> On Oct 19, 8:13 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Note: > > > "...Because it achieved that result, it was retained. That's selection > > > in biology...." > > > "Achieved that result" and "was retained" says the same thing twice, > > > making what Wilkins wrote irrefutable and thus fallacious. > > No, they do not say the same thing. They are statements of act and > > consequence: the achievement of a particular condition engendered a > > particular outcome. Additionally, your removal of the word "Because" > > changes the thrust of those statements. With that word retained, it is > > obvious that the argument presumes an (unstated for brevity and > > readability) oppositional circumstance wherein non-achievement results > > in non-retention.
> === rephrase === > If the goal was achieved it was retained, if it wasn't achieved it > wasn't retained. The irony is you have more clearly formulated the > tautology. Those that worked better were retained implies that those > that didn't work better weren't retained, but this doesn't explain the > actual reason something was retained or rejected. Wilkins entire > paragraph amounts to that if an animal is in existence today it was > "retained" and those dinosaurs who are dead weren't retained. This is > essentially the same thing DArwin wrote (paraphrased and > reformulated): The dinosaurs died because there were "less improved".
> Obviously the dinosaurs were "less improved" or they wouldn't be dead > now would they.
> Gould then took this tautology and reformulated it as: 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.
> * How was this "extinction-proneness" measured, except by noting that > the groups disappeared? > * How was their disapearability measured except by noting that they > were "extinction-prone"?
Fooey. According to you, "brittleness" is a tautology because it's determined by how often something breaks.
On Nov 6, 12:27 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> === rephrase === > Now what special difficulty would there be in Ninja Turtles preserving > each slight variation of beak, better and better adapted.
backspace's creationist-destroyed language skills are so poor he can't even agree that he is different than either of his parents...
On Nov 6, 8:09 am, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 1:32 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> Question to bob: > What has natural selection go to do with change in gene frequencies?
question: why do you refuse to answer questions? you asked me how evolution works. i told you. then i asked you if you disagreed with the fact you're different from your parents
you were unable to answer this simple question.
so...if you can't answer a SIMPLE question, why should i answer a question you have regarding gene frequencies?
unless, and until you answer the simple question:
ARE YOU DIFFERENT THAN YOUR PARENTS?
i will continue to point out that your problem is NOT with evolution, but with language. which it is.
creationism destroys language. the very fact the simplest question in the world wrecks your ability to reason says it all
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 05:09:27 -0800 (PST), backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Nov 6, 1:32 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>Question to bob: >What has natural selection go to do with change in gene frequencies?
It filters the changes after imperfect reproduction.
You cannot possibly be so ignorant that you were unaware of that fact. What is it about you so-called Christians and other religious fundamentalists that you feel that you have the right to deny reality when facts that are inconvenient to your faith, you know, the ones that prove that your doctrine is false, appear? Do you worship a god who is so stupid that he didn't know about those things?
On Nov 5, 1:10 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 2:45 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:> > What then is the theory? > > 1. there exists variations in populations
> Who says so, Theories are always formally defined by somebody.
> > 2. some of these variations confer a reproductive advantage > > 3. these reproductive advantages will spread through a population with > > time, changing the population from the parent population
> === rephrase === > "...Those that confer an advantage will spread ..." > "advantage" and "spread" alludes to the same fact , it says the same > thing twice making your argument water tight, irrefutable, > unfalsifiable.
No it isn't, and it wasn't the last time you claimed this. We could also observe a static system where the distribution of all traits remains stable. That would falsify the theory. Or we could observe a random distribution of traits. That too would falsify the theory.
> > > No, i want to know what theory did he formulate to explain life, if we > > > today still don't know what it is.
The way many scientific theories progress, by starting with an ostensive definition. Point to a tree, a dog, a man and a mushroom and say: these are types of things that are alive; Then point at a brick, a car and a mountain and say: these are things that are not alive. Continue with: My theory explains only the variety we see in the first type of things.
On Nov 6, 5:01 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > === rephrase === > > "...Those that confer an advantage will spread ..." > > "advantage" and "spread" alludes to the same fact , it says the same > > thing twice making your argument water tight, irrefutable, > > unfalsifiable. > No it isn't, and it wasn't the last time you claimed this. We could > also observe a static system where the distribution of all traits > remains stable. That would falsify the theory. Or we could observe a > random distribution of traits. That too would falsify the theory.
