Survival of the fittest = Circular definition?

[Mocca]

It has been suggested by certain creationists that the phrase "survival of the fittest," which is an method of referring to natural selection in informal conversation, uses a circular definition, and therefore natural selection doesn't exist. How creationists think this work I believe goes something like this:

Survival of the fittest states the fit survive. However, the fit are defined as the organisms who survive. This is a circular definition, and therefore the entire concept that the definition defined is false.

But this is false. A flawed definition does not imply the falsity or non-existence of what the definition defined. For example, if we had a flawed definition of ice cream, it does not mean that ice cream does not exist. The existence of something doesn't depend on its definition.

However, this flawed definition of natural selection, or "survival of the fittest," would indeed be a problem for the Theory of Evolution if there were no better definition; then we'd have an undefined concept that is somehow central to the theory.

Luckily for us, there is a better definition. We must remember that "survival of the fittest" is really a way to refer to natural selection in informal conversation. Natural selection, or "survival of the fittest" goes something like this:

1) There are certain heritable traits that allow certain organisms to have a greater chance to reproduce. (One must note that these traits aren't some absolutely defined group of traits engraved onto a stone tablet. While our human legs may be beneficial to humans, they definately aren't beneficial to dolphins. This is the reason for the apparent circular definition: some things can't be given an absolute definition.)

2) As these heritable traits allow certain organisms to have a greater chance to reproduce, there will be a greater chance these heritable traits will be passed on.

Voila; no circular definition.

Puh-leeze.

 

[Hydra009]

Agreed. Wikipedia has a segment addressing that creationist claim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

Long story short: it's not a tautology (a statement which is true by its own definition) because "fitness is simply a measurement of the result of selection, a result that is determined by one's biological functionality".

 

[chaoschristian]

Good thread. One encounters this tautological construct of 'Darwin's theory' quite often, especially and unfortunately in general news accounts.

While many of here may take its refutation for granted, its good to 1) be reminded as to why its important to be aware of it and 2) be shown such a nicely articulated refutation to put into the back pocket for future use.

 

[USincognito]

I don't think it's a circular argument in the "If you don't eat your meat, how can you have any pudding? How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat" way because unlike a tautology it's not a forward prediction, it's an analysis looking backwards at the evidence.

Those that were best adapted to their environments, but not so specialized they went exctinct when the environment changed survived as a species. To me it sounds less like a tautology than common sense.

 

[Dal M.]

Survival of the fittest states the fit survive. However, the fit are defined as the organisms who survive. This is a circular definition, and therefore the entire concept that the definition defined is false.

Similarly, the one who crossed the finish line first is defined as the winner, and the winner is defined as the one who crossed the finish line first, so there never was a race.

This argument is terrible even by creationist standards, and yet you still see it used from time to time - even by people who should know better.

 

[Non-Sequitur]

Ann Coulter actually uses this argument (along with a bunch of other silly arguments against evolution) in her new book.

 

[USincognito]

Ann Coulter actually uses this argument (along with a bunch of other silly arguments against evolution) in her new book.

Does she argue that the 9/11 widows who apparently are reveling in the horrific murder of their husbands were naturally selected for their greed and lack of Patriotism?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

there are two kinds of circular arguments.
vicious circles and virtuous ones.

i don't have any problem with "survival of the fittest" being a virtuous circular argument. The problem is that it isn't survival but surviving to reproduce that is in mind. it is quite possible and probably rather common that survival of an individual and reproduction are opposing conditions. If a particular individual maximizes individual survival and as a result has fewer or no offspring, then survival of the fittest under these conditions is not a good description of evolution.

fitness is therefore in TofE related to reproduction not to individual survival as is often proposed.

 

[Baggins]

Does she argue that the 9/11 widows who apparently are reveling in the horrific murder of their husbands were naturally selected for their greed and lack of Patriotism?

I read about her on the BBC News web site yesterday, she sounds like a deeply unpleasent and immoral person.

To say such things in order to make a living is truly horrible, I wouldn't have believed people like her existed. Only in America huh!

Apparently her book tops the best seller list as well, I can think of a few posters on this site who probably have it and revel in that kind of filth.

 

[ZerroEnna]

some things can't be given an absolute definition.)

Everything can be given an absolute definition. The people that define such things must first have a perfect understanding. Herein lies the problem somethings are too complex to have a perfect understanding right away. So what should we do? Not try to define what we see? No. I don't feel the need to explain why we should try.

 

[michabo]

Personally, I tend to agree that "survival of the fittest" is a empty. You don't know who are the fittest in advance, you just label them the fittest after they haven't died. It isn't informative, and as it can only be done in hindsight, I think that a case can be made that it is tautological.

However, this is just a colloquial term, and isn't a part of the formal theory of evolution. The accurate term would be "differential reproductive success". That is, members of a generation have different prospects to survive and reproduce.

For a given individual, the odds may be in their favour, but they may not reproduce. Similarly, an individual with the odds against her may survive and reproduce. We can see that it isn't the fittest who survive and reproduce, but rather that different individuals have different probabilities.

As well, "differential reproductive success" emphasizs reproduction over survivial, which is a crucial difference in evolution. It doesn't matter who survives, but who survives and successfully reproduces, for it is only these genes which will be reflected in the next generation.

 

[Mocca]

Everything can be given an absolute definition. The people that define such things must first have a perfect understanding. Herein lies the problem somethings are too complex to have a perfect understanding right away. So what should we do? Not try to define what we see? No. I don't feel the need to explain why we should try.

Alright, then. Why don't you define every beneficial trait absolutely.

Name every beneficial trait for every possible organism in every possible environment under every possible condition.

This is why we can't have an absolute definition. An absolute definition would be:

1 * 1 = 1^2, 2 * 2 = 2^2, 1.152 * 1.152 = 1.152^2, -12 * -12 = 12^2, and so on... an infinite number of statements...

A relative definition would be:

x * x = x^2

Now, would you go for the relative definition or the absolute definition?