Denying all evidence

[Greg1234]

No, but it does remove harmful mutations from the gene pool, which has the same effect after even just one generation. Do you agree that natural selection removes some mutations from the gene pool?

You guys actually believe that natural selection is some kind of entity. Natural selection is a tautology. It merely states that the organism which is stronger will survive, which means that the survivor is the stronger organism. You have been shown extensive testing on random mutation and the results of these.
"Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man (1955), p. 105.

You have also ben given research which shows that adaptation is an intelligent process and a feature of the DNA code. (You went on to ask me if a programmed DNA means that random mutation can act on it, and how larger random mutations are relevant and what not). You have also been shown that organisms ary within set limits, with documented cases and that adaptation is environmentally specific.

Or can eliminate the mutation in the same way it can preserve it. Your statement that natural selection can preserve a mutation shows that you are talking about the gene pool, and as such natural selection removes harmful mutations. That's why your use Dobzhansky's quote (not results, which you haven't referenced) is simply the misuse of a quote.

The phenotype is affected by the Genotype. The organisms in the gene pool are assembled via the instructions on the DNA code. You cannot leap over the genome, then assume that natural selection will give the phenotype an uber power to survive. You still believe that random mutations give natural selection anything predicted in Darwinism to select. You have been shown the results (see above quote). Again, natural selection is not an intelligent force as you've grown to think. A million random mutations cannot build a heart to be selected because you cannot build a heart randomly. You just keep going back to square one. The tests show this.

 

[Greg1234]

Are you reading what you're responding to? No, the genetic makeup of a population is not supposed to be a result of random mutations. It is supposed to be the result of random mutations that have been filtered by natural selection, acting on the then-present genome. You've got the random mutations covered, but have no way of assessing how the genome changes over time in response to selection.

Because natural selection is a none factor. There is no pressure. If a fruit fly is born with a defective wing. It is said to die in the wild before this can be observed. Fruit flies are brought their food. They are not hunted. There's no floods or earthquakes or droughts.

Sorry, but that's completely wrong. It really would help if you would bother to learn a little science, rather than just trying to teach scientists material you don't understand. Yes, natural selection preserves in light of environmental pressure. The laboratory environment is an environment, and therefore exerts pressure. Even in a lab, flies with different mutations have to compete with one another, and therefore experience selection.

What pressures could a labratory environment possible produce to enable a mutant fruit fly to die without being observed by scientists? Meteor strikes? Natural selection is phenomenon of preservation, because of stresses. But all mutants were observed, given the fact that the proposed preserver of mutations (natural selection) is not needed to play this role.

"A review of known facts about their ability to survive has led to no other conclusion than that they [the mutated offspring] are always constitutionally weaker than their parent form or species, and in a population with free competition they are eliminated . . Therefore they are never found in nature (e.g. not a single one of the several hundred [types] of Drosophila mutation), and therefore, they are able to appear only in the favorable environment of the experimental field or laboratory."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildng (1957), p. 1186.

You still didn't tell me how the mutations were observed. Please do so. How were mutations detected?

Through the testing and observation of the specimen. Not only was there no new structures, but they were actually weaker than the original.
(Dont tell me youre one those junk DNA advocates who believes that beneficial mutations can build up undetected in a viral wasteland.)

Slight changes are the Darwinist prediction.

A slightly different (weaker) fruit fly is still a fruit fly. The type of morphological changes stipulated by Darwinists is not observed.

 

[SkyWriting]

...Under the pressure of natural selection, a population can change very rapidly -- much more rapidly than we see in the fossil record, for example. ...

In fact, it can happen overnight. The natural variation in a population allows the population to adapt quickly to any environmental pressures. No random mutations are needed.

 

[SkyWriting]

I asked you if all those writers who wrote in ancient times who described the earth as flat (I don't mean the few who wrote about it as a sphere, like Eratosthenes) really thought the earth was a sphere, and were just using a generalization?

Where should I research what they thought, but did not write?

They could have said "sphere," and still been ridiculed by locals who lived on mountains. If they were wiring for a class of space cadets they might have described a sphere. If they were going to shoot all new believers out of a gun, they may have described the earth in terms of the number of local hills or mountains that could affect the trajectory.

We can see they were writing for a population where the flat earth model would be useful. Like airline pilots today use during flights.

 

[LightHorseman]

Where should I research what they thought, but did not write?