You are probably one of the most deceitful people on this mailing list, never addressing the point, using subterfuge, confusing the issues. The reply given by you had no bearing on the tautology: Those that confer an advantage will spread, this is a generalized tautology which could be applied to anything not just organisms but ideas for example.
p.41 "....The struggle for food again supervenes, and those to whom the favourable quality has been transmitted in excess will assuredly triumph...."
.....the addition of increments favourable to the individual .....for not only are unfavourable specimens not selected by nature, but they are destroyed. This is what Mr. Darwin calls 'Natural Selection,' which 'acts by the preservation and accumulation of small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being.'............
p.7,8 '''Lucretius"''' ..... combats the notion that.... nature has been determined by intelligent design..... The inter-action of the atoms ..... rendered all manner of combinations possible. Of these the fit ones persisted, while the unfit ones disappeared........
'''p.22'''
During the Middle Ages the doctrine of atoms had to all appearance vanished from discussion. In all probability it held its ground among sober-minded and thoughtful men, though neither the church nor the world was prepared to hear of it with tolerance. Once, in the year 1348, it received distinct expression. But retraction by compulsion immediately followed, and, thus discouraged, it slumbered till the seventeenth century, when it was revived by a contemporary and friend of Hobbes and Malmesbury, the orthodox Catholic provost of Digne, Gassendi. But before stating his relation to the Epicurean doctrine, it will be well to say a few words on the effect,
In 1813 Dr. Wells.... read ... a paper in which, to use the words of Mr. Darwin, 'he distinctly recognises the principle of natural selection; and this is the first recognition that has been indicated.' ..... Professor Grant, Mr. Patrick Matthew, Von Buch, the author of the 'Vestiges,' D'Halloy, and others,17 by the enunciation of opinions more or less clear and correct, showed that the question had been fermenting long prior to the year 1858, when Mr. Darwin and Mr. Wallace simultaneously published.
On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 09:30:19 -0800 (PST), backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 6, 5:01 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote: >> > === rephrase === >> > "...Those that confer an advantage will spread ..." >> > "advantage" and "spread" alludes to the same fact , it says the same >> > thing twice making your argument water tight, irrefutable, >> > unfalsifiable.
>> No it isn't, and it wasn't the last time you claimed this. We could >> also observe a static system where the distribution of all traits >> remains stable. That would falsify the theory. Or we could observe a >> random distribution of traits. That too would falsify the theory.
>You are probably one of the most deceitful people on this mailing >list,
Far from it, any creationist is far more deceitful.
Oh, and this is usenet - not a mailing list.
[snip more stupidity.]
-- Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than continuing to make a fool of yourself.
On Nov 6, 12:30 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 5:01 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > No it isn't, and it wasn't the last time you claimed this. We could > > also observe a static system where the distribution of all traits > > remains stable. That would falsify the theory. Or we could observe a > > random distribution of traits. That too would falsify the theory.
> You are probably one of the most deceitful people on this mailing > list, never addressing the point, using subterfuge, confusing the > issues.
says the creationist who, when i asked him if he was different than his parents, pissed his pants and said that was 'only a theory.'
he can't even address a simple idea like THAT, but spouts garbage about 'tautologies'.
a guy who thinks the fact he's different than his parent is a 'theory' isn't qualified to discuss language
On Nov 6, 5:30 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 5:01 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > === rephrase === > > > "...Those that confer an advantage will spread ..." > > > "advantage" and "spread" alludes to the same fact , it says the same > > > thing twice making your argument water tight, irrefutable, > > > unfalsifiable. > > No it isn't, and it wasn't the last time you claimed this. We could > > also observe a static system where the distribution of all traits > > remains stable. That would falsify the theory. Or we could observe a > > random distribution of traits. That too would falsify the theory.
> You are probably one of the most deceitful people on this mailing > list, never addressing the point,
I'd say i adressed the point head on. You claimed the statement could not be falisfied ("making your argument water tight, irrefutable, unfalsifiable.") I gave you two possible observations that would falsify the statement, even after your dishonest reformulations. So you are wrong, plain and simple.
using subterfuge, confusing the
> issues. The reply given by you had no bearing on the tautology: Those > that confer an advantage will spread, this is a generalized tautology > which could be applied to anything not just organisms but ideas for > example.
And I showed that it is not a tautology, because it can be falsified. That applies to the 'generalised" version just as well. There are lots of scenarios possible where the most advantageous will not spread. We would observe this for instance when we observe stasis, i.e the distribution of traits remains stable. This is an empirical observation that would falsify the theory.
> p.41 > "....The struggle for food again supervenes, and those to whom the > favourable quality has been transmitted in excess will assuredly > triumph...."
