Math Logic Disproves Evoution

[Wiccan_Child]

As I already said, to ascribe diety to a being I would require a very special feat, and it would involve actual creation, or actual manipulation of physical laws. Creation (not discovery) of a fifth physical force, for example, or a true manipulation of physical laws, such as might be demonstrated by walking on water. If a man built an anti-gravity machine, or a Star Trek transporter, laws are not being manipulated any more than when man built an airplane. It's just a matter of degree.

Perhaps, but that is why I made myself quite explicit: the hypothetical being in question is able to manipulate the laws and constants which govern our universe (e.g., change the values of π, Ω, or G, or change an inverse square law to an inverse cube law). It's not so much that the technology takes advantage of the physical laws, it's that it changes them.

Now, a being with mass walking on the surface of water, because he wills it, and with no external technology involved, this could be attributable to deity.

Not necessarily: he could be walking on frozen water, as many of us have done. Technicalities are everything, it seems.

But I've already said this above, and I don't know what you're trying to get at. If you're going to say my criteria for deity doesn't match that of a pantheist, I already agree, and that's one reason I reject pantheism.

You claimed that atheists are, in fact, pantheists. I'm trying to uncover what definition of 'deity' you subscribe to for this bizarre terminology to make sense. A pantheist deifies the universe itself: God is the universe. An atheist does not believe in deities, full stop. How you've conflated those two definitions is beyond me, hence my attempt to clarify your position.

I'm not one of them, and I don't exactly know what they think they believe, the same way I don't exactly know what Mr. Dawkins believes. But to the extent that I do understand it, I disagree with it.

Naturally: you're a theist, and they're atheists. Your camp is the logical conjugate of theirs.

As I said, my problem isn't solely with anthropomorphic terminology. I understand the necessity. You can see it with something even easier to grasp than electrons. A rock sitting on the ground is "acting" in accordance with it's nature. It's "obeying" the laws of gravity and inertia. We can say it "wants" to remain at rest. We understand the laws which these anthropomorphic metaphors are based upon. The laws pertaining to gravity, inertia and motion have been formulated and are measurable, predictable, and we believe, universal.

Agreed. Anthropomorphisms help the laymen to understand what is going on. To those educated in the relevant fields, such simplifications are unnecessary: an evolutionary biologist would rarely call genes 'selfish', if she were talking to her colleague.

In evolutionary biology, however, the problem lies in the fact that one can go no further than the anthropomorphic terminology. The anthropomorphisms are not linguistic short-cuts to a comprehensible truth, they are dead ends.

Not at all: calling a gene 'selfish' is no different that calling an electron 'homesick' because it de-excites to the ground state. A gene is called 'selfish' because, as populations evolve, genes which code (by whatever means) for their own survival are more likely to be passed on. There is no concious effort on their part: they are simply molecules obeying chemical and quantum mechanical laws. Genes are no more concious than rocks, or stars.

Here's the difference, very simply:

I hear a physicist say that a rock wants to remain at rest. Being an ignorant layperson, I ask "What do you mean, the rock has a mind and will?" He says no, and can go on to technically and accurately describe what he means. He'll tell me what Newton told us, about how an object at rest tends to stay at rest, he can provide relevant mathematical equations, and he could even go the trouble of measuring the pertinent characteristics in order to educate me and reassure that what he's saying is true.

Next I hear a biologist say that a gene wants to pass itself on. I ask the same question, "You mean it has a mind and will?". He'll also say no, but the biologist has no explanation of what he does mean. He is stuck with the anthropomorphic terminology, the same as any primitive mythologist.

I suggest you find a better biologist, preferably one with an actual degree.

I didn't bring up Dawkins, someone else did. I don't criticize him, or any one, because I have it in for him. Besides, the general idea in The Selfish Gene is not his, it is inherent in evolutionary theory since Darwin.

Not really: Darwin had no idea about genes.

I criticize The Selfish Gene only to the extent that criticism is due. Suppose Isaac Newton, instead of writing his Principia, had written The Lazy Rock. Then Newton went on to answer critics by saying, "I just can't express what it is I believe, the best I can do is tell you a rock acts as if it were lazy". When a biologist writes the evolutionary equivalent of the Principia, I'll humbly retract what I've said here. I just want the facts.

Then read a biology textbook. Or, better yet, read The Selfish Gene. It explicitly does what you claim no biologist can do: it's the whole point of the book.