They could have said "sphere," and still been ridiculed by locals who lived on mountains. If they were wiring for a class of space cadets they might have described a sphere. If they were going to shoot all new believers out of a gun, they may have described the earth in terms of the number of local hills or mountains that could affect the trajectory.

We can see they were writing for a population where the flat earth model would be useful. Like airline pilots today use during flights.

Yeah, um, airline pilots use routes dictated by a curved Earth model, thats why when you see air routes drawn on a 2D flat map, they appear to be curved rather than straight between 2 points.

But keep making stuff up as you go along, its gotten you this far.

 

[sfs]

In fact, it can happen overnight. The natural variation in a population allows the population to adapt quickly to any environmental pressures. No random mutations are needed.

Quite true. A population with zero natural variation, however, will also respond to selection pretty quickly, as long as it's reasonably large.

 

[Papias]

Skywriting wrote:

Where should I research what they thought, but did not write?

You have consistently suggested that the writers of your Bible knew that the earth was round, but generalized to write in a way that sounded like it was flat. You are the one saying you knew what they thought. You may use the same reference for the greek and other ancient writers that you are already using to know what the biblical writers thought.

You didn't respond to this:
Papias wrote:

That sounds like you agree that these verses describe a flat earth. Maybe we agree?

So by not disputing it, I can take it that you agree those verses describe a flat earth?

Similarly, you didn't respond to this:

If you don't understand the difference between an ellipsoid and an ovoid, you could go back to your basic montessori preschool shapes to learn.

So do you agree that there is a difference between an ellipsoid and an ovoid?

Papias

 

[Papias]

Greg wrote:

You guys actually believe that natural selection is some kind of entity. Natural selection is a tautology. It merely states that the organism which is stronger will survive, which means that the survivor is the stronger organism.

Just because a fact is easy to understand does not mean it is a tautology. For instance, I may say "the child that eats a diet with less fat and sugar is less likely to get fat.". Just because it is obvious doesn't mean it's a tautology. The key is that natural selection means 'best equipped for the local environment', which thus includes an independent measurement, and is thus not tautological.

Here, let me give you a story involving natural selection and mutation (giving constant variation in traits) that may help you understand how mutation and natural selection work together, and why you can't ignore one and think that you've "simulated millions of years of evolution".


Imagine a population of theropod dinosaurs living in a valley. A volcano rises up, and separates the valley into two similar halves, so now there are two theropod populations, separated by a volcano. The Northern valley happens to be near a forest, which slowly grows into the valley over thousands of years. So now the northern theropods live in a forest, while the southern ones don’t. Imagine that when predators come around, they can catch and eat some of the theropods – in the southern valley, the theropods escape as they always have, by running. However, now in north, with all the trees, running doesn’t work as well (you run into a tree), so some theropods escape by climbing the trees. Most are pretty unsuccessful, (after all, they are mainly runners, not tree-climbers) and many are eaten. The theropod population is greatly reduced, for a while. However, a theropod happens to have a better claw for grasping, and that theropod survives by grasping branches and climbing trees. Her children of course have the slightly better grasping claws, and soon the entire population is descended from her (the others were eventually eaten as the predators ran out of the easy-to-catch kind of theropod). This kind of competition continues, with any mutations for grasping claws surviving, and mutations for fast running being useless (and therefore being eaten). So after many generations, the northern theropods are a little different from the southern population, and they live more up in the trees. A few of them have a little webbing in their armpits – they survive a little better because this can slow a fall from a tree, so when they fall, if the fall is from a moderate height, they have a slightly better chance of surviving the fall. Some mutations cause more webbing, some less – but the mutations for less webbing cause death by falling, while that for a little more webbing is more likely to survive by gliding. After a while the theropods are tree dwellers who now have webbing between their arms and their bodies, like bats or pteranodons, and can glide from tree to tree. Imagine that around this time the volcano crumbles back into the ground. The two theropod populations meet, but now they are too different to interbreed – they have become two different species. The two species live side by side in the valley from then on.

You have been shown extensive testing on random mutation and the results of these.

what are you talking about? The one paper you gave that you don't understand and refuse to give current research on? Really? Or your consistent misuse of the Dobzhansky quote?

You have also been shown that organisms ary within set limits, with documented cases

Again, what are you talking about? Could you repeat the references to real scientific journals, if they were posted, I must have missed them.

and that adaptation is environmentally specific.

Well, duh. Of course adaptation is environmentally specific. And as environments change, adaption will be continuous and without limit.

