Teaching Evolution to Evolutionists

[Papias]

JVPITER wrote:

in most cases we can only judge fitness after the fact; when we see a particular trait spread through the population, then we say that trait results in greater fitness.

Why would it matter that sometimes we can't see all the factors? They still exist whether we can see them or sort them out, after all. Besides, as shown in post #90, there are documented cases where scientists have indeed measured the relevant factors beforehand, showing another reason that "survival of the fittest" isn't a tautology. I pointed this out to Montalban back then, and he just ignored it and continued to repeat Gish's well refuted "tautology" mantra.

Here is the part I mentioned back then:
**************
Here's one on bone marrow variations that predicted outcomes in the wild:

Pole, A., I. J. Gordon and M. L. Gorman. 2003. African wild dogs test the 'survival of the fittest' paradigm. Proceedings of the Royal Society, Biological Sciences 270(Suppl. 1): S57.

Here's my original statement

And that's exactly why it's not a tautology - because outside criteria can be applied that predict whether or not the trait will be beneficial. This has been shown in actual research too. You've answered your own point.

The outside measured criteria in this cases is bone marrow density, the predicted outcome (hypothesis) is antelope survival. Not a tautology. See how it works?

Papias
**********************
Also, it's worth noting again that the phrase "survival of the fittest" is misleading and wasn't what Darwin either meant nor said. A better description is probably "survival of those that fit best with their evironment". It can and is predicted based on the traits, and is no more a tautology than any other branch of science.

Montalban wrote:

If you don't want to discuss things, that's fine.

Hmmm... I find your response perplexing since you pretty much ignored everything in my last post, #125.

Your past discussion on this seems to have been by first giving a non-answer, and then refusing to discuss anything further when it is pointed out that your previous answer was empty.

So we've back to the topics listed:

A. back in post #90, and in Mallon's post #113 above, we showed that independant criteria are used, so natural selection isn't a tautology. You mispresenting natural selection when you ignore half of the situation, as shown by your statements like "that which survives survives" or "all knives are knives".



B. Your assertion is simply a repetition of Gish's use of the same argument in his book, which was shown to be a PRATT then, it's no different now.


C. Shernren showed in post #106 that even using Montalban's own definition of what isn't a tautology, natural selection isn't a tautology.

Montalban's previous response was little more to say "Shernren was wrong". Shernren also subseqent posts to help explain this to Montalban.


D. It's worth pointing out that your refusal to see cause and effect can be applied to any science, rendering every science a tautology. For instance, medicine is a tautology because the drug that works best works best. Physics is a tautology because a force that attracts is a force that attracts. Rocket science is a tautology because the rocket nozzle that produces the most force is the rocket nozzle that produces the most force. Your entire argument (as with Gish's original argument) is nothing more than a word game followed by plugging one's ears and humming when the correct answer is explained.

Montalban responded that this didn't matter since these others aren't "foundational" to their fields. I don't see what Montalban is saying here - there is more to biology than natural selection, and treatment and forces are certainly central to medicine and physics. I don't see why Montalban feels justified in using a double standard across fields.


Here's another point that Montalban ignored from the previous post. Being that Montalban's question was answered and he didn't argue the explanation, is it fair to assume that Montalban understands this explanation?

Montalban wrote:

How does natural selection select in any manner like a breeder?

Because it causes some to reproduce, and others not to, based on independent traits that exist before the selection. In fact, in the case of natural selection, the selection process is more understandable, not less, because it a function of the changing environment.

I hope you see that understanding the selector isn't even needed (as you can imagine if you had an inscrutable human breeder, who could still breed different changes without us being able to know what she was aiming for). In either case you can see the selector as a black box - the initial population goes in, some are selected according to criteria, and an altered population results. Over time, the animals change radically in both cases.

E. Thanks for pointing out that I had copied the wrong URL.

You also showed that the quote you found about the Eastern Orthodox Church (EOC) seems to contradict the other one. Here are both:

Eastern Orthodox theology finds not real argument with evolution up to the creation of man. And even in that, there is a possibility of accepting some of what has been discovered and continues to be discovered by science.

and:

Over 120 years have passed since the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species. While some scientists still agree with Darwin’s theory of the changeability of species, much discovery has been done since then to create doubt and suspicion among them. The conflict between creationism and evolution has been primarily a struggle between Roman Catholics and Protestants, on the one hand, with scientists, on the other. You will find very little writing in Orthodox Christian circles.

