Natural selection and favorable traits how were they measured ?
backspace
"..... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that
are heritable become more common in successive generations ....."
Now other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,
how were their favoribility actually measured?
--
fnord
Ron O
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selectiontells us:
> "..... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that
> are heritable become more common in successive generations ....."
>
> Now other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,
> how were their favoribility actually measured?
>
> --
> fnord
You have been arguing against natural selection and you do not know
the answer?
Why don't you answer your own question just so that we know that you
haven't been blowing smoke all this time, and we'd also find out if
your question pertained to how a scientists would measure it, or how
nature does the job.
Ron Okimoto
geo...@hotmail.com
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selectiontells us:
> "..... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that
> are heritable become more common in successive generations ....."
>
> Now other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,
> how were their favoribility actually measured?
>
> --
> fnord
I actually know the answer to this. It's very simple, but as Ron
Okimoto has said, find out yourself. Talkorigins.org probably has the
answer somewhere (clue: you want the word 'fitness'). I learned this,
the same way I learned what abiogenesis was and why it is different
from evolution. Funny how I only needed to learn once, whereas
creationists repeat that mistake. Funny also how they're the ones that
are using it in arguments.
backspace
Let me give you a clue as to the answer:
http://whatnaturaled.blogspot.com
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/evolution.html
According to the Talk.Origins Archive, sharks haven't changed because
they "are excellently adapted to their particular niche in their
environment."
Does anyone know how this "excellent adaptation" was measured (apart
from observing that sharks haven't changed, that is)?
"[T]he 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.
Anyone wants to tell me how this "extinction-proneness" was measured,
except by noting that the groups went extinct?
--
fnord
Grandbank
(snip)
> Anyone wants to tell me how this "extinction-proneness" was measured,
> except by noting that the groups went extinct?
>
Is that an insufficient measure?
How did you measure the sufficiency of the word fnord to get you
whitelisted?
KP
backspace
What are you saying? Are you saying that we measure the "extinction
proneness" by observing what went extinct.
Can't you see that this is tautological , in other words true by
definition.
A tautology is defined as a series of statements that comprise an
argument, which statements are constructed in such a way that the
truth of the proposition is guaranteed. Consequently the statement
conveys no useful information regardless of it's length or complexity.
Thus, for a simple example, the statement "if you can't find something
(that you lost), you are not looking in the right place" is
tautological. It is also true, 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. You can't
lose. Any argument containing a tautological statement is thus flawed
logically and must be considered erroneous.
A tautological argument is not an argument; a tautological game is not
a game. (As an aside, a great many of the later, "more advanced" books
on evolution attempt to explain away this tautology by some beautiful,
highly complex, arguments; e.g. Mayr and or, Gould. Upon close
examination of these arguments it will be found that the conclusion is
usually obtained by a metaphysical "division by zero", like the well
known mathematical proof that 1 = 0. You will note that the bottom
line of all of these complex arguments is always the same, namely that
"natural selection is the cause of evolution".)
It should also be noted that some apologists for Darwinian logic claim
that mathematical equations such as f = ma, or e = mc2 could also be
termed tautologies. This is a faulted attempt to vindicate Darwinism
which could be termed "innocence by association"; in either case, [and
in every case of a mathematical expression] the terms on both sides of
the equation are defined elsewhere independently, and thus the equal
sign does not mean "is defined by" but rather {hate to say it} but is
equal to, thus establishing an equivalence. This equivalence may
establish a new "law", hitherto unknown.
--
fnord
Greg G.
> On Jan 20, 4:47 pm, geop...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 20 Jan, 14:07, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selectiontellsus:
> > > "..... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that
> > > are heritable become more common in successive generations ....."
>
> > > Now other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,
> > > how were their favoribility actually measured?