> .....the addition of increments favourable to the individual .....for > not only are unfavourable specimens not selected by nature, but they > are destroyed. This is what Mr. Darwin calls 'Natural Selection,' > which 'acts by the preservation and accumulation of small inherited > modifications, each profitable to the preserved being.'............
> p.7,8 > '''Lucretius"''' > ..... combats the notion that.... nature has been determined by > intelligent design..... The inter-action of the atoms ..... rendered > all manner of combinations possible. Of these the fit ones persisted, > while the unfit ones disappeared........
> '''p.22'''
> During the Middle Ages the doctrine of atoms had to all appearance > vanished from discussion. In all probability it held its ground among > sober-minded and thoughtful men, though neither the church nor the > world was prepared to hear of it with tolerance. Once, in the year > 1348, it received distinct expression. But retraction by compulsion > immediately followed, and, thus discouraged, it slumbered till the > seventeenth century, when it was revived by a contemporary and friend > of Hobbes and Malmesbury, the orthodox Catholic provost of Digne, > Gassendi. But before stating his relation to the Epicurean doctrine, > it will be well to say a few words on the effect,
> In 1813 Dr. Wells.... read ... a paper in which, to use the words of > Mr. Darwin, 'he distinctly recognises the principle of natural > selection; and this is the first recognition that has been > indicated.' ..... Professor Grant, Mr. Patrick Matthew, Von Buch, the > author of the 'Vestiges,' D'Halloy, and others,17 by the enunciation > of opinions more or less clear and correct, showed that the question > had been fermenting long prior to the year 1858, when Mr. Darwin and > Mr. Wallace simultaneously published.
Dave Woetzel wrote: > Lastly, the tautology arguments ascribed to Darwin that some > creationists attack, resemble no argument that Darwin made in "The > Origin of Species." Generally I assume that anyone making the > anti-Darwin tautology argument has not read the book.
I don't necessarily disagree. There is multiplied problems with the theory of natural selection--depending on how it is formulated. Survival of the fittest, as it is popularly presented, is tautologous. But the way that natural selection was formulated by Darwin is generally metaphysical (and still untestable).
"Owing to this struggle for life, any variation, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any species, in its infinitely complex relation to other organic beings and to external nature, will tend to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by offspring." (Darwin, 1859, p. 115)
The challenge facing creationists has been well-articulated by ReMine. Pinning down natural selection is like trying to pin down a pea in the shell game at the carnival. Depending on the theorist, one encounters the *lame formulation*, the *special definition*, the *tautology* or the *metaphysical formulation*. By shifting the pea around, evolutionists can have all the good qualities one could want in science: empirical, measurable, explanatory, general, testable, non-tautologous, and factual.
My comments: This post was from feb27.2000, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics entry on a green light was only around 2008. The key insight missing the last 150 years in these endless debates is that no single term has a single true meaning. It all depends on who says natural selection, such as the endless revisions to wikipedia natural selection article. We don't know who changed the opening paragraph from 2007-2008 to something different in 2009 , but just as tautologies . This does't happen in any other branch of science, nobody makes up their pet definitions of newtons inverse square law for example.
The 2007-2008 revision I had ball with, it so clearly gave what darwin wrote: Those that were favorable were preserved and those preserved were favorable, which is an outright tautology, it says the same thing twice, indisputable.
p.194 "...Natural Selection turns out to be of only secondary importance. It is not creative, but only confirmative. It is a weeding-out process; it is Nature's way of improving the stock. Its tendency is to make species more and more hardy and virile. The weak and insufficiently endowed among all forms tend to drop out. Life to all creatures is more or less a struggle, a struggle with the environment, with the inorganic forces,—storm, heat, cold, sterile land, and engulfing floods,—and it is a struggle with competing forms for food and shelter and a place in the sun. The strongest, the most amply endowed with what we call vitality or power to live, win. Species have come to be what they are through this process. Immunity from disease comes through this fight for life; and adaptability—through trial and struggle species adapt themselves, as do our own bodies, to new and severe conditions. The naturally weak fall by the wayside as in an army on a forced march. Every creature becomes the stronger by the opposition it overcomes. Natural Selection gives[194] speed, where speed is the condition of safety, strength where strength is the condition, keenness and quickness of sense-perception where these are demanded. Natural Selection works upon these attributes and tends to perfect them..."
=== rephrased === ".... The weak and insufficiently endowed among all forms tend to drop out.....The strongest.... win. Species have come to be what they are through this process...... The naturally weak fall by the wayside............."
