Natural Selection Is Circular Logic

[AV1611VET]

Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.

 

[archer75]

Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.

No. In this limited context, "fitness" means reproductive success. There is no "logical fallacy here." The statement in the OP represents a misunderstanding.

 

[Zoii]

Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.

No thats a complete misunderstanding of natural selection.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.

Actually, AV, it's not so much circular reasoning as it is a mis-nomer...................since nature doesn't actually "select" anything in any kind of sentient way. Just consider it as a semantic over-reach on the part of Darwin. It all gets kind of confusing for those on both sides of the debate who utterly refuse to study the N.O.S.

 

[Strathos]

CA500: "Survival of the Fittest"

Are you going to make a thread for each claim on the talkorigins index?

It would certainly be one way to further pad your post count.

 

[mark kennedy]

Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.

More of a tautology. Natural selection was based on the observation that populations tend to procreate beyond the ability of the natural resources to sustain them. The result is a struggle to survive, a competition for resources, Darwin like the example of Finches. On the Gallopagos islands having a shorter, stronger beak gave them an advantage. However on the mainland the longer, thinner variety were advantageous. The dirty little secret here is natural selection as described by Malthus and Darwin seldom results in adaptive evolution. They didn't have a clue what the internal molecular mecanisms. Natural selection has always been and will always be focused on external conditions. That' it's weakness and when you think about it, it's greatest strength. It need not bother with internsl mechanisms, just keep talking in generalities and rely on the naturalistic assumptions that mark that worldview.

 

[AV1611VET]

More of a tautology. Natural selection was based on the observation that populations tend to procreate beyond the ability of the natural resources to sustain them.

Kinda like the Peter Principle?

 

[mark kennedy]

Kinda like the Peter Principle?

Roughly, Malthus made a basic observation that Darwin ran with. It's always been about populations over time. With the population of humans being on a course of population explosion the vision of Darwinians is that we are heading for a natural selextion event. That's why the support abortion and same sex unions, they think it will mitigate the inevitable. So much of this is politicalky sensitive, the subject matter should be aporoached cautiously.

 

[HTacianas]

Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.

That particular example is not circular reasoning, but a simple restatement of fact.

Several years ago I was fishing in Key West when we were swarmed one night by flying fish. These things were pelting the daylights out of us as they were trying to escape the kingfish that were chasing them.

It made me think about natural selection. Nearly all prey fish will leap out of the water to escape predators. I suppose that at some time the prey fish with longer fins may have been able to stay above the water longer, making it easier for them to escape and breed. As they became more populous than the shorter finned fish, their offspring eventually became dominant and the shorter finned fish went extinct.

That I suppose explains the existence of flying fish through natural selection but at the same time begs the question of why can't all prey fish fly?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.

1. Natural selection, is not an argument.

2. It's a process that necessarily unfolds as some survive and reproduce and some don't. Those most fit have the most chance of reproductive success.


All in all, ignorance is being exposed in your statement again.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That I suppose explains the existence of flying fish through natural selection but at the same time begs the question of why can't all prey fish fly?

Because in the end, every prey (and predator) has its own strategy and, through the process of natural selection, further improves that strategy, unless something really disruptive happens to the balance of the eco system.

But if not, then species are in an arms-race and more often then not, evolution just builds further on what is already present. Only extremely rarely are novel strategies evolved, and it usually only happens in times of dramatic change to eco systems and/or habitats.

This is why species that are the prefered lunch of predators like cheetah's, will generally be able to run a LOT faster then species which are the prefered lunch of a far slower predator.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

More of a tautology. Natural selection was based on the observation that populations tend to procreate beyond the ability of the natural resources to sustain them. The result is a struggle to survive, a competition for resources, Darwin like the example of Finches. On the Gallopagos islands having a shorter, stronger beak gave them an advantage. However on the mainland the longer, thinner variety were advantageous. The dirty little secret here is natural selection as described by Malthus and Darwin seldom results in adaptive evolution. They didn't have a clue what the internal molecular mecanisms. Natural selection has always been and will always be focused on external conditions. That' it's weakness and when you think about it, it's greatest strength. It need not bother with internsl mechanisms, just keep talking in generalities and rely on the naturalistic assumptions that mark that worldview.

It had nothing to do with external.

It had to do with internal... mating....

PHENOTYPIC AND GENETIC EFFECTS OF HYBRIDIZATION IN DARWIN'S FINCHES. - PubMed - NCBI

"Morphological consequences of hybridization were studied in a group of three interbreeding species of Darwin's finches....In agreement with expectations from a model of polygenic inheritance, hybrid and backcross classes were generally phenotypically intermediate between the breeding groups that had produced them. Hybridization increased additive genetic and environmental variances, increased heritabilities to a moderate extent, and generally strengthened phenotypic and genetic correlations. New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation. Enhanced variation facilitates directional evolutionary change, subject to constraints arising from genetic correlations between characters. The Darwin's finch data suggest that these constraints become stronger when species with similar proportions hybridize, but some become weaker when the interbreeding species have different allometries. This latter effect of hybridization, together with an enhancement of genetic variation, facilitates evolutionary change in a new direction."