>
> > > --
> > > fnord
>
> > I actually know the answer to this. It's very simple, but as Ron
> > Okimoto has said, find out yourself. Talkorigins.org probably has the
> > answer somewhere (clue: you want the word 'fitness'). I learned this,
> > the same way I learned what abiogenesis was and why it is different
> > from evolution. Funny how I only needed to learn once, whereas
> > creationists repeat that mistake. Funny also how they're the ones that
> > are using it in arguments.
>
> Let me give you a clue as to the answer:http://whatnaturaled.blogspot.com
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/evolution.html
> According to the Talk.Origins Archive, sharks haven't changed because
> they "are excellently adapted to their particular niche in their
> environment."
You are conflating "sharks" in general with "sharks" as particular
species. No shark species that existed tens of millions of years ago
is still in existance. Some of them evolved into present day sharks.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalodon for a well studied,
recently extinct shark.
>
> Does anyone know how this "excellent adaptation" was measured (apart
> from observing that sharks haven't changed, that is)?
How can you provide a definition for something when you are not
allowed to use a valid definition? Sharks are adapted to an
environment that has remained in existance for some time. In the link
I gave, we have an example of a type of shark that went extinct when
the environment it specialized in changed.
>
> "[T]he 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.
>
> Anyone wants to tell me how this "extinction-proneness" was measured,
> except by noting that the groups went extinct?
An extinction-prone species is dependent on a particular element of
environment. A species that is not extinction-prone is more of a
generalist. For example, the polar bear and the black bear are closely
related but the polar bear is dependent on hunting in an environment
of ice and snow where food sources are limited, while the black bear
eats most anything and lives in an environment that provides a variety
of food.
>
> --
> fnord
AIUI, once you are white-listed you don't need the "fnord". The
"fnord" gets you white-listed (or will in the future). Am I correct?
--
Greg G.
I was trying to daydream, but my mind kept wandering.
.
Greg G.
> On Jan 20, 6:00 pm, Grandbank <zetetic...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 20, 7:33 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > (snip)
>
> > > Anyone wants to tell me how this "extinction-proneness" was measured,
> > > except by noting that the groups went extinct?
>
> > Is that an insufficient measure?
>
> > How did you measure the sufficiency of the word fnord to get you
> > whitelisted?
>
> > KP
>
> What are you saying? Are you saying that we measure the "extinction
> proneness" by observing what went extinct.
> Can't you see that this is tautological , in other words true by
> definition.
>
> A tautology is defined as a series of statements that comprise an
> argument, which statements are constructed in such a way that the
> truth of the proposition is guaranteed.
The term "extinction-proneness" is not a series of statements that
comprise an argument, therefore it is not a tautology.
> Consequently the statement
> conveys no useful information regardless of it's length or complexity.
Insurance companies classify characteristics of groups of people and
charge those groups based on their risk factors. These risk factors
are measured in the same terms that you are complaining about
"extinction-proneness", yet those factors are clearly useful.
WTF is "Darwinian logic"? Evolution is the conclusion reached by
applying plain old deductive reasoning to the facts uncovered by
rigorous research. If your religion is incompatible with those facts,
change your religion or don't embarrass yourself in public.
>
> --
> fnord
--
Greg G.
Time to calibrate my computer. Hand me that hammer.
.
Friar Broccoli
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selectiontells us:
> "..... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that
> are heritable become more common in successive generations ....."
>
> Now other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,
> how were their favoribility actually measured?
Your question is answered in a FAQ provided by John Wilkins here:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
In short Natural Selection results from relative fitness of those
individuals that can be "expected to survive because of their
adaptations and functional efficiency, when compared to others
in the population" (or more succinctly there "extinction-proneness")
I will add that I think that Greg G.'s comment of
Jan 20 2008 12:53 pm about insurance
company evaluations clarifies things so much that I
hope John will consider adding it to his FAQ.
Cordially;
Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com
--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------
Garamond Lethe
<snip>
> A tautological argument is not an argument; a tautological game is not a
> game.