A quote about selfish genes:

"Selfish", when applied to genes, doesn't mean "selfish" at all. It means, instead, an extremely important quality for which there is no good word in the English language: "the quality of being copied by a Darwinian selection process." This is a complicated mouthful. There ought to be a better, shorter word – but "selfish" isn't it.

 

[sfs]

I hear a physicist say that a rock wants to remain at rest. Being an ignorant layperson, I ask "What do you mean, the rock has a mind and will?" He says no, and can go on to technically and accurately describe what he means. He'll tell me what Newton told us, about how an object at rest tends to stay at rest, he can provide relevant mathematical equations, and he could even go the trouble of measuring the pertinent characteristics in order to educate me and reassure that what he's saying is true.

Next I hear a biologist say that a gene wants to pass itself on. I ask the same question, "You mean it has a mind and will?". He'll also say no, but the biologist has no explanation of what he does mean. He is stuck with the anthropomorphic terminology, the same as any primitive mythologist.

Have you ever actually asked this question of a biologist? I ask because your hypothetical biologist does not sound like any real ones I have encountered. Natural selection at any level can be described in terms of the physical characteristics of a gene and the probability and frequency of an accurate copy of that gene being present in subsequent populations. This is how biologists describe natural selection (quoted from a review paper on the subject): "As first articulated by Darwin and Wallace in 1858, positive selection is the principle that beneficial traits traits—those that make it more likely that their carriers will survive and reproduce—tend to become more frequent in populations over time." Nothing very anthropomorphic or mysterious there.

 

[shernren]

As I said, my problem isn't solely with anthropomorphic terminology. I understand the necessity. You can see it with something even easier to grasp than electrons. A rock sitting on the ground is "acting" in accordance with it's nature. It's "obeying" the laws of gravity and inertia. We can say it "wants" to remain at rest. We understand the laws which these anthropomorphic metaphors are based upon. The laws pertaining to gravity, inertia and motion have been formulated and are measurable, predictable, and we believe, universal. In evolutionary biology, however, the problem lies in the fact that one can go no further than the anthropomorphic terminology. The anthropomorphisms are not linguistic short-cuts to a comprehensible truth, they are dead ends.

Here's the difference, very simply:

I hear a physicist say that a rock wants to remain at rest. Being an ignorant layperson, I ask "What do you mean, the rock has a mind and will?" He says no, and can go on to technically and accurately describe what he means. He'll tell me what Newton told us, about how an object at rest tends to stay at rest, he can provide relevant mathematical equations, and he could even go the trouble of measuring the pertinent characteristics in order to educate me and reassure that what he's saying is true.

Except that, really, The Lazy Rock is not actually at rest.

Your example is quite unfortunate because the typical rock sitting on the surface of the Earth is not at rest. It is kept in circular motion about the center of the Earth with a respectable speed of 1.7km/hr. It in fact does not conform to Newton's First Law, which requires that the vector sum total of all forces acting on a body be zero. Instead, the gravitational force pulling the rock towards the center of the Earth doesn't quite balance out the force that the surface of the Earth exerts back onto the rock. And thus rocks don't hurtle out into space (as they would, if they were moving at constant velocity).

You see? The pitfall was really that there was no attempt to try to construct a mental model, a mathematical model of what was going on. Yes, the rock looks like it's not moving; nevertheless it moves. And the more detailed a model, the better the chance of representing reality. Which brings us to ...

Next I hear a biologist say that a gene wants to pass itself on. I ask the same question, "You mean it has a mind and will?". He'll also say no, but the biologist has no explanation of what he does mean. He is stuck with the anthropomorphic terminology, the same as any primitive mythologist.

I didn't bring up Dawkins, someone else did. I don't criticize him, or any one, because I have it in for him. Besides, the general idea in The Selfish Gene is not his, it is inherent in evolutionary theory since Darwin. I criticize The Selfish Gene only to the extent that criticism is due. Suppose Isaac Newton, instead of writing his Principia, had written The Lazy Rock. Then Newton went on to answer critics by saying, "I just can't express what it is I believe, the best I can do is tell you a rock acts as if it were lazy". When a biologist writes the evolutionary equivalent of the Principia, I'll humbly retract what I've said here. I just want the facts.

As others have pointed out, your hypothetical biologist is terribly uninformed, and doesn't (or shouldn't) correspond well to any actual biologist alive today. And just as there are mathematical models befitting physics, there are also mathematical models befitting biology. You could refer to Fischer's argument for 1:1 sex ratios, for example, or to Kimura's groundbreaking work in modeling neutral mutations. Closer to "The Selfish Gene", Dawkins (IIRC) has an extremely detailed mathematical description in "The Extended Genotype" of a gene which, although it decreases its host's "fitness", can actually increase its proportion in the gene pool (because of the way it interacts with other genes). That's a selfish gene for you. And it's no less real, and no more anthropomorphic, than your unfortunate lazy rock.