You have been shown the results (see above quote).

More misuse of the Dobzhansky quote. You are aware that the quote is about mutations, not about mutation and natural selection working together, right?

I notice that you have yet again (4th time?) ignored most of the questions. You did read them right? Many of them are simply asking if you are aware of something. That's a pretty easy question, right?

Again, natural selection is not an intelligent force as you've grown to think.

Did you see from the theropod story above that natural selection need not be intelligent to give rise to a whole new feature or ability? What letter am I on? - I guess that'll be question J or so.

Thanks-
-Papias

 

[matthewgar]

Well harmful mutations tend to get weeded out, but no gaurantee, due to either the species not surviving to reproduce, or creates a problem for it to reproduce. Humans have many mutations that could be considered less beneficial, because they have no effect on survival or reproduction. Look at how quickly our bodies tend to fail after a certain age, because no mutations no matter how beneficial will be selected for or again, if their harmful or beneficial effects are only felt after one is beyond the reproductive age.

Another thing about natural selection that seems to be forgotten by alot of creationists and even AE's and TE's is that populations evolve. This sounds simple, but it's interactions are complicated.

With every group there will be those with mutations that make them better at something then others, and some mutations that make them worse at it. Lets take a herd of zebra, some will be faster then others, some will be slower.

It can probably be best summed up as the old joke, a safari guide is taking a single guy through the jungle to show him the animals, and is telling him that if alone don't run from a lion, you will have no chance, your best chance is to try to climb a tree and hope he can't. Shortly after this they see a lion and it looks at them intently, the guy is looking around for a tree to climb when he hears a noise behind him and spots the guide taking off, the other guy takes off running shouting at him, "I thought you said, don't run you can't outrun the lion." to wich the guide calls, "I don't have to outrun it, I have to outrun YOU."

And this is how it is in nature, any mutations that allow you to survive, may get lost, but since your competing with those in your own species, they give you a better chance of surviving the others. In like a herd species, being faster is going to allow you to outrun those that are slower, and over time the average speed of the animal will increase as the slower ones are weeded out. Of course with many the top end of the speed might be kept in check, since they will be the first to get ambushed by lions or such waiting ahead of the herd.

Now might wonder, why if speed is a advantage you don't have every species becoming faster then cheetahs, but the answers become more complicated. With higher speeds comes less agility and more energy burn, the cheetahs are one of the fastest animals on the planet, but have almost no endurance. So a impala not only has to outrun the cheetah, but outlast the lion, out dodge the leopard springing from hiding and so on.

So natural selection isn't as simple as 1 animal with a benefit spreading it, or not.

 

[SkyWriting]

Well harmful mutations tend to get weeded out, but no gaurantee, due to either the species not surviving to reproduce, or creates a problem for it to reproduce. Humans have many mutations that could be considered less beneficial, because they have no effect on survival or reproduction. Look at how quickly our bodies tend to fail after a certain age, because no mutations no matter how beneficial will be selected for or again, if their harmful or beneficial effects are only felt after one is beyond the reproductive age.Another thing about natural selection that seems to be forgotten by alot of creationists and even AE's and TE's is that populations evolve. This sounds simple, but it's interactions are complicated.
With every group there will be those with mutations that make them better at something then others, and some mutations that make them worse at it. Lets take a herd of zebra, some will be faster then others, some will be slower. It can probably be best summed up as the old joke, a safari guide is taking a single guy through the jungle to show him the animals, and is telling him that if alone don't run from a lion, you will have no chance, your best chance is to try to climb a tree and hope he can't. Shortly after this they see a lion and it looks at them intently, the guy is looking around for a tree to climb when he hears a noise behind him and spots the guide taking off, the other guy takes off running shouting at him, "I thought you said, don't run you can't outrun the lion." to wich the guide calls, "I don't have to outrun it, I have to outrun YOU." And this is how it is in nature, any mutations that allow you to survive, may get lost, but since your competing with those in your own species, they give you a better chance of surviving the others. In like a herd species, being faster is going to allow you to outrun those that are slower, and over time the average speed of the animal will increase as the slower ones are weeded out. Of course with many the top end of the speed might be kept in check, since they will be the first to get ambushed by lions or such waiting ahead of the herd.
Now might wonder, why if speed is a advantage you don't have every species becoming faster then cheetahs, but the answers become more complicated. With higher speeds comes less agility and more energy burn, the cheetahs are one of the fastest animals on the planet, but have almost no endurance. So a impala not only has to outrun the cheetah, but outlast the lion, out dodge the leopard springing from hiding and so on. So natural selection isn't as simple as 1 animal with a benefit spreading it, or not.