<snip>
And a tautological tautology is not a tautology.
Ken Shackleton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selectiontells us:> ".....
Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that> are
heritable become more common in successive generations ....."> > Now
other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,> how
reproductive success.....simply put, if your traits result in you
having more babies than your peers, those traits will become more
common in the population [over many generations].> > --> fnord
backspace
> On Jan 20, 9:07 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selectiontellsus:
> > "..... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that
> > are heritable become more common in successive generations ....."
> > Now other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,
> > how were their favoribility actually measured?
> Your question is answered in a FAQ provided by John Wilkins here:
> http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
Darwin: "..I have called this principle, by which each slight
variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in
order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the
expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the
Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient. We
have seen that man by selection can certainly produce great results,
and can adapt organic beings to his own uses, through the accumulation
of slight but useful variations, given to him by the hand of Nature.
But Natural Selection, we shall hereafter see, is a power incessantly
ready for action, and is as immeasurably superior to man's feeble
efforts, as the works of Nature are to those of Art....."
Chris Colby: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html#natsel
The phrase "survival of the fittest" is often used synonymously with
natural selection. The phrase is both incomplete and misleading.
John Wilkins: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/cc737705dbc10c8e?tvc=1
"... "survival of the fittest" is a verbal shorthand for complex math.
The *math* is not a tautology - for the terms in the equations are
interpreted, which means they are what gives the equations substance.
For SotF to be an *empty* tautology, and not a contentful one (i.e., a
definition), you would need to show that the terms are not
interpretable...."
John Wilkins wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/38df9a9a127281a8/cea310284f6d201c#cea310284f6d201c
"Many were worried about the voluntaristic implications of the use of
the term "selection": this is why Wallace and Spencer insisted on
changing it to "survival of the fittest", which lacks that
implication. Darwin adopted it, but it raised a whole host of other
problems - the main one being that it made the whole thing into a
tautology, which it wasn't. The main difficulty is that our language
*is* voluntaristic, and we don't have a ready made vocabulary without
connontations for talking about an a posteriori outcome. "Goals" are
unfortunately part of the vernacular - we talk about "in order to" in
biology, but we *don't* mean that a particular biological property
thereby happened with that outcome in "mind". Because it achieved that
result, it was retained. That's selection in biology."
--
fnord
Grandbank
You seem to have confused "saying" with "argument". What is your
intent with "saying" and with "argument"? Is saying something the
same as making an argument? What if you say your not arguing, is that
an argument? Also a bit hazy about your definition of the phrase "by
definition". Are you saying definitions must by definition be false
or else they become tautologies and then by definiton true in a
falsely tautological way?
KP
Friar Broccoli
direct.
On Jan 20, 4:59 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 20, 9:39 pm, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 20, 9:07 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selectiontellsus:
>>> "..... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that
>>> are heritable become more common in successive generations ....."
>>> Now other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,
>>> how were their favoribility actually measured?
>> Your question is answered in a FAQ provided by John Wilkins here:
>>http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html
>
> Darwin: "..I have called this principle, by which each slight
> variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in
> order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the
> expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the
> Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient. We
> have seen that man by selection can certainly produce great results,
> and can adapt organic beings to his own uses, through the accumulation
> of slight but useful variations, given to him by the hand of Nature.
> But Natural Selection, we shall hereafter see, is a power incessantly
> ready for action, and is as immeasurably superior to man's feeble
> efforts, as the works of Nature are to those of Art....."
>
> Chris Colby: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html#natsel
> The phrase "survival of the fittest" is often used synonymously with
> natural selection. The phrase is both incomplete and misleading.
>
> John Wilkins: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1b039385d37c84fb
> "... "survival of the fittest" is a verbal shorthand for complex math.
> The *math* is not a tautology - for the terms in the equations are
> interpreted, which means they are what gives the equations substance.