Which is as you noted, it's greatest weakness, because it does focus on the external, and the pitiful weak and harmful effects of mutations....

 

[mark kennedy]

It had nothing to do with external.

It had to do with internal... mating....

PHENOTYPIC AND GENETIC EFFECTS OF HYBRIDIZATION IN DARWIN'S FINCHES. - PubMed - NCBI

"Morphological consequences of hybridization were studied in a group of three interbreeding species of Darwin's finches....In agreement with expectations from a model of polygenic inheritance, hybrid and backcross classes were generally phenotypically intermediate between the breeding groups that had produced them. Hybridization increased additive genetic and environmental variances, increased heritabilities to a moderate extent, and generally strengthened phenotypic and genetic correlations. New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation. Enhanced variation facilitates directional evolutionary change, subject to constraints arising from genetic correlations between characters. The Darwin's finch data suggest that these constraints become stronger when species with similar proportions hybridize, but some become weaker when the interbreeding species have different allometries. This latter effect of hybridization, together with an enhancement of genetic variation, facilitates evolutionary change in a new direction."

Which is as you noted, it's greatest weakness, because it does focus on the external, and the pitiful weak and harmful effects of mutations....

There are various kinds of selection, theres diversify, stabalizing and various other, always it refers to an effect not a cause. It does utilize statistical genetics but natural selection is a phenomenon involong extrrnal counditoons that influence changes in allels.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

There are various kinds of selection, theres diversify, stabalizing and various other, always it refers to an effect not a cause. It does utilize statistical genetics but natural selection is a phenomenon involong extrrnal counditoons that influence changes in allels.

Natural condition influences changes in alleles by bringing together those that would not normally mate yes, which changes the genome in ways that may or may not make an animal more fit for survival in the present circumstances.

basically it's blind luck.

But it never brings about a new organism...... just variations on the existing organism.

Hence finches are still finches. Bacteria are still bacteria. And fruit flies are still fruit flies..... Kind will always remain Kind.....

 

[mark kennedy]

Natural condition influences changes in alleles by bringing together those that would not normally mate yes, which changes the genome in ways that may or may not make an animal more fit for survival in the present circumstances.

basically it's blind luck.

But it never brings about a new organism...... just variations on the existing organism.

Hence finches are still finches. Bacteria are still bacteria. And fruit flies are still fruit flies..... Kind will always remain Kind.....

Your describing medelian genetics, not darwinian evolution. On the Origin of Species, it the preface he said, all change, organic and inorganic, is the result of natural law not mricaled. The entire book is one long argument against special creation. Before he even begins the discussion he makes clear, the premiae is atheistic materialism.

As far as the finches, the variety is the result alternate alleles (genes). That was Gregor Mendel's observation, domonant and recessive genes are exprrssed in a 3:1 ratio.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Your describing medelian genetics, bot darwinian evolution. On the Origin of Species, it the preface he said, all change, organic and inorganic, is the result of natural law not mricaled. The entire book is one long argument against special creation. Before he even begins the discussion he makes clear, the premiae is atheistic materialism.

He also said that if innumerable (without number) transitional forms were not found...... He allowed his theory may not be correct and gave a way to test it. He sincerely believed those innumerable missing transitional forms would be found....

I've observed Mendelian genetics. Not once have I observed Darwinian evolution.....

 

[mark kennedy]

He also said that if innumerable (without number) transitional forms were not found...... He allowed his theory may not be correct and gave a way to test it. He sincerely believed those innumerable missing transitional forms would be found....

I've observed Mendelian genetics. Not once have I observed Darwinian evolution.....

Well his null hypothesis was if it can be proven that any organ coulg not have arisen by slight succesice natural selection he theory would absolutly break down. I've always thought the answer to that is the human brain

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Well his null hypothesis was if it can be proven that any organ coulg not have arisen by slight succesice natural selection he theory would absolutly break down. I've always thought the answer to that is the human brain

Darwin thought it was the eye. He found it absurd that one could think it arose naturally.

But don't worry, worms solved that riddle.... sigh.....

But it is the brain to a degree, or more properly, thought.....

"Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil..."

It is the act of knowing that made us like unto Him...... it is that, and that alone which God specifies made us like unto Him.....

 

[mark kennedy]

Darwin thought it was the eye. He found it absurd that one could think it arose naturally.

But don't worry, worms solved that riddle.... sigh.....

But it is the brain to a degree, or more properly, thought.....

"Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil..."

It is the act of knowing that made us like unto Him...... it is that, and that alone which God specifies made us like unto Him.....

He also made us with a cranial capacity neatly three time that of chimpanzees. The reason I think its the best point of reference is because it been so thoughly studied in genetics and paleotology. Brain related genes are among the most highly conserved in the human genome. The old saw of mutations plus selection equals evolution doesn't apply. All you will get is disease, disorder and death.

 

[AV1611VET]

All you will get is disease, disorder and death.

Sounds like a recipe for another scienctific breakthrough.