(my bold)

First, both of them are consistent with the EOC allowing evolution (more strongly for the first one). Neither of them support YEC. Saying that the second argues against evolution mainly serves to make it sound like the EOC is not consistent on the matter, since the first quote clearly says that evolution is acceptable.

Next, one may notice that the second quote is demonstrably false. Much of the support for evolution has been from Protestants, with the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopals, Methodists and more issuing statements that evolution is allowed. As far as the Catholic church goes, their support has been even more explicit, with the Pope saying that evolution is "virtually certain" to be correct. The creationism/evolution conflict has been Catholics, Protestants, Scientists, and others supporting evolution, vs. Jehovah's Witnesses and lay Christians, often without the support of their clergy, denying evolution.

Papias


​

 

[sfs]

Darwin wrote in Origin of Species how difficult it is for us to understand the countless factors that affect an organism's chance of survival and reproduction. In most cases it is impossible to predict if a particular trait will result in greater fitness, often because of hidden or subtle "balancing" factors (e.g. stronger wings mean greater metabolic requirements).

Therefore, Montalban is correct that in most cases we can only judge fitness after the fact; when we see a particular trait spread through the population, then we say that trait results in greater fitness.

If Montalban had said that, he would have been correct(*). Too bad he didn't.

(*)Well, almost correct. In reality, in most cases we can't even judge after the fact whether a trait had greater fitness, since most of the time the fitter trait dies out while it is still very rare, and no one ever notices that it existed.

 

[Montalban]

Please reference the post where you clearly explain how the truth or falsity of the theory of evolution depends upon whether the phrase "survival of the fittest" is a tautology.

I made no such claim

No big deal at all. Let's agree the phrase "survival of the fittest" is a tautology.

Great, that's 1 more

Can you now explain -- or refer to your previous explanation of -- how this affects the truth or falsity of the theory of evolution?

Go read the thread

 

[Montalban]

If Montalban had said that, he would have been correct(*). Too bad he didn't.

I have several times.

(*)Well, almost correct. In reality, in most cases we can't even judge after the fact whether a trait had greater fitness, since most of the time the fitter trait dies out while it is still very rare, and no one ever notices that it existed.

That's not true. It it weren't fit, it wouldn't have continued.

 

[Montalban]

Here's my original statement

And that's exactly why it's not a tautology - because outside criteria can be applied that predict whether or not the trait will be beneficial. This has been shown in actual research too. You've answered your own point.

The outside measured criteria in this cases is bone marrow density, the predicted outcome (hypothesis) is antelope survival. Not a tautology. See how it works?

The problem with that is you're confusing a prediction with the outcome.

I could 'predict' that a taller person is more fit, and associate advatnages that a tall person would have. However a random circumstance could happen where being tall was a disadvantage.

In the end one can only know that which survived was fit to survive.

 

[Montalban]

We had our fill of racism. Now we are going to get poor-bashing?

What has wealth-or lack of it-to do with fitness?

Read what I wrote in response to what was said.

Maybe one has to be more fit than the norm to survive in the more stressful environments inflicted on the poor.

Exactly! But the criteria for fitness given to me by several people here which you missed is simply of having more offspring. The poor, statistically have more offspring. Therefore they are more 'fit' by the definition given to me!

I can understand that pro-evolution people might be poor on language skills, but reading and comprehension are very basic ones.

 

[sfs]

I have several times.

No, you said other things.

That's not true. It it weren't fit, it wouldn't have continued.

Yes, it really, really is true. It's a basic result of population genetics: the probability that a beneficial allele that starts as a single copy, and that has a fitness advantage of s (i.e. if you someone with 1 copy of the allele has on average (1+s) times as many offspring as someone without it) is approximately equal to 2s. So a mutation that gives an advantage of 1% only succeeds 2% of the time; the remaining 98% of the time the less fit allele will return to 100%. (You can find this result in many places; for example, it appears a few lines down here.)

 

[Montalban]

No, you said other things.

'fraid not.

Yes, it really, really is true. It's a basic result of population genetics: the probability that a beneficial allele that starts as a single copy, and that has a fitness advantage of s (i.e. if you someone with 1 copy of the allele has on average (1+s) times as many offspring as someone without it) is approximately equal to 2s. So a mutation that gives an advantage of 1% only succeeds 2% of the time; the remaining 98% of the time the less fit allele will return to 100%. (You can find this result in many places; for example, it appears a few lines down here.)

If they're not fit, how do they survive?

 

[JVPITER]

Let's agree the phrase "survival of the fittest" is a tautology.