Yes. I remember that's what evolutionists used to think in the old days. Actually, no animal is "competing" against it's own species. And it turns out that no particular trait is an advantage either. Not speed or slowness or longer necks or beaks or any particular thing. Darwin was wrong all along. And true random mutations are virtually non-existant as true errors or mutations are corrected. Each animals DNA has a range of variation that allow it to work and coexist in an organism. But just as any car has speed or temperature limits, every animal and structure has its limits as well.

 

[SkyWriting]

Yeah, um, airline pilots use routes dictated by a curved Earth model, thats why when you see air routes drawn on a 2D flat map, they appear to be curved rather than straight between 2 points.

But keep making stuff up as you go along, its gotten you this far.

LOL.....No....lol...thats what Graphic designers draw so humans can see multiple flights. Note that the flights arc both ways in your cartoon.

Real pilots use straight lines and flat maps. Granted, the maps may be distorted, but the earth is kept flat none the less.

 

[matthewgar]

Yes. I remember that's what evolutionists used to think in the old days. Actually, no animal is "competing" against it's own species. And it turns out that no particular trait is an advantage either. Not speed or slowness or longer necks or beaks or any particular thing. Darwin was wrong all along. And true random mutations are virtually non-existant as true errors or mutations are corrected. Each animals DNA has a range of variation that allow it to work and coexist in an organism. But just as any car has speed or temperature limits, every animal and structure has its limits as well.

Well what I meant by competing against it's own species, I mean that it's advantages for many are in line with others, like with the herds, the faster zebra are competing in a way to avoid being eaten by the lions, a zebra with the advantage doesn't have to be faster then every zebra, just faster then the slowest. I was just giving examples of species where speed is an advantage, but it's not also that simple, you have to factor in, agility, endurance, speed, sure footedness among others, and changing one of those will likly cause another to change, a muscle that allows for faster speed might impede agility and so on.

This was just more to the argument I've heard in the past about how would a individual with a advantage survive. For species to change right now like Zebra, there likly need to be a change in the enivorment, addition of new species, or a mutation that does give an advantage somehow, that allows for agility with higher speeds, but they would be rare.

 

[Assyrian]

I think that map covers too small an area to illustrate your point SkyWriting.

 

[Papias]

I see that Skywriting has again shied away from responding to the questions most recently asked again in post #147. I don't know why he finds them so scary to answer.

Skywriting wrote:

Yes. I remember that's what evolutionists used to think in the old days. Actually, no animal is "competing" against it's own species.

Where in the world do you get that? Of course animals compete against members of their own species - who would otherwise eat their food, take their mates, and so on. You can even see this yourself in any species of animal, including humans. Are you seriously proposing that there is unlimited food for all creatures?

And it turns out that no particular trait is an advantage either. Not speed or slowness or longer necks or beaks or any particular thing. Darwin was wrong all along.

After how silly the first statement was, I didn't expect it to be topped by a sillier statement immediately, but it has. You really think that? That all variations in traits are equally useful in the natural world? So among rabbits, the faster ones are equally fast at running away from the foxes as the slower ones? Wow, that reminds me of the creationist who said "evolution makes no sense, I mean, how could elephants have survived the cambrian explosion when they are too big to hide in holes?"

Speaking of that, do you even know why that statement is silly?

And true random mutations are virtually non-existant as true errors or mutations are corrected.

Maybe learn about what you are going to talk about before talking next time. The mutation rate is known, and can be measured. Error correction mechanisms are indeed very good, correcting nearly better than 99.999999% of all mutations. However, in a genome of 3 billion bases, that still gives many uncorrected mistakes per replication.
Here is link to real research by real scientists which measured this.
Rates of Spontaneous Mutation -- Drake et al. 148 (4): 1667 -- Genetics
Drake, et al, Genetics, Vol. 148, 1667-1686, April 1998

Each animals DNA has a range of variation that allow it to work and coexist in an organism. But just as any car has speed or temperature limits, every animal and structure has its limits as well.

If this were true, it would be easy for you to cite a real scientific paper that says it. Do you have any support at all for that statement, or are you just making stuff up or repeating things without checking on them?

