Teaching Evolution to Evolutionists

[Montalban]

So what if he did? I really don't see what you're trying to get at by saying that Darwin used the term "survival of the fittest".

He used the term. He preferred the term. The term's a tautology. Just accept that.

You're trying several arguments at once. Trying to argue that it does matter, and then 'so what?' it doesn't is interesting.

Do you think all of evolution theory crumbles if this is true?

That's not my argument. It seems to be your fear, and others too which is why you want to distance modern evolution from the term, and misrepresent the facts connecting Darwin to it.

I've seen people try deception by saying he didn't coin the phrase -which whilst true is misleading because he preferred the phrase.

Your own source tries a similar deception.

What's the problem you guys have with it that you'd try all these tactics?

Just live with the fact

 

[sfs]

No. It's trivially true. Two lions might have genetic differences where-in one gives the lion a stronger frame, and the other might say be able to go a little longer without water.

What makes one more 'fit' isn't know till circumstances roll-out. IF the one with the water advantage were able to pass its genes on and a drought happened and its offspring prevailed where the other's offspring didn't, then that which was 'fit' was determined by that drought. However it might not have been able to pass on its genes because in the immediate future the other was stronger and got all the mates.

You are not being clear. Does your last sentence mean that you recognize that the less fit might not survive or not? In any case, it is not true that you can tell which organism is more fit just by seeing whether it survives. That was the point of the quotation I provided from Darwin. Why did you ignore it?

That which survives, survives

Certainly true. Sometimes that which survives is the less fit, however, which is what you don't seem to get. You can repeat yourself however often you like; you'll still be wrong about this.

I've suggested that Darwin used it. He preferred it. I've evidenced that.

And, as I've said, I don't care whether he used it. I really, truly don't care at all, and have no idea why you do. What I do care about is that you are misinforming people about basic aspects of evolutionary biology.

However in modern biology all they do is word-play..
"Survival of the fittest" should be rephrased as "survival of the more adequate".
Evolution and Chance
Which is the same thing.

Given your lack of familiarity with its basics, your opinion of modern biology carries no weight.

Natural selection is the cornerstone of modern biology and Darwin said that the term "Survival of the Fittest" is his preferred way of terming "Natural Selection".

That Biologists don't now generally use the term to describe the same thing doesn't matter.

Right. It doesn't matter what we call it, and it doesn't matter what he called it. What matters is what the term represents. And that's the part that you get wrong. Here's one summary of it, from a review of selection in humans: "Positive selection is the principle that beneficial traits—those that make it more likely that their carriers will survive and reproduce—tend to become more frequent in populations over time." That's an accurate statement. Yours (whether you use the term "natural selection" or the term "survival of the fittest") is not.

 

[Mallon]

He used the term. He preferred the term. The term's a tautology. Just accept that.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that Darwin used the term "survival of the fittest". I haven't seen anyone here deny that. It isn't a tautology, though, as you've been shown. But even assuming it is a tautology, so what? It still has zero effect on whether natural selection is true or not.

It just seems like an odd thing to make a point about.

 

[Montalban]

You are not being clear. Does your last sentence mean that you recognize that the less fit might not survive or not? In any case, it is not true that you can tell which organism is more fit just by seeing whether it survives. That was the point of the quotation I provided from Darwin. Why did you ignore it?

No. That which survives was fit. If it weren't fit to survive, it wouldn't

Unless you're talking about where a hunter shoots an animal then 'fitness' probably has nothing to do with their survival.

Certainly true. Sometimes that which survives is the less fit, however, which is what you don't seem to get. You can repeat yourself however often you like; you'll still be wrong about this.

You can continue to make 'just-so' statements

And, as I've said, I don't care whether he used it.

Obviously not, by you being here.

I really, truly don't care at all, and have no idea why you do. What I do care about is that you are misinforming people about basic aspects of evolutionary biology.

As I say the irony escapes some

Given your lack of familiarity with its basics, your opinion of modern biology carries no weight.

I'm sorry for using evidence

Where's your evidence for survival of the luckiest? If you need more time, let me know

 

[Montalban]

I'm perfectly willing to accept that Darwin used the term "survival of the fittest". I haven't seen anyone here deny that.