The same theme from Aristotle and James Hutton, same mistake: The weak die, the strong live which can't be disputed hence isn't a theory. This fallacious form of reasoning have so infiltrated our culture that even Ken Ham thinks natural selection is a process that eliminates the less improved........what hope is there for mankind......sigh.......:(
> p.194 > "...Natural Selection turns out to be of only secondary importance. It > is not creative, but only confirmative. It is a weeding-out process; > it is Nature's way of improving the stock. Its tendency is to make > species more and more hardy and virile. The weak and insufficiently > endowed among all forms tend to drop out. Life to all creatures is > more or less a struggle, a struggle with the environment, with the > inorganic forces,—storm, heat, cold, sterile land, and engulfing > floods,—and it is a struggle with competing forms for food and shelter > and a place in the sun. The strongest, the most amply endowed with > what we call vitality or power to live, win. Species have come to be > what they are through this process. Immunity from disease comes > through this fight for life; and adaptability—through trial and > struggle species adapt themselves, as do our own bodies, to new and > severe conditions. The naturally weak fall by the wayside as in an > army on a forced march. > Every creature becomes the stronger by the opposition it overcomes. > Natural Selection gives[194] speed, where speed is the condition of > safety, strength where strength is the condition, keenness and > quickness of sense-perception where these are demanded. Natural > Selection works upon these attributes and tends to perfect them..."
> === rephrased === > ".... The weak and insufficiently endowed among all forms tend to drop > out.....The strongest.... win. Species have come to be what they are > through this process...... The naturally weak fall by the > wayside............."
> The same theme from Aristotle and James Hutton, same mistake: The weak > die, the strong live which can't be disputed hence isn't a theory.
It sure can be disputed, and as a matter of fact _is_ disputed at least for humans. You can have an environment that is so benign that nobody dies before they procreate - many scientists think that thanks to modern medicine, that is where we are as humans now. In this setting _everybody_ lives (long enough) If we lived in a Garden of Eden scenario, observations too would tell us that the theory is false. In fact, if you think "weak" and "strong" refers to physical strenght, the theory is wrong for many species. In many, the one with the best camouflage, or the one's withthe biggest plume have the advantage over the strong.
In any case, it is an empirical, contingent fact for which you have to look into the world. Word meaning does not tell you that the strong survive, hence it is not a tautology.
> This fallacious form of reasoning have so infiltrated our culture that > even Ken Ham thinks natural selection is a process that eliminates the > less improved........what hope is there for mankind......sigh.......:(
On Nov 7, 1:08 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The same theme from Aristotle and James Hutton, same mistake: The weak > die, the strong live which can't be disputed hence isn't a theory. > This fallacious form of reasoning have so infiltrated our culture that > even Ken Ham thinks natural selection is a process that eliminates the > less improved........what hope is there for mankind......sigh.......:(
objective assessment:
your language skills aren't up to handling aristotle. perhaps 'dick and jane' would be a better place for you to start.
On Nov 7, 8:08 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> === rephrased === > ".... The weak and insufficiently endowed among all forms tend to drop > out.....The strongest.... win. .... The naturally weak fall by the > wayside............."
And then follows the non-sequitur by John Burroughs
>Species have come to be what they are through this process..
p.117 :''".... It is rather a form of the Survival of the Fittest theory applied, not to entire organisms, but to the particles of which it is composed. Blind and ceaseless trials, such as those imagined by Em- pedocles, Democritus, and Lucretius, are made by these particles, impelled by their rude sensibility. As a sequel of many failures, finally a favourable combination is formed, which persists until a recom- bination is rendered necessary....."''
Now this was essentially the interpretation of Burroughs of Darwin, but note how Osborn and Burroughs differed over the term natural selection.
:''...Morley (not knowing of Empedocles' hypothesis) speaks of as an anticipation of a famous modern theory, referring of course to * Natural Selection.' This is especially valuable because it affords another conclusive proof that the idea of the ' Survival of the Fittest ' must actually be traced back to Empedocles, six centuries before Christ. It is contained in an imaginary dialogue upon the teleological view of Nature between ' Saunderson ' and the ' Professor ' : " ... all the faulty combinations of matter disappeared, and that those individuals only survived whose mechanism implied no important misadaptation (contradiction), and who had the power of supporting and per- petuating themselves....." ''
=== Tautological essence === : " ... all the faulty ...disappeared, and that those that survived.... had the power of .....perpetuating themselves....." ''
> On Nov 7, 8:08 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > === rephrased === > > ".... The weak and insufficiently endowed among all forms tend to drop > > out.....The strongest.... win. .... The naturally weak fall by the > > wayside............."