> For SotF to be an *empty* tautology, and not a contentful one (i.e., a
> definition), you would need to show that the terms are not
> interpretable...."
>
> John Wilkins wrote:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/67ee14eb6cca4fab
> "Many were worried about the voluntaristic implications of the use of
> the term "selection": this is why Wallace and Spencer insisted on
> changing it to "survival of the fittest", which lacks that
> implication. Darwin adopted it, but it raised a whole host of other
> problems - the main one being that it made the whole thing into a
> tautology, which it wasn't. The main difficulty is that our language
> *is* voluntaristic, and we don't have a ready made vocabulary without
> connontations for talking about an a posteriori outcome. "Goals" are
> unfortunately part of the vernacular - we talk about "in order to" in
> biology, but we *don't* mean that a particular biological property
> thereby happened with that outcome in "mind". Because it achieved that
> result, it was retained. That's selection in biology."
I am a bit puzzled by all of the above. I would like to hope
that you have presented the foregoing to indicate that you now
understand the point, however, I fear that you believe you
have seen some contradiction and intend to place it before me to
see if I can untangle it.
I will admit to considerable personal discomfort dealing with
this approach (if indeed that is your intent).
It is, in general, my belief that words are imperfect and
imprecise pointers to reality. I am therefore very suspicious
of word definition games and much more comfortable discussing
the direct evidence for the position I am defending.
Since I haven't followed your discussions much I have spent a few
minutes searching your old messages attempting to figure out
what you position is. Reading between the lines of the
following:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/0c8300c0d3e9c4ef
I get the impression that you (like Behe) accept common descent
and discount pure Natural Selection (NS), preferring some form of
Theological Evolution. Is that correct?
If it is, I won't argue the point. I believe in NS and believe
the evidence points strongly in favour of NS, but I know I
cannot prove that God does not sometimes intervene in the
process.
Do you think that you and I disagree on some substantive
point?
PS: The "fnord"s in your post serve no purpose. The DIG has
already WHITELISTED you.
Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)
Lol... <golf clap>
I'm wondering what his intent is with mindless syntactical attempts to
baffle every issue ever under discussion. I'm thinking it's because
he doesn't have any real arguments.
Al
David Hare-Scott
"backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:020e45f4-c62b-48fb...@21g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...
Here we go again. "Survival of the fittest is a tautology, therefore
evolution is wrong"
How many times are you going to replay this? Probably endlessly. Why?
Because you like the attention you get for being such a dunce and if you
learnt from the many explanations that you have been given you would have to
think up another nonsense to get attention.
David
geo...@hotmail.com
> On Jan 20, 4:47 pm, geop...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 20 Jan, 14:07, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selectiontellsus:
> > > "..... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that
> > > are heritable become more common in successive generations ....."
>
> > > Now other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,
> > > how were their favoribility actually measured?
>
> > > --
> > > fnord
>
> > I actually know the answer to this. It's very simple, but as Ron
> > Okimoto has said, find out yourself. Talkorigins.org probably has the
> > answer somewhere (clue: you want the word 'fitness'). I learned this,
> > the same way I learned what abiogenesis was and why it is different
> > from evolution. Funny how I only needed to learn once, whereas
> > creationists repeat that mistake. Funny also how they're the ones that
> > are using it in arguments.
>
> Let me give you a clue as to the answer:http://whatnaturaled.blogspot.com
You've made a whole blog around your inability to comprehend the
English language? Awesome. :)
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/evolution.html
> According to the Talk.Origins Archive, sharks haven't changed because
> they "are excellently adapted to their particular niche in their
> environment."
>
> Does anyone know how this "excellent adaptation" was measured (apart
> from observing that sharks haven't changed, that is)?
Clue: the sharks have a high 'fitness' in that environment. Fitness is
measured in terms of reproductive success. Basically more children -
more fit, but if you want a better answer, learn some evolution. Get
your friends to stop trying to run it out of schools for biblical
reasons and the education might be easier to obtain. That's a
tautology that is.