 

[Chesterton]

Not necessarily: he could be walking on frozen water, as many of us have done. Technicalities are everything, it seems.

You went into the vault for that old gem.

You claimed that atheists are, in fact, pantheists. I'm trying to uncover what definition of 'deity' you subscribe to for this bizarre terminology to make sense. A pantheist deifies the universe itself: God is the universe. An atheist does not believe in deities, full stop. How you've conflated those two definitions is beyond me, hence my attempt to clarify your position.

Again, applying an adjective to a noun, is the same as saying the noun "acts" as if it possesses the quality of the adjective. Saying a cheetah is fast, is the same as saying a cheetah "acts as if it were fast". Saying an ice cube is cold, is the same as saying the atoms comprising the cube are "acting as if they were cold".

The atheistic evolutionist says that genes act as if they were selfish or altruistic. With no articulation of any natural law to account for this, they attribute the procedure of organic life to a process (or quality, to use Brown's word) which necessarily requires will. Only a mind can possess will. Therefore, they either believe that 1) the gene itself has a mind or 2) a mind, which would have to be a god in order to invent and carry out the procedure, is inherent in the matter which makes up the gene, which belief would be defined as pantheism.

I'm having to repeat myself. If you disagree, fine, but it's apparent to me. To bolster my claim I could also mention the religious nature of the belief which accounts for the contempt with which evolutionary atheists view anyone who doesn't adhere to their dogma, and also the need to proselytize. After all, I'm not the one who's an atheist visiting a Christian forum site, in effect telling people they should convert.

Naturally: you're a theist, and they're atheists. Your camp is the logical conjugate of theirs.

The people I'm talking about are pseudo-atheists, not strong atheists. The pantheist camp is not the conjugate of mine, because a misunderstanding of truth is not the opposite of understanding truth. The conjugate would more accurately be the total rejection of any truth, strong atheism. Although the pantheists are actually closer to my camp, I must say intellectually, I have more respect for the logical consistency of the strong atheist.

Then read a biology textbook. Or, better yet, read The Selfish Gene. It explicitly does what you claim no biologist can do: it's the whole point of the book.

If you know a biology textbook which explains how the first living cell came willing and readily equipped to reproduce itself and eventually lead to us, please point me to it. That would be helpful. So that I don't waste time, I'd like to take a look at that one first.

You see? The pitfall was really that there was no attempt to try to construct a mental model, a mathematical model of what was going on. Yes, the rock looks like it's not moving; nevertheless it moves. And the more detailed a model, the better the chance of representing reality.

Yes the rock is not really at rest, we know nothing is. That's irrelevant. I'm talking about expressing in spoken and written language an idea held in the mind. The idea in the mind IS a kind of informal mental model, and math IS language. Both math and common speech can be inexact when trying to mesh, but they both still need to have SOME meaning, even if approximate. Another aspect I should mention, since you want to compare physical forces with the idea which people like Dawkins are trying to express, is that the physical forces themselves can in no way be seen to endorse any moral philosophy, whereas Dawkins concludes The Selfish Gene with a grotesque view of human morality based on his ill-formed philosophy.

As others have pointed out, your hypothetical biologist is terribly uninformed...

Three of you think my hypothetical biologist is uninformed. You need to start reading at an earlier point in this thread. My hypothetical is based on Dawkins' own words, and his supporter's own words. What else can I say? If they are poor scientists, poor philosophers, or maybe just poor communicators, you can take it up with them. You're just arguing around the point, and not to the point. If you can express what Dawkins and others admit he cannot, you should write your own book.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You went into the vault for that old gem.

I beg your pardon?

Again, applying an adjective to a noun, is the same as saying the noun "acts" as if it possesses the quality of the adjective. Saying a cheetah is fast, is the same as saying a cheetah "acts as if it were fast". Saying an ice cube is cold, is the same as saying the atoms comprising the cube are "acting as if they were cold".

Nope: the atoms comprising the ice can act as if they were cold (i.e., are in a solid state), but are, in fact, quite hot: sufficiently high pressures yields ice at arbitrarily high temperatures.