Mattgar, your post #149 was accurate and useful. Creationists like skywriting should be appreciative that you took the time to explain that. You didn't need to be defensive about that post, it was fine.

Papias

 

[7steps]

Well harmful mutations tend to get weeded out, but no gaurantee, due to either the species not surviving to reproduce, or creates a problem for it to reproduce. Humans have many mutations that could be considered less beneficial, because they have no effect on survival or reproduction. Look at how quickly our bodies tend to fail after a certain age, because no mutations no matter how beneficial will be selected for or again, if their harmful or beneficial effects are only felt after one is beyond the reproductive age.

What is reproductive age? Males can reproduce well into their 50 and beyond?
All they have to find is a reproductive female.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Aw, we're all such sillies.

 

[Greg1234]

Just because a fact is easy to understand does not mean it is a tautology. For instance, I may say "the child that eats a diet with less fat and sugar is less likely to get fat.". Just because it is obvious doesn't mean it's a tautology. The key is that natural selection means 'best equipped for the local environment', which thus includes an independent measurement, and is thus not tautological.

It is called a tautology because it fits the definition of a tautology, not because it is "easy to understand".

tau·tol·o·gy
–noun, plural -gies.
1.
needless repetition of an idea, esp. in words other than those of the immediate context, without imparting additional force or clearness, as in “widow woman.”

An organism which is fitter will survive, which means that the surviving organisms we find are the ones which are fittest. We already know from the first premise that the second premise which we encounter will occur,the first one supposedly a random mutation, the second the same random mutation but attached with natural selection when natural selection need not be stated. I consider it tautological.

Here, let me give you a story involving natural selection and mutation (giving constant variation in traits) that may help you understand how mutation and natural selection work together, and why you can't ignore one and think that you've "simulated millions of years of evolution

The only problem with that is that testing in which random mutation is isolated shows that the fruit fly is always weaker than the the rest of the organisms and the changes you are expressing there do not occur (see Dobzhansky quote). Natural selection is supposed to act as a preserver. Yet the only thing that would have been preserved, as documented in the lab are fruit flies. Secondly, the fruit flies are not getting stronger, but weaker, a decrease in fitness, and function. If there were a fly that came up with a stronger pair of wings then you could say that the fruit fly would have evaded predators and be naturally selected. These are the types of changes scientists were looking for and why the laboratory setting provides the ideal environment as a pair of stronger wings would not accidentally die, and be lost before being selected by pressure, but as there is no pressure, all can be observed. If a fruit fly grew feathers which gave it superior performance in cold conditions then it would have remained in the lab under no pressure and kept alive. To claim that random mutations could not only make a theropod stronger but turn it into a bat is a disregard of scientific testing. Random mutations do not do these things. We are able to simulate selection by removing the pressure, and the need for the preservation mechanism. There is no predator chasing the theropod in the lab, and a random mutation which helps it escape a predator would be preserved without the pressure of the predator.

what are you talking about? The one paper you gave that you don't understand and refuse to give current research on? Really? Or your consistent misuse of the Dobzhansky quote?

The paper is understood. Further the results of 80 years of reserach is not going down the drain as the "Dobzhansky quote. If it had been Darwinian, it would be readily accepted. Youre not the first Darwinist to attempt to ridicule this research. An entire thread was at one time started just for doing that.

Well, duh. Of course adaptation is environmentally specific. And as environments change, adaption will be continuous and without limit.

This was already given. The lactose enzyme for example does not build up and accumulate in populations, but only this mutation only occurs when there is lactose present. Thats what I mean by environmentally specific.

More misuse of the Dobzhansky quote. You are aware that the quote is about mutations, not about mutation and natural selection working together, right?

Natural selection acts on random mutations

I notice that you have yet again (4th time?) ignored most of the questions. You did read them right? Many of them are simply asking if you are aware of something. That's a pretty easy question, right?

