Aristotle and his tautological influence - talk.origins

Message from discussion Aristotle and his tautological influence

Burkhard

View profile

More options Nov 4 2009, 12:41 pm

Newsgroups: talk.origins

From: Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk>

Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:41:10 +0000

Local: Wed, Nov 4 2009 12:41 pm

Subject: Re: Aristotle and his tautological influence

  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

backspace wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
> "....Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that
> make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully
> reproduce become more common in a population over successive
> generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution...."

> === rephrase ===
> The process by which.... traits that make it more likely for an
> organism to .... reproduce become more common in a population over
> successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution...."

> === rephrase ===
> The ... traits that make it more likely for an organism to ....
> reproduce become more common in a population over successive
> generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution...."

> === rephrase ===
> The ... traits that .....enables .... reproduction become more common
> in a population................ It is a key mechanism of
> evolution...."

> === Indisputable tautology ===
> The traits that enables reproduction become more common.

> Do you that the "truth of the proposition cannot be disputed"(Darwin's
> exact words), there is no way to falsify or test this. How could it
> possibly be incorrect.

Easy. If they are not inheritable to start with, something genetics can
tell you. Or if there are no such traits to start with. Or if the
ecosystem works in such a way that once a fixed number of individuals is
reached, the "excess" dies, which woudl result in stable distribution of
traits.

We are told that certain traits became more

> common. But why did they become more common. Ans: Because the traits
> were enabling. But obviously the traits were "enabling" or they
> wouldn't have become more common now would they?

And that is tautological way? Every correct explanation can be read
backwards.

It is the same

> tautological essence form OoS where Darwin explained that the
> dinosaurs went extinct because they were "less improved"- which is an
> irrefutable proposition.

> Now over here at http://creationmuseum.org/ AIG is damning the souls
> of kids by not comprehending that this tautology was ad-hocly
> associated with "natural means of selection", an arbitrary choice of
> words. Darwin, Aristotle, Epicurus, Empedocles , James Hutton and
> Patrick Matthews tautology, if labeled Ninja Turtles wouldn't make a
> turtle putting on a ninja suite a tautology. Nobody gets this, not
> Ham, Dembski or Fodor - they just don't comprehend that no single
> sentence or term has a single true meaning. Only an argument
> containing a motive from some individual can be a tautology, such an
> argument might contain the term "natural selection", but if the person
> doesn't define what he means with NS his argument isn't even wrong.

> Also noted is that http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use
> have removed the section that "natural selection is a tautology"
> shouldn't be used. I agree because getting naturaled has nothing to do
> with Aristotle explanation of everything past, present and future. But
> then again it isn't defined what Ken Ham means with natural
> selection.

Forward