>
> "[T]he 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.
>
> Anyone wants to tell me how this "extinction-proneness" was measured,
> except by noting that the groups went extinct?
Have you tried reading the article the quote comes from?
>
> --
> fnord
John Wilkins
> "backspace" <sawirel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:020e45f4-c62b-48fb...@21g2000hsj.googlegroups.com...
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection tells us:
> > "..... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that
> > are heritable become more common in successive generations ....."
> >
> > Now other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,
> > how were their favoribility actually measured?
> >
> > --
> > fnord
> >
>
> Here we go again. "Survival of the fittest is a tautology, therefore
> evolution is wrong"
And let it be noted that tautologies are *by definition* true.
>
> How many times are you going to replay this? Probably endlessly. Why?
>
> Because you like the attention you get for being such a dunce and if you
> learnt from the many explanations that you have been given you would have to
> think up another nonsense to get attention.
>
> David
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
wf3h
> "..... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that
> are heritable become more common in successive generations ....."
>
> Now other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,
> how were their favoribility actually measured?
>
> --
guess backspace doesn't realize that a gazelle that runs faster than
another gazelle can escape from a lion.
it's apparently impossible to overestimate the stupidy that
christianism breeds in its believers...
amazing.
Walter Bushell
<fe10519e-520f-461a...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For example, the polar bear and the black bear are closely
> related but the polar bear is dependent on hunting in an environment
> of ice and snow where food sources are limited, while the black bear
> eats most anything and lives in an environment that provides a variety
> of food.
But the polar bear can be transformed into a regular bear by a simple
coordinate transformation.
Greg G.
> In article
> <fe10519e-520f-461a-af6a-1c0b6467e...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
That would be a Cartesian bear...
.
John Wilkins
Michael Siemon
j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
> Greg G. <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 20, 9:29 pm, Walter Bushell <pr...@oanix.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <fe10519e-520f-461a-af6a-1c0b6467e...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > For example, the polar bear and the black bear are closely
> > > > related but the polar bear is dependent on hunting in an environment
> > > > of ice and snow where food sources are limited, while the black bear
> > > > eats most anything and lives in an environment that provides a variety
> > > > of food.
> > >
> > > But the polar bear can be transformed into a regular bear by a simple
> > > coordinate transformation.
> >
> > That would be a Cartesian bear...
> > .
>
> Riemannian Bears have a saddle.
Nah; that's Lobachevskian bears...
Ken Shackleton
9:07 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:> > >http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selectiontellsus:> > "..... Natural
selection is the process by which favorable traits that> > are
heritable become more common in successive generations ....."> > > Now
other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,> >
how were their favoribility actually measured?> > > --> > guess
backspace doesn't realize that a gazelle that runs faster than>
another gazelle can escape from a lion.> > it's apparently impossible
to overestimate the stupidy that> christianism breeds in its
Christianity....fundamentalism of any sort leads to all sorts of
stupidity.Ken...
TomS
<mlsiemon-0801B9...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>, Michael Siemon
stated..."
Consider a spherical bear ...
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
Puppet_Sock
> "..... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that
> are heritable become more common in successive generations ....."
>
> Now other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,
> how were their favoribility actually measured?
How does one measure the ability of a runner to run? Are you
looking for some complicated thing beyond "measure how
fast the runner runs?"
Maybe you want to call highschool track meets "tautological."
Socks
Walter Bushell
TomS <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
But spherical bears are bipolar. You don't even want to thing about a
bipolar polar bear. Unbearable!
backspace
> If it is, I won't argue the point. I believe in NS and believe
> the evidence points strongly in favour of NS, but I know I
> cannot prove that God does not sometimes intervene in the
> process.
> Do you think that you and I disagree on some substantive
> point?
Let me ask you the following which is my answer to you:
What is the true meaning of the following:
1) Survival of the fittest. (Note that I never said SoF is a
tautology.)