> And then follows the non-sequitur by John Burroughs
> >Species have come to be what they are through this process..
> p.117 > :''".... It is rather a form of the Survival of the Fittest theory > applied, not to entire organisms, > but to the particles of which it is composed. Blind and ceaseless > trials, such as those imagined by Em- pedocles, Democritus, and > Lucretius, are made by these particles, impelled by their rude > sensibility. As a sequel of many failures, finally a favourable > combination is formed, which persists until a recom- bination is > rendered necessary....."''
> Now this was essentially the interpretation of Burroughs of Darwin, > but note how Osborn and Burroughs differed over the term natural > selection.
> :''...Morley (not knowing of Empedocles' hypothesis) speaks of as an > anticipation of a famous modern theory, referring of course to * > Natural Selection.' This is especially valuable because it affords > another conclusive proof that the idea of the ' Survival of the > Fittest ' must > actually be traced back to Empedocles, six centuries before Christ. It > is contained in an imaginary dialogue upon the teleological view of > Nature > between ' Saunderson ' and the ' Professor ' : " ... all the faulty > combinations of matter disappeared, and that those individuals only > survived whose mechanism implied no important misadaptation > (contradiction), and who had the power of supporting and per- > petuating themselves....." ''
> === Tautological essence === > : " ... all the faulty ...disappeared, and that those that > survived.... had the power of .....perpetuating themselves....." ''
Burroughs and Osborn interpreted or formulated the same tautology. Burroughs was a sort of a pantheist believing that there must be some cosmic force behind all of this and thus "chance or natural selection" alone can't be responsible. Osborn would have none of this it seems but then said that evolution (he didn't say natural selection in the New York times article) doesn't happen by chance.
Osborn seemed to have suffered from some sort of "linguistic schizophrenia" , if there was no cosmic force then everything had to just happen by itself as the universe made itself "poof" - just like that . Burroughs said no there must be some "force" out there but both of them formulated the Empedocles , Aristotle tautology the same: The good live, the bad die. From this banality they each formulated different world views, different nuances. They both failed to notice the logically fallacious basis of their conclusions. IN essence they came to some sort of a conclusion - any conclusion and then in order to motivate for such a world view - any view - they formulated proposition which can't be disputed and after this each respective world view, the reader of both of them not realizing that they could both be wrong.
p.221 From the Greeks to Darwin by Osborn (gutenberg press)
THE SELECTIONISTS.
"....The modern theory of Natural Selection was ex- pressed first by DR. W. C. WELLS, in 1813, then by St. Hilaire the elder, then by Matthew, in 1831, and finally, with considerably less clearness, if at all, by Naudin, in 1852. Darwin gives us references to the two English writers. That of Wells is the first statement of the theory of the survival, not simply of fittest organisms, as understood by previous writers, such as Buffon and Treviranus, but of or- ganisms surviving because of their possession of favourable variations in single characters. Wells' paper, read before the Royal Society in 1813, was entitled, " An Account of a White Female, part of whose Skin resembles that of a Negro " ; it was not published until iSiS. 1 He here recognizes the principle of Natural Selection, as applied to the races of men, and to the explanation of the origin of single characters....."
=== TAutology part === "....That of Wells is the first statement of the theory of the survival, not simply of fittest organisms, as understood by previous writers, such as Buffon and Treviranus, but of organisms surviving because of their possession of favourable variations in single characters....|
=== rephrase === The theory of the survival, is organisms surviving because of favorable variations.
=== rephrase === Those that survived had favorable variations.
Here are key passages from osborn showing how Empedocles was the originator of the tautology: The good atom survived,the bad atom died. This tautology was arbitrarily associated with adaptations, evolution and selection. The atoms fighting it out for victory myth was replaced with the organisms themselves now strugling for survival with the good living , the bad dying as can be seen from DArwin in on p.234 "....Darwin soon saw the force of Selection as the secret of man's success in forming useful races of animals and plants; and in October, 1838, while reading Mal- thus on population, the idea of Selection in a state of Nature first occurred to him as the result of the struggle for existence, or rather for life, between different individuals and species...."
Thus when John Wilkins says : Those that were retained worked better, that is selection in biology, the word "selection" was an arbitrary choice not altering the underlying tautology. He could just as well have said ".....that is Tooth Fairy in biology....". Somebody phone Jerry Fodor and explain to him that a YEC in South-africa has finally managed to figure out the intended meaning of natural selection.
