Natural Selection Finishes Evolution

Asyncritus · May 28, 2015

I recently read a book by the late Professor David Stove called Darwinian Fairytales.

The book finishes any hope that evolution might have of surviving.

In essence, Stove says:
Natural selection 'rigidly weeds out' the weak, the unfit etc from any given population. Darwin said so, Alfred Rssell Wallace said so, and doubtless many others since then have said the same. It is an axiomatic truth.

What they have failed to realise is that in any given species, the weak and the unfit are the females and the young. In our case, the amazingly long time required for the young to reach maturity is time when they are highly vulnerable, and would be normally eaten by the stronger fitter males. The females and young are, after all,very high quality protein, and have no reason to escape being eaten.

That being so, any species can only survive for one or two generations at most, and is then extinguished, Natural selection plays no favourites. It is an inexorable rule, entirely ruthless in its working.

Therefore, evolution is finished, because its principal prop has turned and fatally bitten it in the behind.

No wonder Stove can say with perfect truth:

Darwinism says many things, especially about our species, which are too obviously false to be believed by any educated person who retains any capacity at all for critical thought.

And Roger Kimball in his foreword to the book concludes with:

It is not a pretty picture that Stove paints, but then the exhibition of gross error widely accepted is never a comely sight.

Too true!

Loudmouth · May 28, 2015

Asyncritus said:
I recently read a book by the late Professor David Stove called Darwinian Fairytales.

The book finishes any hope that evolution might have of surviving.

In essence, Stove says:
Natural selection 'rigidly weeds out' the weak, the unfit etc from any given population. Darwin said so, Alfred Rssell Wallace said so, and doubtless many others since then have said the same. It is an axiomatic truth.

Fitness is measured by how many grandchildren you have, not by how strong you are or how big you are.

You are getting it all wrong from the very start. Individuals who have adapatations or learn strategies to protect their children and have their genes passed on are the fittest.

Cute Tink · May 28, 2015

Asyncritus said:
In essence, Stove says:
Natural selection 'rigidly weeds out' the weak, the unfit etc from any given population. Darwin said so, Alfred Rssell Wallace said so, and doubtless many others since then have said the same. It is an axiomatic truth.

What they have failed to realise is that in any given species, the weak and the unfit are the females and the young.

Not necessarily. Depends on what constitutes "unfit" in any given case.

In our case, the amazingly long time required for the young to reach maturity is time when they are highly vulnerable, and would be normally eaten by the stronger fitter males. The females and young are, after all,very high quality protein, and have no reason to escape being eaten.

First problem: not all species engage in cannibalism. Vegetarian populations are not going to eat each other.

Second problem: the suggestion that all omnivorous or carnivorous species are going to try to sustain themselves by eating their mates and young is not backed up by any study I've ever heard of.

In closing: I am by no means an expert or even thoroughly studied in evolution and it took me seconds to see these sorts of problems with this writer's "logic". Care to respond?

More educated people will probably have further criticisms.

Asyncritus · May 28, 2015

Loudmouth said:
Fitness is measured by how many grandchildren you have, not by how strong you are or how big you are.

You are getting it all wrong from the very start. Individuals who have adapatations or learn strategies to protect their children and have their genes passed on are the fittest.

What nonsense.

Loudmouth said:
Fitness is measured by how many grandchildren you have, not by how strong you are or how big you are.

You are getting it all wrong from the very start. Individuals who have adapatations or learn strategies to protect their children and have their genes passed on are the fittest.

What nonsense. Stove is talking about the weak, those unable to defend themselves. He wasn't arguing foolishly about a definition of fitness.

He is saying the truth: the weak, unable to defend themselves are the females and the young, who should have been wiped out by natural selection' if indeed natural selection works.

It doesn't, most notably in the human species, and therefore, evolution, which depends on NS, falls flat on its face.

Stove is right, and all the shiftiness in the world won't save it from this argument.

Willtor · May 28, 2015

Asyncritus said:
What nonsense.

What nonsense. Stove is talking about the weak, those unable to defend themselves. He wasn't arguing foolishly about a definition of fitness.

He is saying the truth: the weak, unable to defend themselves are the females and the young, who should have been wiped out by natural selection' if indeed natural selection works.

It doesn't, most notably in the human species, and therefore, evolution, which depends on NS, falls flat on its face.

Stove is right, and all the shiftiness in the world won't save it from this argument.

Stove wasn't talking about the meaning of "fitness" as you say.

And that was his problem.

Gene2memE · May 28, 2015

There is a fairy-tale here, but I don’t think it's a Darwinian one.

Asyncritus could you define what fitness means in evolutionary biology?

Subduction Zone · May 28, 2015

Asyncritus said:
What nonsense.

Nope, you have hitched you wagon to a fool that did not even know what the misused term "survival of the fittest" means. He put a terrible interpretation of it that does not match nature at all.

What nonsense. Stove is talking about the weak, those unable to defend themselves. He wasn't arguing foolishly about a definition of fitness.

That is because he is a fool that does not understand the concept of fitness.

