Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Actually that's not entirely accurate. If they bred in a different pattern THEN they might have been able to competeDodos died out because they couldn't compete with invasive wildlife - that, and desperate sailors will eat anything. Not because they were unsuccessful breeders.
So if dodos laid twelve eggs a year, rather than a single egg, would they have survived?Montalban said:Actually that's not entirely accurate. If they bred in a different pattern THEN they might have been able to compete
I did. But the response of "no it's not" repeated isn't discussionPity you can only keep repeating your tautology, not justifying it.
Do you believe that the tautology, "survival of the fittest", is an accurate descriptor of evolutionary theory?
Perhaps. If they were able to build burrows, that might have helped too.So if dodos laid twelve eggs a year, rather than a single egg, would they have survived?
Are you saying that they would have survived if they had a different trait?
Bethell was right - evolution cannot always predict what traits will be useful. That's because the same trait can be harmful or beneficial, depening on circumstances.Montalban said:"From time to time, attacks on neo-Darwinism are mounted, usually by persons who either see evolutionary theory as antireligious or who basically misunderstand Darwin's theory. One attack, entitled "Darwin's Mistakes," by Tom Bethell, was published in Harper's magazine.
Bethell began by pointing out that Darwinian theory is a tautology rather than a predicative theory. (The term tautology means a statement that is true by definition.) That is, evolution is the survival of the fittest. But who are the fittest? Obviously, the individuals who survive. Thus, without an independent criterion for fitness, other than survival, we are left with the statement that evolution is the survival of the survivors. This indeed is a tautology. But it is possible to assign independent criteria for fitness. Darwin wrote extensively about artificial selection in pigeons, in which the breeders' choice was the criterion for fitness. (Many novel breeds of pigeon have been created this way.) Artificial selection has been practiced extensively by plant and animal breeders. Here too, survival is not the criterion for fitness, productivity is."
Robert H Tamarin, (1996) "Principles of Genetics" (5th ed), p571.
When did I suggest that?Montalban said:That is what evolutionary theory suggests. I'm surprised you didn't know.
You're insisting however that they would have died regardless.
One doesn't know this till after the factBethell was right - evolution cannot always predict what traits will be useful. That's because the same trait can be harmful or beneficial, depening on circumstances.
Like this?Having the genes for white fur is useful in snowy environments, as it acts like camouflage. Having white fur in a forest is less useful, as they would stand out like neon lights.
And yet it was Darwin who used the example of pigeon breeders to demonstrate (by way of (false) analogy) how evolution worksYour quote also notes that breeders often choose animals for appearance rather than fitness, but that's an example of artifical selection, not natural selection. It's hard to imagine pugs stalking their prey when some of them can barely breathe properly.
When did I suggest that?
Yes I know what a tautology is,tau·tol·o·gy
n. pl. tau·tol·o·gies
Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy.
An instance of such repetition.
Logic. An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow.Tautology | Define Tautology at Dictionary.com
I showed you there was more to fitness than survival, there were traits that meant the organism was better suited to its environment that allowed it to survive. You even recognised these traits are involved. Traits are not the same as survival, so survival of organism with these traits isn't a tautology.I did. But the response of "no it's not" repeated isn't discussion
Even people on your side ON THIS THREAD have recognised here it's a tautology!
Your own quote contradicts you.As well as that I've already presented evidence to you on this before.
Here's some recognition that it's a tautology...
"From time to time, attacks on neo-Darwinism are mounted, usually by persons who either see evolutionary theory as antireligious or who basically misunderstand Darwin's theory. One attack, entitled "Darwin's Mistakes," by Tom Bethell, was published in Harper's magazine.
Bethell began by pointing out that Darwinian theory is a tautology rather than a predicative theory. (The term tautology means a statement that is true by definition.) That is, evolution is the survival of the fittest. But who are the fittest? Obviously, the individuals who survive. Thus, without an independent criterion for fitness, other than survival, we are left with the statement that evolution is the survival of the survivors. This indeed is a tautology. But it is possible to assign independent criteria for fitness. Darwin wrote extensively about artificial selection in pigeons, in which the breeders' choice was the criterion for fitness. (Many novel breeds of pigeon have been created this way.) Artificial selection has been practiced extensively by plant and animal breeders. Here too, survival is not the criterion for fitness, productivity is."
Robert H Tamarin, (1996) "Principles of Genetics" (5th ed), p571.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7539880-3/#post56877025
The point is to prove that human and chimps are close relatives. So far the idea you change a few genes around for a few million years and bingo the planet of apes. If you want to show ape and man are relatives use the similarities in genes if you show they are not then point to the protein differences.But again, I don't see how this proves humans and chimps aren't closely related.
Yes, that's the point. Evolution can't predict the future (nothing and no-one can), we can only judge success by the results.Montalban said:One doesn't know this till after the fact
I wrote "I didn't claim that [asteroids change DNA]. I claimed that if a species is thriving, the only thing which would suddenly wipe it our would be a major natural disaster." You replied "Like the dodo?"Montalban said:Then what was your interjection regarding Dodos breeding?
Humans and chimps are related - we can tell because we share a large proportion of DNA - but obviously we're not identical, especially when it comes to phenotype differences.Smidlee said:If you want to show ape and man are relatives use the similarities in genes if you show they are not then point to the protein differences.
Oh? I thought you were a creationist.Smidlee said:The point is to prove that human and chimps are close relatives.
So the question that needs to be address , is DNA what makes us human?Humans and chimps are related - we can tell because we share a large proportion of DNA - but obviously we're not identical, especially when it comes to phenotype differences.
Oh? I thought you were a creationist.
No. Go look in a mirror and repeat these words: "I have been deceived by Satan. I don't know a truthful explanation when I see it." Repeat the process until you get it.
Yes. And No.Smidlee said:So the question that needs to be address , is DNA what makes us human?
Genes are blue-print of proteins. Adding spider DNA (genes) in a human doesn't create Spider-man.Yes. And No.
From a strictly biological point of view, genes give us everything. They give us our features which put us in separate taxonomies - such as our large brains, naked skin, sights as our primary sense, strong opposable thumbs, an upright stance and many other things.
True. But only the most reductionist biologists (such as Richard Dawkins) will tell you that humans are merely a collection of genes.Smidlee said:Genes are blue-print of proteins. Adding spider DNA (genes) in a human doesn't create Spider-man.
No its a good analogy, the only difference is that the traits which help pigeons survive in a pigeon fancier's loft, or pugs survive in a lap environment, is different from traits that help them survive in the wild. But that is true in the wild too, adapting to one environment can leave you less suited to another one. It is not as if Victorian pigeon breeders were getting in and genetically altering the genes of their pigeon flocks. Nor did the pigeon's genetic code somehow realise this was artificial selection and respond differently. The pigeons stocks were responding to the artificial selective pressure the way they respond to natural ones, you just have different traits being selected. In fact the pigeon breeding only worked because the pigeon breeders were using the pigeon population's natural response to selection.And yet it was Darwin who used the example of pigeon breeders to demonstrate (by way of (false) analogy) how evolution works
Yes it is because what is 'fit' is simply determined by that which survives.Yes I know what a tautology is,
That which survives survivesis a tautology
Survival of the fittestisn't.
No. You suggested examples of fitness which are based on you supposing that they are fit because the animals suriviveI showed you there was more to fitness than survival, there were traits that meant the organism was better suited to its environment that allowed it to survive. You even recognised these traits are involved. Traits are not the same as survival, so survival of organism with these traits isn't a tautology.
Only in part - firstly they note that people call it a tautology (and I also note that others here do too)Your own quote contradicts you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?