=== p.246 === The idea of Evolution, rooted in the cosmic evo- lution and ' movement ' of Heraclitus and Aristotle, has passed to the progressive development and succession of life seen in Empedocles, Aristotle, Bruno, Descartes, Goethe, and in the more concrete mutability of species ' of Bacon, Leibnitz, Buffon, Lamarck, and St. Hilaire.
The direct transition from the inorganic to the organic is seen to have had a host of friends, nearly to the present time, including, besides all the Greeks, Lucretius, Augustine, Maillet, Buffon, Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck, Treviranus, Oken, and Chambers- Then we have seen the difficulty of ' origin ' removed one step back by the ' pre-existent germs ' of Anaxa- goras, revived by Maillet, Robinet, Diderot, and Bonnet. Again, the rudiments of the monistic idea of the psychic properties of all matter, foreshadowed by Empedocles, are seen revived by Maupertuis and Diderot. The difficulty of origin has been avoided by the assumption of primordial minute masses, which we have seen developed from the ' soft germ ' of Aristotle, to the 'vesicles' and 'filaments' of Buffon, Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck, Oken, and finally into our primordial protoplasm.
To the inquiry : Where did life first appear ? we find the answer, ' in the sea,' given by Thales, Anaximander, and Maillet; 'between sea and land,' is the answer of Anaximenes, Diogenes, Democritus, and Oken; 'from the earth,' is the solitary reply of Lucretius. Now we are too wise to answer it. For the succession of life we have followed the ' ascend- ing scale ' of Aristotle, Bruno, Leibnitz, and others, until Buffon realized its inadequacy, and Lamarck substituted the simile of the branching tree. Of man as the summit of the scale, and still in process of becoming more perfect in his endowments, we learn from Empedocles, Aristotle, Robinet, Diderot, Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck, and Treviranus.
=== p.249 === Anatomy and Embryology, as pursued by Buffon, Kant, Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck, Goethe, Trevi- ranus, St. Hilaire, and Serres. The significance of ' degeneration ' and of * vestigial structures ' mean- while grew clear in the interpretations of Sylvius, Buffon, Kant, Goethe, and Lamarck.
=== p.245 === Remarkable as this parallelism 1 is, it is not com- plete. The line of argument is the same, but the point d'appui is different. Darwin dwells upon variations in single characters, as taken hold of by Selection ; Wallace mentions variations, but dwells upon full-formed varieties, as favourably or unfavour- ably adapted. It is perfectly clear that with Darwin the struggle is so intense that the chance of sur- vival of each individual turns upon a single and even slight variation. With Wallace, Varieties are already presupposed by causes which he does not discuss, a change in the environment occurs, and those varieties which happen to be adapted to it survive. There is really a wide gap between these two statements and applications of the theory.
=== p.242 === Sixth edition of the Origin of Species (1880, p. 424). In the modification of species he refers as causes, successively to his own, to Lamarck's, and to Buffon's factor in the following clear language: "This has been effected chiefly through the natural selection of numerous, successive, slight, favourable variations; aided in an important manner by the inherited effects of the use and disuse of parts....."
=== p.230 === Osborn quotes Kingsley out of context: As Canon Kingsley wrote to Maurice : " Darwin is conquering everywhere, and rushing in like a flood by the mere force of truth and fact." Osborn left out "...absolute empire of accident..." - [[CharlesKingsley]], because Osborn didn't believe evolution happened by chance.
>=== TAutology part === >"....That of Wells is the first statement of the theory of the >survival, not simply of fittest organisms, as understood by previous >writers, such as Buffon and Treviranus, but of organisms surviving >because of their possession of favourable variations in single >characters....|
of course, this creationist, with his obsession about tautologies, shrieked when i told him he was different than his parents that that was 'only a theory' and wanted to know who developed it...
