive terms is the
> fittest or most improved or it would not have survived. Google
> tautology.
Let me then reduce it even further to its core tautological proposition
(not expression there is a difference):
=== rephrase ===
Natural Selection is the Extinction of dead animals.
Question:
Other than noting that the dinosaurs are dead how did Darwin manage to
figure out they went extinct ?
backspace
> Or lets take the meaning of "accumulation"
> 1) There was an accumulation of rocks over time on the mountain - no
> intent.
> 2) There was an accumulation of fish by the fishermen. - intent.
Typo:
> English is not like Greek single words are used to communicate the
> intent.
Correction:
English is not like Greek, single words are NOT used to communicate a
single intent.
In Greek Agape, Eros, PHile have distinct meanings. In English Love
could mean many things in different contexts.
backspace
> Let me then reduce it even further to its core tautological proposition
> (not expression there is a difference):
> === rephrase ===
> Natural Selection is the Extinction of dead animals.
> Question:
> Other than noting that the dinosaurs are dead how did Darwin manage to
> figure out they went extinct ?
Thus what Darwin managed to do is essentially say: Whatever happens
happen. He finds a dead bone and declares it is dead because it died.
This same deceit is carried on today with each new discovery such as
genes and bacterial resistance. We are basically told that bacteria
have resistance because they have resistance and therefore they
"evolved". The words adaptation, selection, evolution are mixed in to
the story but the core essence from the time Aristotle to James Hutton
- http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.creationism/browse_frm/thread/aefd3884630a72bb#
- William Wells, Matthews, Wallace and finally Darwin who got his
tautological thinking from these authors is: What will be will be.
Genes, they are. Bacterial resistance, it happens. Extinction of
species, they died.
Together with factually wrong information: Darwin never said
"reproductive success" or "random mutations". He used transmutation
which had nothing to do with genes, since he didn't know about it, the
"evolutionary" mind enters a sort of intimate cartoonish universe
where fantasy and reality is whatever the "conjuring tricks" in his
head is or the illusions that Gould thought his mind consisted of.
The Bible says there is nothing new under the sun. Paul and the early
Christians had to deal with Greek tautological thinking from Aristotle
as I pointed out in the tautology article on scratchpad. We are not
dealing with a "Theory of Evolution" - there is no such thing but the
tautological reformulation of observations mixed in with a heavy dose
of incessant repeating of the word "evolution" or "selection". PZ
Myers for example hardly ever says "selection" he uses "evolution"
almost exclusively a word that has become meaningless really.
Tim Miller
>
> Thus what Darwin managed to do is essentially say: Whatever happens
> happen. He finds a dead bone and declares it is dead because it died.
You've REALLY got to lay off the drugs.
TimK
"Tim Miller" <replyton...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:gpp27a$jev$1...@news.motzarella.org...
And that fuckwit backspace declares us evolutionists because we support it -
and doesn't call that a tautology.
It's got to hurt to be that stupid.
Tim Miller
He's shown he has NO idea what a tautology is. Though, I'm
not sure the fault is entirely his. I'd bet real money that
English is NOT his primary language.
> It's got to hurt to be that stupid.
We only WISH it did.