Besides, even if your example were correct, it does not prove the general rule. Indeed, I disproved it with my heterosexual example: I can act as if I were heterosexual, yet still be homosexual. This contradicts what you claim: if I act as if I were heterosexual, then I must therefore be heterosexual.

The 'X acts as if it were Y' qualifier implicitly uses the typical behaviour of Y to use as an analogy for X. Ice is typically cold, but this is not the general case. Male womanisers are typically heterosexual, but this needn't be the case.

So, with regards to "Genes act as if they were selfish", one is using the behaviour called 'selfishness' to label the apparent actions of genes to better explain the concept of 'the selfish gene' to the layman. If need be, anyone educated in the concept can easily explain it without using the word 'selfish', or making any appeal to a conciousness.

The atheistic evolutionist says that genes act as if they were selfish or altruistic. With no articulation of any natural law to account for this, they attribute the procedure of organic life to a process (or quality, to use Brown's word) which necessarily requires will. Only a mind can possess will.

Nope. Do you really think that all processes require a will, or a mind? Where is the will, or mind, in the process that leads a photon from the centre of the Sun to the surface of Mercury? Or is it mere particles, fields, and energy being governed by physical laws?

As has been said before, you might want to read up on what biologists actually say. I've spoken to, and read the works of, many biologists (Dawkins included), and none have espoused the idea of a 'concious' gene.

I'm having to repeat myself. If you disagree, fine, but it's apparent to me. To bolster my claim I could also mention the religious nature of the belief which accounts for the contempt with which evolutionary atheists view anyone who doesn't adhere to their dogma,

A contempt I have never encountered myself, even when observing atheist-Christian dialogue. Everyone needs their stereotypes, I guess.

and also the need to proselytize. After all, I'm not the one who's an atheist visiting a Christian forum site, in effect telling people they should convert.

They're not telling you to convert. They're not demanding you adopt their worldview, lest you burn for eternity in Hell (much to the apparent chagrin of an omnipotent omnibenevolence). Of the ones who taken the time to explain why they're here, it is mostly the love of discussion and debate. The only people who I have met on CF who engage in proselytisation are Christians and Muslims.

The people I'm talking about are pseudo-atheists, not strong atheists.

The correct term is 'weak atheist'. 'Pseudo-atheist' implies that they aren't really atheists.

The pantheist camp is not the conjugate of mine, because a misunderstanding of truth is not the opposite of understanding truth

Indeed: your camp is 'theist', in which pantheists also reside.

The conjugate would more accurately be the total rejection of any truth, strong atheism.

No. The phrase 'logical conjugate' has a very clear meaning, and it is not synonymous with the logical inverse (for want of a better phrase). The inverse of the set of positive integers is the set of negative integers, but this is not the conjugate: the conjugate of the set of positive integers is the set of negative integers and zero. Likewise, the inverse of theism is strong atheism, but the conjugate is the more general atheism.

Note that "I am not in the set A" is the same as saying "I am in the set A' ", where A' is the logical conjugate of A. Note also that some sources call A' the compliment of A.

Just to clarify.

Although the pantheists are actually closer to my camp, I must say intellectually, I have more respect for the logical consistency of the strong atheist.

Logical consistency? Logic dictates that we should be weak atheists, given the evidence (or lack thereof).

If you know a biology textbook which explains how the first living cell came willing and readily equipped to reproduce itself and eventually lead to us, please point me to it.

I know of no such book, and strongly suspect that none exists: such a notion is not what biologists espouse.

 

[sfs]

The atheistic evolutionist says that genes act as if they were selfish or altruistic. With no articulation of any natural law to account for this, they attribute the procedure of organic life to a process (or quality, to use Brown's word) which necessarily requires will. Only a mind can possess will. Therefore, they either believe that 1) the gene itself has a mind or 2) a mind, which would have to be a god in order to invent and carry out the procedure, is inherent in the matter which makes up the gene, which belief would be defined as pantheism.

Sorry, but no evolutionary biologist does this. The principles of natural selection do constitute natural law and do not require sentience or intention. Your argument is based entirely on badly reading popular science books.

I'm having to repeat myself. If you disagree, fine, but it's apparent to me. To bolster my claim I could also mention the religious nature of the belief which accounts for the contempt with which evolutionary atheists view anyone who doesn't adhere to their dogma, and also the need to proselytize.

I'm not an atheist. I also don't have contempt for those who reject evolution, although I often have contempt for their arguments.

After all, I'm not the one who's an atheist visiting a Christian forum site, in effect telling people they should convert.

No, you're the one telling evolutionary biologists what they really think.