Further Thoughts on Natural Selection Eric Anderson May 26, 2004 Although from a logical perspective the concept of natural selection need not fail as a formal tautology, in practice it is exceedingly difficult to divorce fitness from survivability. As a result, invoking the concept of natural selection generally results in uninformative circular reasoning. Attempts to rescue natural selection from the tautology problem tend to inadvertently underscore the difficulty of endowing the concept with any substantive meaning. This is true in both its classical form, as well as its Neo-Darwinian incarnation of “greater reproductive success.” Having become interested in the evolution debate in the spring of 2003, I ploughed through the sixth edition of Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species cover to cover and was struck by the logical and rhetorical stance taken by Darwin in that work. In further reviewing the question of a possible tautological formation in Darwin’s description of natural selection, I came across a 1997 FAQ by John Wilkins on the Talk.Origins Archive entitled “A Good Tautology is Hard to Find.” In his article, which still enjoys a prominent link on the Talk.Origins site, Wilkins contends that the concept of natural selection is not a tautology. He further contends that natural selection rules out many possibilities, which adds to its substantive explanatory power. In my first effort to place pen to paper in the evolution debate, I wrote a short article in which I challenged Wilkins’ contentions and, in a word play on the title of Wilkins’ article, entitled my piece “A Good Tautology is Hard to Avoid.” Recently I learned that David Ford had posted my article to a Google discussion group. In reviewing the postings, I note that several members of the group have raised various challenges, concerns and complaints regarding my article. I am unfortunately unable to respond to each of these points on an individual basis, but would like to provide a response on a consolidated basis. For ease of discussion I quote below the principal issues raised by members of the discussion group and then provide a response. No doubt readers would be benefited by first reviewing my original piece (and Wilkins’ article for that matter) to get the proper background. Nevertheless, I trust that this response will be somewhat intelligible as a stand-alone document. Incidentally, I corresponded with John a couple of months ago about my critique of his article, and received a very kind reply acknowledging my points and indicating that he -2- still viewed natural selection as a non-tautology, but for different reasons than those provided in his original article. I am hoping that John will have an opportunity to post a follow-up to his 1997 article, and trust that he will raise interesting and challenging points. In the meantime, however, I would like to address the issues raised in the Google discussion group. 1. Ferrous Patella: “I do not see how natural selection can be a tautology. Natural selection only claims that the more fit are more likely to survive. For it to be a tautology the fitter must always survive and reproduce. We can observe that the obviously less fit do sometimes survive by sheer dint of luck. Very fit specimens are brought down by the same. As a thought experiment, picture a herd of antelope. One genetically sickly member is trailing behind. Out of nowhere, a bolt of lightening zaps the herd’s alpha male. The sickly member has no superior fitness to survive that lightening bolt . . . yet he survived. So there you have it. The fit do not always survive. ‘Survival of the fittest’ is not a tautology.” This is an amazing argument, but I have seen it in more than one place (including an indirect nod by Howard Hershey in the last section below) so it must be making the rounds. Apparently Patella believes that in order for there to be tautology problem natural selection must argue that the fitter “always” survive. Patella then cheerfully informs us that because natural selection does not mean that the fitter always survive, but rather that the fitter are more likely to survive, then voilà, there is no tautology problem. Let’s examine this position for a moment. According to Patella if we formulate natural selection as follows we have a tautology: “Survival of the fittest means that the fittest always survive,” but if we formulate natural selection thusly, we will not have a tautology: “Survival of the fitter means that the fitter are more likely to survive.” Patella’s approach is substantively no different than John Wilkins’ statement that natural selection can be saved from the tautology problem by formulating it as “expected” survival rather than actual survival. I have already addressed this point in my previous piece, but it may be worth discussing again, as there is an important nuance here. The problem with both Wilkins’ and Patella’s approaches is that they seek to avoid the tautology problem simply by tweaking the verb tense or mood or changing the superlative adjective “fittest” to the comparative adjective “fitter.” But these cosmetic changes are irrelevant to the logical structure of the formulation. Further, Patella’s -3- inclusion of the adverb “always” simply alters the inclusiveness of the hypothesis’ proposition, but not the structure of the formulation. It makes absolutely no difference for purposes of analyzing the logical formulation whether we focus on the creatures that did survive or the creatures that will survive. Nor does it matter whether we talk about the “fittest” surviving, or the “fitter,” or even the plain old “fit” for that matter. The concern with natural selection arises not because an adjective is in the wrong declension from a morphological standpoint, but because from a logical standpoint the substance attributed to the adjective is defined in terms of its premise. Whether we say “survival of the fittest,” or “survival of the fitter,” or “survival of the plain old fit,” as soon as we start defining the fittest/fitter/fit in terms of those that survive we have circular reasoning, which in a causative argument amounts to a tautology. I should point out that in my original piece I explicitly acknowledge that “survival of the fittest” does not itself constitute a tautology. It is that statement coupled with a definition of the fit in terms of survivability that results in circular reasoning and deprives the concept of meaning. I believe Patella’s confusion and fixation on the adverb “always” may result from the way the term tautology is sometimes used in the Boolean algebra context, which is roughly that in a given problem a tautology is a formulation that is true in all circumstances. This formulation can be found in this classic riddle (borrowed from Wikinfo): “On the Keikei Island, there lived two kinds of people – knights and knaves. The knights always tell the truth, but the knaves always tell a lie. John and Bill are residents of the Keikie Island. John says: ‘We are both knaves.’ Who is who?” In the above example, if you run through the various possibilities it turns out that the proposition “John is a knave and Bill is a Knight” is the only proposition that is true in all circumstances. This proposition is sometimes called a “tautology” for purposes of Boolean algebra, and one can solve the puzzle by solving for the tautology, or in other words, solving for the one case which is always true. As a result, I am suspicious that Patella’s focus on the adverb “always” may be the result of confusing the definition of a tautology as something that is “always” true in all circumstances, with the underlying substance of the formulation in question. He therefore proposes that by eliminating the “always” and substituting in its place “more likely” he can avoid the tautology. There are two problems, however, with Patella’s suggestion. First, the fact that a Boolean algebra tautology is “always” true is completely separate from the question of whether the tautological formulation itself contains the word “always.” Certainly one can have a tautology with propositions such as “never,” -4- “occasionally,” “usually,” “tend to,” or any other number of adverbs and adverbial phrases. For example, if we said “the unfit never survive,” and then defined the unfit as “the ones who never survive” we would still be left with a tautology, without ever using the word “always.” Indeed, we can easily have a tautology without using any adverb: “the fit survive,” coupled with “the fit are those that survive.” Amusingly, the online encyclopedia Wikipedia provides the following example of a tautology: “As a humorous example, the tautology is famously defined as ‘that which is tautological’. (That definition is, of course, tautological.) In a more realistic example, if a biologist were to define ‘fit’ in the phrase ‘survival of the fittest’ as ‘more likely to survive’, he would be forming a tautology.” One need not of course rely on Wikipedia as the authority in this matter, but the point is that “more likely” is just as good for creating a tautology as “always.” The particular adverb is irrelevant. It is the definition of the resultant by reference to the antecedent that creates the tautology. Second, the Boolean algebra situation is somewhat different from the context of the natural selection discussion, which is a proposition of causation. In the Boolean algebra context there is nothing wrong with seeking a tautology. Indeed, in our example of the knights and the knaves, we solve the puzzle by solving for the tautology, or the statement that is true in all circumstances. In
...
> Further Thoughts on Natural Selection > Eric Anderson > May 26, 2004
One should not post the entirety of another person's articles without their permission. It's bad manners and probably contrary to IP laws. So I snipped it.
Eric makes the following point:
[Quoting Ferrous Pattella from here]
"As a thought experiment, picture a herd of antelope. One genetically sickly member is trailing behind. Out of nowhere, a bolt of lightening zaps the herd¹s alpha male. The sickly member has no superior fitness to survive that lightening bolt . . . yet he survived.
So there you have it. The fit do not always survive. ŒSurvival of the fittest¹ is not a tautology.² <end FP quote>
<Eric>This is an amazing argument, but I have seen it in more than one place (including an indirect nod by Howard Hershey in the last section below) so it must be making the rounds. Apparently Patella believes that in order for there to be tautology problem natural selection must argue that the fitter ³always² survive.<end Eric>"
Well yes. That's rather what "tautology" means - it can never not be true. If it can be false at any point then it is simply not a tautology, no matter what one might think of the claim as a statistical likelihood.
This argument is due to Michael Scriven, and was reused by Elliot Sober in his _Nature of Selection_ in 1984.
FWIW I have responded to the tautology argument recently:
Osborn in his book "from the greeks to darwin" noted that by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Reinhold_Treviranus and Buffon coined SoF and Spencer lifted it from them. Note that only an argument can be tautological , it is incorrect to say for example that Rogger Rabbit or SoF isn't a tautology, it depends what was the argument made the user of these symbol strings.
Osborn on vestigal structures, an argument refuted by ID === p.249 === Anatomy and Embryology, as pursued by Buffon, Kant, Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck, Goethe, Treviranus, St. Hilaire, and Serres. The significance of ' degeneration ' and of * vestigial structures ' mean- while grew clear in the interpretations of Sylvius, Buffon, Kant, Goethe, and Lamarck.
What an amazing insight, what brilliance, what sheer magnificent display of intellectual fidelity.
>We can see that the brain forms by natural processes.
Depends who says so.
>We can see advantages to individuals in our lineage that are smarter.
Here is the tautology: "....those with advantages are smarter...." or "....those that are smarter will have advantages.....". Can you think of any way to refute this?
> We can readily infer from the available evidence in anatomy, comparative biology,
|