Im not ignoring your questions. I already gave you my perspective on speciation. You are asking me if you can provide speciation in fruit flies. Further, you are conflating two different experiments, and that the random mutation experiment did not produce a new species. You question about the paper regarding the the fact that intelligent design is governed by the DNA code, is do I have a more recent paper. The paper is not outdated. Most of you questions are based on answers to claims being argued about. If John is arguing with Jack about whether or not he was at the bar, saying that he was not, you cannot ask him how many drinks he had. Its these little games you guys play. You ask me how was natural selected simulated over a large number of generations when the argument is what natural selection is in the first place. Natural selection acting on random mutation. In a laboratory setting natural selection is negated as a preserver. There are no pressures and the only way an organism is going to survive is if it is naturally stronger, and that is how the mutants die and are "selected against", bu there is no competition.You asked for a nested Hierarchy of cars I told you that I was not going to spend time learning the every feature of vehicle in the world and listing them in a nested hierarchy for you. I gave you two examples. You said that wasnt enough, Darwinism does not stand on comparative anatomy, and you cannot just say that because a human looks like an ape, that man descended from the beast. Man being in a completely different plane than the beast, is just one part of the argument. Nested Hierarchy is also a cop out and a trap. Organisms now are supposed to fit snugly within a characteristic group. Which means that if you don't find a crocoduck, this is exactly what Darwinism predicts in a nested hierarchy. If you find a crocoduck, this is exactly what Darwinism predicts in transitional forms. So if you argue against one, you re actually presenting evidence for Darwinism and laying your grave. Its these little games you guys play. Always up to some shenanigans. I gave you two examples, that's good enough. In other questions, you just show you skills as a master editor and snip the answer to questions and then type it again.

 

[matthewgar]

What is reproductive age? Males can reproduce well into their 50 and beyond?
All they have to find is a reproductive female.

It's possible, but A) majority of reproduction is done before hand, and B) most of our history it wasn't possible to live 50 years very easily or regularly, all member of a species has to do is mate once, if he mates at 20 then if he and all his descendants suddenly croak at 21, he's already passed on his genetic information. The only thing that being older will do is someone that lives to 30 will have more kids and therefore out reproduce those that have 1-2 kids before croaking at 21. So sure there was the ocasional person living to 50 and maybe even reproducing into that age, but not enough where living that long and not dying of complications for that age would greatly effect the genetic diversity of the human race to get around all problems of living that long.

 

[7steps]

It's possible, but A) majority of reproduction is done before hand, and B) most of our history it wasn't possible to live 50 years very easily or regularly, all member of a species has to do is mate once, if he mates at 20 then if he and all his descendants suddenly croak at 21, he's already passed on his genetic information. The only thing that being older will do is someone that lives to 30 will have more kids and therefore out reproduce those that have 1-2 kids before croaking at 21. So sure there was the ocasional person living to 50 and maybe even reproducing into that age, but not enough where living that long and not dying of complications for that age would greatly effect the genetic diversity of the human race to get around all problems of living that long.

I did not mean it as an actual question. It was actually meant to be a little funny.

 

[shernren]

It is called a tautology because it fits the definition of a tautology, not because it is "easy to understand".

tau·tol·o·gy
–noun, plural -gies.
1.
needless repetition of an idea, esp. in words other than those of the immediate context, without imparting additional force or clearness, as in “widow woman.”

An organism which is fitter will survive, which means that the surviving organisms we find are the ones which are fittest. We already know from the first premise that the second premise which we encounter will occur,the first one supposedly a random mutation, the second the same random mutation but attached with natural selection when natural selection need not be stated. I consider it tautological.

This is silly in so many ways. Firstly, "widow woman" is in fact a pleonasm, not a tautology. And I suppose you're a better rhetorician than Paul:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
(1Cor 13:1-3, ESV)
​

We got the point the first time round, right? Gee, such shoddy tautology.

Secondly, tautologies are by definition true, from a logician's point of view. So have a good think the next time you call evolution a tautology.

Thirdly, natural selection is not in fact tautologous. It need not occur. We know that because we have been subverting natural selection for millenia. When farmers breed their animals, do they always look for the "fittest individual"? No! They look for the sow that produces the most milk, or the chicken that lays the most eggs (but not necessarily the one with the most chicks!). Dog breeds are differentiated by size, fur, body length ratios - all of which have little direct bearing on fitness.

You see, it is not necessarily the fittest individual who has the most offspring. Agriculture has relied on that not being true for the past few thousand years. Or imagine a tropical island constantly best by calamity - volcanoes one day and hurricanes the next. The survivors on that island are not necessarily the most fit creatures, but simply the lucky ones who manage to hide under the right rock when things got wild.

And here's a drastic example. A creature undergoes a mutation that enables it able to survive indefinitely without nutrition and resist all possible antibiotics and attacks - the catch is, the mutation also removes its ability to reproduce. Will that mutation spread through the population? Of course not - without reproduction, there is no way that other members of the population could ever have that mutation. So the "fittest" traits do not always spread through a population.