He is saying the truth: the weak, unable to defend themselves are the females and the young, who should have been wiped out by natural selection' if indeed natural selection works.

And yet that is not what we see in nature. He has an incorrect definition of "fitness" and he is basing a false argument upon it. His argument is a textbook example of GIGO.

It doesn't, most notably in the human species, and therefore, evolution, which depends on NS, falls flat on its face.

Reality disagrees with him.

Stove is right, and all the shiftiness in the world won't save it from this argument.

Then why is he considered to be just a joke, and a rather poor one at that? His work is not getting one iota of respect from the world of science.

Asyncritus · May 29, 2015

Whatever pomposities we may adduce in the vain effort to gainsay Stove's argument, fall flat on their faces.

It is obvious that the weakest in any population are the females and the young. Do you really need scientific experiments to prove that simple fact? I think not.

Therefore, says Stove, if natural selection is going to 'rigidly weed out' the weakest in a population, then these would be the first to go. And that means the end of the population in one or at most two generations.

Try gainsaying that simple fact.

Subduction Zone · May 29, 2015

Asyncritus said:
Whatever pomposities we may adduce in the vain effort to gainsay Stove's argument, fall flat on their faces.

It is obvious that the weakest in any population are the females and the young. Do you really need scientific experiments to prove that simple fact? I think not.

Therefore, says Stove, if natural selection is going to 'rigidly weed out' the weakest in a population, then these would be the first to go. And that means the end of the population in one or at most two generations.

Try gainsaying that simple fact.

You are using a faulty definition. Once more, it was never "survival of the strongest" it was "survival of the fittest". Fittest in no way implies strongest.

Try again.

Willtor · May 29, 2015

Asyncritus said:
Whatever pomposities we may adduce in the vain effort to gainsay Stove's argument, fall flat on their faces.

It is obvious that the weakest in any population are the females and the young. Do you really need scientific experiments to prove that simple fact? I think not.

Therefore, says Stove, if natural selection is going to 'rigidly weed out' the weakest in a population, then these would be the first to go. And that means the end of the population in one or at most two generations.

Try gainsaying that simple fact.

"Weak" != "Not fit"

Poor Stove doesn't even understand the theory he's trying to refute.

PeterDona · May 29, 2015

Cute Tink said:
Not necessarily. Depends on what constitutes "unfit" in any given case.

Part of the difficulty of arguing against evolution lies here. I did not learn that evolutionism has a strict definition on "fitness". Therefore it becomes hard to attack. It seems that fitness is moving from the genetic basis to the behavioral arena. Whatever animal in the group that learned the best behavior got more children, but we can not tell if this animal had the best genes.

Cute Tink · May 29, 2015

PeterDona said:
Part of the difficulty of arguing against evolution lies here. I did not learn that evolutionism has a strict definition on "fitness". Therefore it becomes hard to attack. It seems that fitness is moving from the genetic basis to the behavioral arena. Whatever animal in the group that learned the best behavior got more children, but we can not tell if this animal had the best genes.

Indeed. The fitness of a given creature depends on so many variables that you cannot simply declare it as "strong" or "smart". Sometimes it is merely the ability to survive a particular storm or ongoing drought. I watched a video where the two "strong" beetles were fighting over the right to mate with the female while the weak, but sneaky, male snuck in and got the job done. In that moment, it was more fit to pass on its genes.

Willtor · May 29, 2015

PeterDona said:
Part of the difficulty of arguing against evolution lies here. I did not learn that evolutionism has a strict definition on "fitness". Therefore it becomes hard to attack. It seems that fitness is moving from the genetic basis to the behavioral arena. Whatever animal in the group that learned the best behavior got more children, but we can not tell if this animal had the best genes.

This is a lot further than most creationists get. Fitness is not "getting swole" but, rather, how well an organism "fits" into its niche.

When you talk about an animal that "learned" the best behavior, "learning" is a complex trait that is governed by genes. Many organisms don't "learn" but act purely on instinct (also governed by genes). The ability to learn, itself, is beneficial to some species (like us). But advanced brains are expensive, nutritionally. Many species are able to survive better without the added calorie cost. Thus, there are niches for more or less complex species with more or less complex behavior.

The other important thing to recognize is that many species operate in community. This is, itself, a beneficial trait to them because (at a genetic level) the organisms are mostly the same, and by preserving similar organisms, the genes propagate to the next generation. It also allows for greater diversity among the members. A pack of wolves, for example, is better off with some faster-but-weaker members along with slower-but-stronger members. A solo cat, conversely, can't deviate very far from a precise balance between strength and speed. They both have their niches.

Fitness is a niche-based measurement. That is why predator and prey can both be "fit" (and, in fact, tend to keep one another fit). This is crucial to understanding evolution. And this is why we tend to be embarrassed for people like Stove or Hovind who profess to be experts but clearly don't understand even the basics.

Loudmouth · May 29, 2015

Asyncritus said:
What nonsense. Stove is talking about the weak, those unable to defend themselves. He wasn't arguing foolishly about a definition of fitness.