Great, that's 1 more

Can you now explain -- or refer to your previous explanation of -- how this affects the truth or falsity of the theory of evolution?

Go read the thread

I did read the thread. I can't find where you clearly explain how the phrase "survival of the fittest" being a tautology affects the truth or falsity of the theory of evolution.

Since you evaded pointing to where you have done so, I assume you have not.

Therefore, my question still stands: In what way is this thread about "teaching evolution".

So far it seems to be just arguing about words.


Peace

 

[Montalban]

I did read the thread.

You couldn't have, and make the next statement.

I can't find where you clearly explain how the phrase "survival of the fittest" being a tautology affects the truth or falsity of the theory of evolution.

I've specifically said (when others have raised the same nonsense) that I don't think that showing it is a tautology falsifies evolution

Since you evaded pointing to where you have done so, I assume you have not.

Therefore, my question still stands: In what way is this thread about "teaching evolution".

If you feel good about having a point against something I've never argued, then I feel happy for you

So far it seems to be just arguing about words.

Yes, I can understand that someone who lacks comprehension skills wouldn't appreciate the value of words

 

[Assyrian]

If they're not fit, how do they survive?

Interesting question there, it highlights another problem with your tautology argument.

Of course the issue is not whether an organism is fit or not, but the comparison of which organisms are fitter and fittest. But if 'fit' as you argue, simply means it survives, then how can you talk of fitter and fittest? Survival is either/or. Being able to compare levels of fitness means there is more to fitness than merely whether they survive or not, and if there is more to fitness than survival then 'survival of the fittest' is, again, not a tautology.

 

[Montalban]

Interesting question there, it highlights another problem with your tautology argument.

Of course the issue is not whether an organism is fit or not, but the comparison of which organisms are fitter and fittest. But if 'fit' as you argue, simply means it survives, then how can you talk of fitter and fittest? Survival is either/or. Being able to compare levels of fitness means there is more to fitness than merely whether they survive or not, and if there is more to fitness than survival then 'survival of the fittest' is, again, not a tautology.

Firstly, Darwin used the term, I'm simply using it because I'm discussing his term.

Secondly he does make a comparison. There's only two groups; that which survived and that which didn't.

He could have said "Survival of the Fit" for all I care, it doesn't in anyway take away from that comparative stance of his nor of it being a tautology.

 

[sfs]

'fraid not.

'Fraid so. You said things like, "Survival of the fittest is a tautology" and " It it weren't fit, it wouldn't have continued." Those were wrong. What's true is that we can usually only determine what was fitter by looking at what survived. That's a different statement.

If they're not fit, how do they survive?

By being passed on to offspring, just like any other allele. The only reason for thinking they wouldn't survive is this idea that the fitter trait always survives. Since that idea is just something you made up, and has no basis in reality, there's really no problem here -- except for your refusal to drop the idea, of course.

As I've already explained repeatedly, fitness is a statistical property. Fitter traits are more likely to survive, but that doesn't mean the fitter trait always survives. An analogy: non-smokers live longer than smokers. Does this mean that every non-smoker lives longer than every smoker?

 

[Papias]

Montalban, you ignored all but one of the subtopics.

So we've back to the topics listed:

A. back in post #90, and in Mallon's post #113 above, we showed that independant criteria are used, so natural selection isn't a tautology. You mispresenting natural selection when you ignore half of the situation, as shown by your statements like "that which survives survives" or "all knives are knives".

I guess your single response fits best to subtopic A.

Montalban wrote:

The problem with that is you're confusing a prediction with the outcome.

There is no confusion - they are both relevant to the actual research, just as they are in all other branches of science.

I could 'predict' that a taller person is more fit, and associate advatnages that a tall person would have. However a random circumstance could happen where being tall was a disadvantage.

Of course - that's why the environment is so important. Biology not only recognizes that, but tries to emphasize it to creationists who ignore it.

In the end one can only know that which survived was fit to survive.

You seem to not understand the important role of statistics and probabilities in science. Your statement above is like saying that probability is a tautology because after a die roll we can only say that "what was rolled was rolled".

Your continued use of "all or nothing" red herrings is like disagreeing that probability is real, and whenever someone points out the predictive use of probabilities, saying that "that doesn't matter because we could still roll a 4". Your responses simply aren't relevant.


B. Your assertion is simply a repetition of Gish's use of the same argument in his book, which was shown to be a PRATT then, it's no different now.

Being that Montalban has refused to answer this several times, perhaps we can tentatively conclude that he is aware that his whole argument is a PRATT from Gish.