If you know a biology textbook which explains how the first living cell came willing and readily equipped to reproduce itself and eventually lead to us, please point me to it. That would be helpful. So that I don't waste time, I'd like to take a look at that one first.

?? What does that have to do with your argument about anthropomorphism and natural selection?

Three of you think my hypothetical biologist is uninformed. You need to start reading at an earlier point in this thread.

I started reading at the beginning of this thread. I still think your hypothetical biologist in uninformed.

My hypothetical is based on Dawkins' own words, and his supporter's own words. What else can I say? If they are poor scientists, poor philosophers, or maybe just poor communicators, you can take it up with them. You're just arguing around the point, and not to the point. If you can express what Dawkins and others admit he cannot, you should write your own book.

I don't care what Dawkins wrote; I've never read any of his biology, and have no plans to, and I certainly don't care what his "followers" say. I already quoted a biologist saying exactly what you claim he can't say, which is a description of natural selection that does not use anthropomorphism. (And I did write my own book, or at least article -- the biologist I was quoting was me.)

 

[Chesterton]

This is how biologists describe natural selection (quoted from a review paper on the subject): "As first articulated by Darwin and Wallace in 1858, positive selection is the principle that beneficial traits traits—those that make it more likely that their carriers will survive and reproduce—tend to become more frequent in populations over time."

I assume this is the quote you said was yours? I think I understand what you're saying in your last post, but would you help me with two questions:

Why do you define "beneficial traits" as "those that make it more likely that their carriers will survive and reproduce"?

Why do these traits tend to become more frequent in populations over time?

 

[Dr. Unk]

Why do you define "beneficial traits" as "those that make it more likely that their carriers will survive and reproduce"?

Beneficial traits can come in the form of being faster to avoid predators, being better camouflaged, immunity to diseases, more attractive to the opposite sex etc., therefore carriers of these traits are more likely to survive and reproduce.

Why do these traits tend to become more frequent in populations over time?

Carriers pass them on to the next generation. Those without them are less likely to reproduce or survive, and so will not pass on their genes to the next generation. Therefore, the next generation will have a higher ratio of carriers of beneficial traits.

No offence, but these are very obvious concepts to undestand.

 

[Chesterton]

Beneficial traits can come in the form of being faster to avoid predators, being better camouflaged, immunity to diseases, more attractive to the opposite sex etc., therefore carriers of these traits are more likely to survive and reproduce.

I think the quote I gave is from "sfs", and I'm hoping he'll respond because he makes the extraordinary claim that he can tell us what no biologist besides him has ever been able to.

But your answer wasn't to the question. You just gave examples of what you believe are beneficial traits. You can try again. Why are traits which make it more likely that their carriers will survive and reproduce defined as beneficial traits?

 

[Melethiel]

Why are traits which make it more likely that their carriers will survive and reproduce defined as beneficial traits?

Because that's one of the basic concepts in evolutionary theory. I learned this in Biology 101. What is your definition of a "beneficial trait"?

 

[Chesterton]

Because that's one of the basic concepts in evolutionary theory. I learned this in Biology 101. What is your definition of a "beneficial trait"?

lol, I agree. That it is a biology 101 "basic concept" could be part of the problem.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

lol, I agree. That it is a biology 101 "basic concept" could be part of the problem.

Ah, so when I was taught 2 + 3 = 5 in Mathematics 101...

 

[sfs]

Why do you define "beneficial traits" as "those that make it more likely that their carriers will survive and reproduce"?

Because "makes an organism more likely to survive and reproduce" is a useful concept in describing the world, and "beneficial" was an existing word whose colloquial meaning is similar enough to make it a reasonable candidate to apply to that concept. It's the same reason that physicists use the word "force".

Why do these traits tend to become more frequent in populations over time?

These traits tend to become more frequent because the organisms that possess them have (on average) more descendants than those that do not have them.

 

[sfs]

I think the quote I gave is from "sfs", and I'm hoping he'll respond because he makes the extraordinary claim that he can tell us what no biologist besides him has ever been able to.

Nonsense. Many, many biologists can do this. Anyone who teaches introductory evolutionary biology has to do it all the time.

 

[Chesterton]

Because "makes an organism more likely to survive and reproduce" is a useful concept in describing the world, and "beneficial" was an existing word whose colloquial meaning is similar enough to make it a reasonable candidate to apply to that concept. It's the same reason that physicists use the word "force".