If you have a species where the males kill off their mates and offspring, that species will quickly be outcompeted by species that protect their offspring and protect future generations.

Loudmouth · May 29, 2015

PeterDona said:
Part of the difficulty of arguing against evolution lies here. I did not learn that evolutionism has a strict definition on "fitness". Therefore it becomes hard to attack. It seems that fitness is moving from the genetic basis to the behavioral arena. Whatever animal in the group that learned the best behavior got more children, but we can not tell if this animal had the best genes.

Fitness has always been defined as reproductive success.

"Fitness (often denoted

in population genetics models) is a central idea in evolutionary theory. It can be defined either with respect to a genotype or to a phenotype in a given environment. In either case, it describes individual reproductive success and is equal to the average contribution to the gene pool of the next generation that is made by an average individual of the specified genotype or phenotype."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_(biology)

Paulos23 · May 29, 2015

Subduction Zone said:
You are using a faulty definition. Once more, it was never "survival of the strongest" it was "survival of the fittest". Fittest in no way implies strongest.

Try again.

I would also state it is not a binary state for a species. Or to put it plainly, it is "survival of the fit enough". All a species has to do is to have another generation. If they can do that they 'win' for another generation. And it can be by the skin of their teeth, but another generation will buy them time and things may turn out favorable for the next generation.

PeterDona · May 30, 2015

Willtor said:
This is a lot further than most creationists get. Fitness is not "getting swole" but, rather, how well an organism "fits" into its niche.

When you talk about an animal that "learned" the best behavior, "learning" is a complex trait that is governed by genes.

The other important thing to recognize is that many species operate in community.

I believe you need to consider what constitutes a "niche", and what is the works of a selective pressure. If the species operate in community, which surely humans do, and which would result in better fitness, how did the species become distinct from another species like e.g. chimps. If working in a community is the norm, how come that humans are genetically distinct from chimps. What kind of selective pressure would result in 2 species so clearly distinct. Maybe you can be justified to say that chimps occupy a niche, but that certainly does not go for humans, who have spread all over the world.

By this I just mean to say, that evolutionary thinking lacks something to bind the whole thing together. Especially concerning how the selective pressure should work, but also in effectively describing the niches.

Subduction Zone · May 30, 2015

Paulos23 said:
I would also state it is not a binary state for a species. Or to put it plainly, it is "survival of the fit enough". All a species has to do is to have another generation. If they can do that they 'win' for another generation. And it can be by the skin of their teeth, but another generation will buy them time and things may turn out favorable for the next generation.

Yep, good enough explains the immense detour that the laryngeal never of the giraffe takes. It is well over a six foot detour. Evolution works on good enough, as you said. That makes sense when you realize how it evolved. It does not make any sense at all from a creationist viewpoint.

Also just because one population of a specie changes because of changes in that environment does not mean that the same species elsewhere has to evolve.

JasonClark · May 30, 2015

Asyncritus said:
I recently read a book by the late Professor David Stove called Darwinian Fairytales.

The book finishes any hope that evolution might have of surviving.

I wonder if the tens of thousands of scientists using evolution everyday in their work are aware of this? it would seem the message has not got through yet,
why do they keep using evolution? could it be that it works? or are they all deluding themselves that it works but it really doesn't?

If I kill lots of rabbits with my little gun but you tell me my little gun is not big enough to kill rabbits what should I do? should I carry on killing rabbits and ignore you?
what would you do?

DogmaHunter · May 30, 2015

Asyncritus said:
I recently read a book by the late Professor David Stove called Darwinian Fairytales.

The book finishes any hope that evolution might have of surviving.

In essence, Stove says:
Natural selection 'rigidly weeds out' the weak, the unfit etc from any given population. Darwin said so, Alfred Rssell Wallace said so, and doubtless many others since then have said the same. It is an axiomatic truth.

What they have failed to realise is that in any given species, the weak and the unfit are the females and the young. In our case, the amazingly long time required for the young to reach maturity is time when they are highly vulnerable, and would be normally eaten by the stronger fitter males. The females and young are, after all,very high quality protein, and have no reason to escape being eaten.

That being so, any species can only survive for one or two generations at most, and is then extinguished, Natural selection plays no favourites. It is an inexorable rule, entirely ruthless in its working.

Therefore, evolution is finished, because its principal prop has turned and fatally bitten it in the behind.

No wonder Stove can say with perfect truth:

Darwinism says many things, especially about our species, which are too obviously false to be believed by any educated person who retains any capacity at all for critical thought.

And Roger Kimball in his foreword to the book concludes with:

It is not a pretty picture that Stove paints, but then the exhibition of gross error widely accepted is never a comely sight.

Too true!

Right, because no species anywhere protects its newborns and / or females / males

/facepalm

Natural Selection Finishes Evolution

Asyncritus

Contributor

Blah

Asyncritus

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

Newbie

Regular Member

Asyncritus

Regular Member

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

Well-Known Member

Blah

Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

Contributor

Contributor

Never tell me the odds!

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Code Monkey

Similar threads