Then you missed the presentation of evidence that suggested he didn't (with the proiviso that we limit this to his first edition).

Post #3 I suspect is by someone who doesn't believe he used it

EDIT: Walter Kovacs has obliged by saying explicitly here that Darwin never used it. Thanks Walter!

It isn't a tautology, though, as you've been shown. But even assuming it is a tautology, so what? It still has zero effect on whether natural selection is true or not.

Hedging your bets?

It just seems like an odd thing to make a point about.

Great. I take it you'll not be on this thread again? Adios

 

[Walter Kovacs]

It's funny. Darwin never said "survival of the fittest," or attempted to apply his theories about the animal world to humans.

 

[Montalban]

It's funny. Darwin never said "survival of the fittest," or attempted to apply his theories about the animal world to humans.

It's funny because he did both.

I've already evidenced where he used the term, and actually says it's a preferred term (post #6)

 

[Assyrian]

So Spencer came up with a catchy slogan that Darwin liked, and you seem to think the slogan is a tautology, or at least insist on interpreting the slogan as a tautology, so what? Darwin wrote whole books on Evolution, It doesn't stand or fall on whether you like a slogan Darwin didn't even come up with.

 

[Montalban]

So Spencer came up with a catchy slogan that Darwin liked, and you seem to think the slogan is a tautology, or at least insist on interpreting the slogan as a tautology, so what?

So what? Well, certain people don't believe it is.

But I'm here to help

As a tautology it is meaningless.

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.

I won't go into the 'natural' selection as demonstrated by people picking traits.

Darwin wrote whole books on Evolution, It doesn't stand or fall on whether you like a slogan Darwin didn't even come up with.

I've already stated this isn't my argument. Please read my posts before you respond to them!

 

[Mallon]

Do you not accept natural selection, Montalban?

 

[Assyrian]

So what? Well, certain people don't believe it is.

But I'm here to help

As a tautology it is meaningless.

No tautologies are trivial, not meaningless.

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.

I won't go into the 'natural' selection as demonstrated by people picking traits.

Sounds to me like the tautology arises when you rephrase survival of the fittest to survival of those that survive. But this is pretending there isn't any more meaning to fittest than simple survival. You could turn the entire mathematic of algebra into a tautology this way too.
x=2
but since we know x = 2 this can be written
2=2
which is a tautology.

I've already stated this isn't my argument. Please read my posts before you respond to them!

Have read them, thank you.

 

[sfs]

No. That which survives was fit. If it weren't fit to survive, it wouldn't

Unless you're talking about where a hunter shoots an animal then 'fitness' probably has nothing to do with their survival.

So your claim is that, 100% of the time, the organism that survives is the one that is fit. Except when it isn't. At this point you don't seem to be making a coherent statement at all.

Decide which you mean: is the animal that got shot less fit or not? Up until now, you've been saying that it can't be fit, because it didn't survive. That has to be the case, if survival of the fittest really is the simple tautology that you claim it is. Now, however, you admit the possibility that survival does not reflect fitness. If it doesn't, then survival of the fittest isn't a tautology, because tautologies are always true; they're true by definition.

So pick a position, and defend it, preferably with references to scientific literature.

You can continue to make 'just-so' statements

No, I continue to correct your mistaken understanding of evolutionary fitness, providing evidence from both Darwin's own writings and current scientific literature about what that term means. In return, you just keep repeating the same assertions while ignoring the evidence.

Obviously not, by you being here.

Sorry, still wrong. I still don't care whether Darwin used that phrase or not. I'm not here to address that question. I'm here because you are making statements about evolutionary biology, statements that are false. You have set yourself up as a teacher on the subject, and what you are teaching is wrong. Since you're attempting to teach about something that I'm an expert on, I'm here to correct you.

I'm sorry for using evidence

What evidence?

Where's your evidence for survival of the luckiest? If you need more time, let me know

You need evidence that luck plays a role in which organisms survive? When you yourself gave an example of its role at the beginning of this email? You should pay more attention to what you write. But I also gave evidence that Darwin was aware of luck in survival, when I quoted him. Did you skip that quotation? Read the part about "fortuitous destruction" not affecting natural selection. "Fortuitous" means "by luck". "Destruction" means "not surviving". So he's talking about surviving or not based on luck, right?