2) You Friar Broccoli have a green light.
Think a bit about this.....
Bill Hudson
> On Jan 20, 9:07 am, backspace <sawireless2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selectiontellsus:
> > "..... Natural selection is the process by which favorable traits that
> > are heritable become more common in successive generations ....."
>
> > Now other than noting that traits which become common are heritable,
> > how were their favoribility actually measured?
>
> > --
>
> guess backspace doesn't realize that a gazelle that runs faster than
> another gazelle can escape from a lion.
>
Also note, the gazelle doesn't have to run faster than the lion, but
only a bit faster than the other gazelle. A joke involving two
hunters, a grizzly bear, and a pair of running shoes comes to mind.
Bill Hudson
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
> > If it is, I won't argue the point. I believe in NS and believe
> > the evidence points strongly in favour of NS, but I know I
> > cannot prove that God does not sometimes intervene in the
> > process.
> > Do you think that you and I disagree on some substantive
> > point?
>
> Let me ask you the following which is my answer to you:
>
> What is the true meaning of the following:
> 1) Survival of the fittest. (Note that I never said SoF is a
> tautology.)
Differential reproductive success of organisms due to an interplay
between environmental conditions and variations of the phenotypes
within a population.
[snip]
hersheyh
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
> > If it is, I won't argue the point. I believe in NS and believe
> > the evidence points strongly in favour of NS, but I know I
> > cannot prove that God does not sometimes intervene in the
> > process.
> > Do you think that you and I disagree on some substantive
> > point?
>
> Let me ask you the following which is my answer to you:
>
> What is the true meaning of the following:
> 1) Survival of the fittest. (Note that I never said SoF is a
> tautology.)
Taken literally, not much. Better would be "survival of the
fitter" (reproductive success is relative to the success of others,
not absolute -- there is no 'fittest' in an absolute sense, only
fitter in a conditional and relative sense). Better yet would be
"greater differential reproductive success due to better phenotypic
adaption to local conditions than organisms with a different
phenotype" (only that portion of the phenotype that is due to genotype
has evolutionary consequences). This, of course, assumes that the
words 'success' and 'better' are used, as is standard usage, for the
survival and/or reproductive success of an organism rather than for
its early death or sterility. So we are really looking at a
correlation: between differential reproductive success and adaptive
success (on some feature important to an organism's relative ability
to live/reproduce in a particular local environment). Sometimes
relative adaption can be measured independently by engineering
standards. That is, certain phenotypes can be empirically
demonstrated to be be better at helping an organism eat, survive, and/
or reproduce than alternative phenotypes. In organisms, the only
consistent measure of "success" is differential reproductive success.
In a number of cases, death of the organism itself is evolutionarily
favored *because* it leads to increased reproductive success.
Friar Broccoli
Hmmm, as I see things here,
- I don't like talking about linguistic distinctions
- You don't like talking about physical reality (or maybe you
just don't want to tell us what you believe - or something
like that)
So I wonder if we can make a deal here:
I will work out and present an answer that I like to your
question: "What does 'Survival of the fittest' mean?",
if you will agree to tell me something about what you believe,
specifically beginning with:
Do you accept the reality of the tree of common descent which
includes things like - modern whales are descendants of a common
non-whale ancestor?
Note, that I am willing to go first, if you will agree that you
will provide me with a clear answer to my question in your very
next post to me.
Is that arrangement acceptable to you?
Inez
He doesn't want *your* definition of survival of the fittest, he
want's *the* definition of survival of the fittest, which he believes
must have been published in the Journal of Establishing Terms. If two
people write defintions that differ in a single word, everything is
thrown in confusion and we must reject the theory as meaningless.
Friar Broccoli
Thanks for summarizing his position.
As long as I can get him to tell me what he thinks external
reality looks like as it relates to evolution, I am willing to hear
his argument through.