Okay, the definition is useful, I already knew that. What I'm wondering is whether it's true. Man has invented concepts which are useful, which are not necessarily true. The lengths of measurement called "inches" and "meters", for example, don't exist naturally in the universe, only in a human mind. They are useful concepts in describing the world, but are not true (except in a relative sense, when comparing one inch to another).

 

[sfs]

What I'm wondering is whether it's true.

It's true. Some traits make a member of a species more likely to survive, while others make other members less likely. Look at bacteria living in an environment with a low level of penicillin in it. Those bacteria with the trait "penicillin sensitive" will fare a lot worse (will grow less well and will produce fewer descendants) than those with the trait "penicillin resistant".

Man has invented concepts which are useful, which are not necessarily true. The lengths of measurement called "inches" and "meters", for example, don't exist naturally in the universe, only in a human mind. They are useful concepts in describing the world, but are not true (except in a relative sense, when comparing one inch to another).

The concept of "inch" is not a component of a scientific model of the world; it's an arbitrary unit. The concept of length, on the other hand, is a part of scientific models, and does a good job of describing a fundamental feature of our experience. The concept that some traits make survival and reproduction more likely is a component of another scientific model of the living world, and it also seems to match reality well.

Do you really doubt that the characteristics of an organism have some role in whether it lives or dies?

 

[Chesterton]

It's true. Some traits make a member of a species more likely to survive, while others make other members less likely. Look at bacteria living in an environment with a low level of penicillin in it. Those bacteria with the trait "penicillin sensitive" will fare a lot worse (will grow less well and will produce fewer descendants) than those with the trait "penicillin resistant".

Am I wrong, or isn't this a tautology? Aren't you saying - "It's beneficial because it makes an organism more likely to survive and reproduce ...and it makes an organism more likely to survive and reproduce because it's beneficial."? I'm not sure you're actually saying anything.

Do you really doubt that the characteristics of an organism have some role in whether it lives or dies?

No, I don't. If I had some characteristics of a turtle, such as a hard shell and retractable limbs, my life insurance premiums might be lower. I think you already know I question the source of the beginnings of the characteristics - how and why the characteristics came about.

I was going to make an observation about food and hunger, but since you think the things I say are mostly wrong so far, can I just ask you a question and let you inform me: Living organisms need to consume some type of nutrition to keep living. Do you have an opinion on how the need to consume and an organism's knowledge of the need to consume came about? What traits in lower organisms could have led to what humans call "hunger pangs"?

 

[Mallon]

Re: "survival of the fittest" as a tautology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest#Is_.22survival_of_the_fittest.22_a_tautology.3F
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA500.html

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Am I wrong, or isn't this a tautology? Aren't you saying - "It's beneficial because it makes an organism more likely to survive and reproduce ...and it makes an organism more likely to survive and reproduce because it's beneficial."? I'm not sure you're actually saying anything.

That particular quotation is a tautology, yes, but that is not what biologists say. The first part is right, but the second part isn't: mutations are defined as beneficial if they increase the likelihood of their host genes being proliferated. Exactly how they increase the likelihood is irrelevant to whether or not they're deemed beneficial.

For instance, some mutations create novel proteins on the surface of blood cells. These mutations are deemed beneficial if the proteins, say, improve the cell's ability to take up and deliver O[sub]2[/sub] or CO[sub]2[/sub], or subtly change enzyme active sites, sites which hostile viruses and bacteria might otherwise exploit.

Or the mutation could thicken hair, or subdermal fat, or change hair or skin colouration, or something. If one of this mutant traits help keep the organism warm and active during a period of global cooling (e.g., an ice age), the mutation is deemed beneficial: it has aided the host gene to be proliferated by increasing the host organism's odds of survival.

On the other hand, if the mutation causes so much hair growth that the organism dies of overheating while still in infancy, we can safely say that the mutation was detrimental.

It's really not a hard concept.

 

[sfs]

One demonstration that "survival of the fittest" is not a tautology is that it is not always true. Tautologies are always true, since they are true by definition.

I don't mean randomness here -- i.e. that quite often traits that confer a survival advantage are lost purely by chance -- because natural selection is a statistical principle, and is not expected to be true all of the time. What I do mean is the kind of "selfish" genetic system that Dawkins probably talks about. Sometimes a mutation to a piece of DNA will spread throughout the population even though it decreases survival or reproduction; it does this by increasing it's chance of being transmitted to the next generation, e.g. by causing sperm that carry it to kill sperm that don't have it. Thus, if a male parent has one copy of the mutation, it will pass it on to more than 50% of its offspring.