 

[Montalban]

No tautologies are trivial, not meaningless.

Not quite. They can be trivial. They can be meaingless. They are synonyms.
Trivial Synonyms, Trivial Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

Sounds to me like the tautology arises when you rephrase survival of the fittest to survival of those that survive.

I quoted a textbook that does this to, so it's not just me rephrasing if it but it helps to reduce my evidence to just me, that's fine

But that's what it means, anyway.

Have read them, thank you.

You hadn't demonstrated that.

 

[Montalban]

So your claim is that, 100% of the time, the organism that survives is the one that is fit. Except when it isn't. At this point you don't seem to be making a coherent statement at all.

No. The organism that survives is fit. Fitness can change as I pointed out, depending on circumstance (or 'natural selection')

Here it is again. If I have a gene that might be suited to fighting off a particular virus and it does help me do that then I was fit to survive because I did. But if that virus never struck and you survived as well then you were fit to survive because you survived in those circumstances which didn't demand that you needed that gene.

In the latter case that gene is just there in me, but doesn't add to my suvival chances.

Decide which you mean: is the animal that got shot less fit or not?

I don't think that a person shooting an animal is 'natural selection' because natural selection makes no decisions. Nature has no 'criteria' for choosing.

Unless you think it does, but I'd be intrigued as to where this thought process in nature is.

Do you think 'mother nature' sits there and says "Oh, I like the look of that species"

So pick a position, and defend it, preferably with references to scientific literature.

I've already referenced material to date. I'm still waiting for references for 'survival of the luckiest' which was put to me as a theory.

Apparently providing evidence is a one-way street?

 

[sfs]

No. The organism that survives is fit. Fitness can change as I pointed out, depending on circumstance (or 'natural selection')

I have no idea what your parenthetical comment means.

Here it is again. If I have a gene that might be suited to fighting off a particular virus and it does help me do that then I was fit to survive because I did. But if that virus never struck and you survived as well then you were fit to survive because you survived in those circumstances which didn't demand that you needed that gene.

In the latter case that gene is just there in me, but doesn't add to my suvival chances.

That's all correct. Now what happens if the virus is present, you have the allele that makes you resistant to it, and you get hit by a truck. Were you less fit than the guy without the allele or not?

I don't think that a person shooting an animal is 'natural selection' because natural selection makes no decisions. Nature has no 'criteria' for choosing.

Unless you think it does, but I'd be intrigued as to where this thought process in nature is.

What does thought process have to do with it? Suppose the animal is shot by mistake. Suppose it's hit by lightening. Is it fit or not?

Do you think 'mother nature' sits there and says "Oh, I like the look of that species"

Of course not.

I've already referenced material to date. I'm still waiting for references for 'survival of the luckiest' which was put to me as a theory.

So far you've referenced one book which points out one reason why "survival of the fittest" really isn't a tautology. Why you wanted to reference something that contradicted your claim I don't know, but you've done so. I've quoted Darwin and I've quoted a review paper on natural selection, both of which acknowledged the fact that there is randomness to survival, as well as natural selection. Your response has been to ignore the references, ignore all questions I've asked about them, and just pretend they aren't there. Why are you behaving this way?

 

[Montalban]

I have no idea what your parenthetical comment means.

Nature doesn't actually select in the same way you or I do, with a purpose.

Simply events happen and some critters may have the ability to survive

That's all correct. Now what happens if the virus is present, you have the allele that makes you resistant to it, and you get hit by a truck. Were you less fit than the guy without the allele or not?

Was the truck part of natural selection? Did the truck driver have the alle?

What does thought process have to do with it? Suppose the animal is shot by mistake. Suppose it's hit by lightening. Is it fit or not?

Aren't you the one insisiting luck is part of it? I'm still waiting for the science on that

Of course not.

So far you've referenced one book which points out one reason why "survival of the fittest" really isn't a tautology.

One book is more than none. However I've cited more than one book.

I've quoted Darwin

Where did you quote Darwin saying it's not a tautology? I must have missed it.

Mallon cited TalkOrigins to show it's not a tautology (post #14), not you, but if you have to take credit for what others do, that's entirely between the two of you.