C. Shernren showed in post #106 that even using Montalban's own definition of what isn't a tautology, natural selection isn't a tautology.

Tentatively resolved - Montalban's previous response was little more to say "Shernren was wrong". Shernren also subseqent posts to help explain this to Montalban.


D. It's worth pointing out that your refusal to see cause and effect can be applied to any science, rendering every science a tautology. For instance, medicine is a tautology because the drug that works best works best. Physics is a tautology because a force that attracts is a force that attracts. Rocket science is a tautology because the rocket nozzle that produces the most force is the rocket nozzle that produces the most force. Your entire argument (as with Gish's original argument) is nothing more than a word game followed by plugging one's ears and humming when the correct answer is explained.

Montalban responded that this didn't matter since these others aren't "foundational" to their fields. I don't see what Montalban is saying here - there is more to biology than natural selection, and treatment and forces are certainly central to medicine and physics. I don't see why Montalban feels justified in using a double standard across fields.


Being that Montalban has refused to answer this several times, perhaps we can tentatively conclude that Montalban understands this explanation?


E. You also showed that the quote you found about the Eastern Orthodox Church (EOC) seems to contradict the other one.

Being that Montalban has refused to answer this perhaps we can tentatively conclude that he is agrees that the EOC statement seems to be inconsistent and demonstrably false on matters of fact?


F. Montalban wrote:

How does natural selection select in any manner like a breeder?

Because it causes some to reproduce, and others not to, based on independent traits that exist before the selection. In fact, in the case of natural selection, the selection process is more understandable, not less, because it a function of the changing environment.

I hope you see that understanding the selector isn't even needed (as you can imagine if you had an inscrutable human breeder, who could still breed different changes without us being able to know what she was aiming for). In either case you can see the selector as a black box - the initial population goes in, some are selected according to criteria, and an altered population results. Over time, the animals change radically in both cases.
​

Being that Montalban has refused to answer this perhaps we can tentatively conclude that he understands this now?


Have a good day-

Papias
​

 

[Mallon]

FWIW, I'm in the middle of reading an excellent paper about the meaning of natural selection and adaptation that unravels the tangled mess discussions about these concepts can sometimes become. For those interested, the citation is:

Bock WJ, Von Wahlert G. 1965. Evolution of the form–function complex. Evolution 19: 269–299.

 

[Assyrian]

Firstly, Darwin used the term, I'm simply using it because I'm discussing his term.

What term? 'Survival of the fit'? When did he say that?

Secondly he does make a comparison. There's only two groups; that which survived and that which didn't.

It is certainly possible to divide them into those two categories, your whole argument seems to be based on claiming they are the only possible categories, but they are not, which is why your tautology argument fails. Interesting you have not addressed my point that survival of the fittest shows that there is more to the phrase than survival of those who survive and that levels of fitness can be compared.

He could have said "Survival of the Fit" for all I care, it doesn't in anyway take away from that comparative stance of his nor of it being a tautology.

But he didn't say survival of the fit.

 

[Montalban]

Assyrian, just thinking over what you said, and you may know the subject more than I...

Does Darwin ever split species into "Fit", "Fitter", and "Fittest"?

If he does, you may have a point

 

[Montalban]

What term? 'Survival of the fit'? When did he say that?

that was covered in the opening pages. 6th edition of his work. Prefered to use the term.

It's a consistant problem with you guys not reading what's gone before.

 

[Assyrian]

Assyrian, just thinking over what you said, and you may know the subject more than I...

Does Darwin ever split species into "Fit", "Fitter", and "Fittest"?

If he does, you may have a point

Why ever would Darwin have to jump through your hoops for me to have a point? A comparison of fitness levels is contained in the word fittest. You claim survival of the fittest is a tautology, I have shown that it isn't.

 

[Montalban]

Why ever would Darwin have to jump through your hoops for me to have a point?

YOU'RE THE ONE who questioned the superlative "Fittest"

Evidentally he was making a comparision.

A comparison of fitness levels is contained in the word fittest. You claim survival of the fittest is a tautology, I have shown that it isn't.

I addressed this, that there's two compared. But then you're consistantly advertising yourself as someone who doesn't read what's written.

I'm happy that he compared that which is fit, and that which isn't and I don't see him having degrees of fitness

You're the one saying it's not a tautology because of other levels. If Darwin made these, then you might have a point.

Then you say he doesn't have to, so you're left pointless.

In effect you're saying he is making a comparison of more than two, but you don't have to show where he's done this. Or, that he doesn't have to do the very thing that you claim he's doing.

Well done!