And I addressed that evidence, they start of by misleading people

and I've quoted a review paper on natural selection, both of which acknowledged the fact that there is randomness to survival, as well as natural selection.

Is randomness of selection the same as luck? So far nothing from you on this - oh that's right, you claim to be someone else as well

Your response has been to ignore the references, ignore all questions I've asked about them, and just pretend they aren't there. Why are you behaving this way?

I still respond to you
"This indeed is a tautology" is what they said. The text I quoted recognises that it's a tautology but one can assign an outside criteria, unfortunatley the one they do is by way of analogy of a non-natural selection process.

Thus unless one attributes a non-natural selection process to demonstrate natural selection (which doesn't have a 'criteria' - I thought I'd made that clear) then we're left with the fact it's a tautology

 

[Montalban]

The great irony of this is I put forward a 'survival of the luckiest' theory many times before on this and other threads and always had evolutionists arguing against it.

Like here, it seems it's more because of who's stating what, rather than what they're stating.

Edit: I've just gone and looked (with fond memories) of my raising "Survival of the Luckiest" here and here (post #10)

It's funny that people tried to misrepresent Darwin's involvement in the use of the phrase back then. Nothing's changed. Do evolutionists simply disagree because it's in their nature?

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.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=tautology

 

[Assyrian]

Not quite. They can be trivial. They can be meaingless. They are synonyms.
Trivial Synonyms, Trivial Antonyms | Thesaurus.com

You would be better off going to a dictionary to understand a word than a thesaurus, a thesaurus will give you a list of words that can be interchanged in some contexts.

Synonyms: atomic, beside the point, commonplace, diminutive, evanescent, everyday, flimsy, frivolous, immaterial, inappreciable, incidental, inconsequential, inconsiderable, insignificant, irrelevant, little, meager, mean, meaningless, microscopic, minor, minute, momentary, negligible, nonessential, nugatory, of no account, paltry, petty, piddling, puny, scanty, skin-deep, slight, small, superficial, trifling, trite, unimportant, valueless, vanishing, worthless​

Is an atomic bomb a flimsy bomb? Is it beside the point? Is an atomic bomb or an atomic radius meaningless? A thesaurus will give you a list of words whose meanings can overlap in some contexts. It does not tell you the meaning of trivial when used to describe tautology.

I quoted a textbook that does this to, so it's not just me rephrasing if it but it helps to reduce my evidence to just me, that's fine
But that's what it means, anyway.

Unfortunately, you are quoting a textbook that disagrees with you. I suggest you read it again The text book isn't saying that survival of the fittest is a tautology, it agrees that the Harper magazine description is a tautology, but that survival of the fittest goes beyond the tautology described in the magazine. The text book point out that there are about independent criteria for fitness, beyond merely those that survive. Of course you have tried to handwave them away, calling them 'just so stories'. But that is a different argument. Because there is a separate meaning to the term fitness, whether just so stories or not, survival of the fittest cannot bea a tautology.

You hadn't demonstrated that.

It is a simple statement of fact from an eye witness.

 

[Montalban]

You would be better off going to a dictionary to understand a word than a thesaurus, a thesaurus will give you a list of words that can be interchanged in some contexts.

I think that's what you should do. You made the absolute statement that one never means the other. Here's what you said...

No tautologies are trivial, not meaningless.

Some are trivial, and not meaningless. However some are meaningless. That's why they're synonyms. What we would be therefore arguing on whether this particular tautology is meaningless or not.

Unfortunately, you are quoting a textbook that disagrees with you.

I often quote things that don't agree with me. It's the way I used the evidence that you've not looked at.

I stated that they accept its a tautology if you can't ascribe an outside criteria and therefore... hang on, I've stated this already. Go read my posts!

It is a simple statement of fact from an eye witness.

Again you've shown you've not read what I've written.

 

[Papias]

M wrote:

I stated that they accept its a tautology if you can't ascribe an outside criteria and therefore...

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.

I can't believe any creationist is still bringing up Gish's tautology line. It's a PRATT, as we all already know.

At least you're not claiming that Sun really orbits the unmoving earth, as some creationists on this board (and in the outside world) do (see "the Flood" thread for an example). Hopefully we'll get all of Christianity past geocentrism and creationism someday.......

Papias