Teaching Evolution to Evolutionists

[Montalban]

Well, I didn't see a reply to this fundamental leap in logic, so feel free to point it out to me again, but:

You don't read the responses that's fine.

If natural selection is tautological, how can it ever fail to apply?

And how does it have any meaning?

Anymore than blue is blue. That always applies. I exampled this already too but you must have missed that too (knives are always knives I noted)

 

[Montalban]

And you haven't denied...

It's a straw-man. I've not argued against it here. You've suggested that I have, you've therefore constructed an argument I've not made to argue against which is the essence of a straw-man argument.

I've pointed this out now a second time, but you're welcome to ignore this too.

 

[Assyrian]

It's a straw-man. I've not argued against it here. You've suggested that I have, you've therefore constructed an argument I've not made to argue against which is the essence of a straw-man argument.

I've pointed this out now a second time, but you're welcome to ignore this too.

I wasn't constructing any argument based on a straw man simply pointing out you would be much better able to argue about evolution if you actually understood it. This is true even if you want to deny you are arguing against evolution.

It would be nice if you could reply to shernren's point.

 

[Montalban]

I wasn't constructing any argument based on a straw man simply pointing out you would be much better able to argue about evolution if you actually understood it. This is true even if you want to deny you are arguing against evolution.

No. You were suggesting that I was arguing against evolution. Even if it were accepted that the term is a tautology it's not an argument against evolution, it's simply pointing out what it is.

And you also asked me after that assumption if I was against it.

You were wrong about the nature of tautologies, you're wrong about this (your post #31).

And you've not noted the difference between two different arguments

All tautologies are... (which you're wrong about)
and

This ("survival of the fittest") is a tautology which you simply say I'm wrong about, repeated like a mantra.

 

[shernren]

And how does it have any meaning?

Anymore than blue is blue. That always applies. I exampled this already too but you must have missed that too (knives are always knives I noted)

You have refused to answer my question. Which of the following alternatives is correct?

A. Natural selection is tautological; hence, it always applies.

B. Natural selection is not tautological, because it does not always apply.

Your next post can be as simple as the single letter "A" or "B".

 

[mark kennedy]

You have refused to answer my question. Which of the following alternatives is correct?

A. Natural selection is tautological; hence, it always applies.

B. Natural selection is not tautological, because it does not always apply.

Your next post can be as simple as the single letter "A" or "B".

No it can't because your not asking a real question. Natural selection is an a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causation. It often is a tautology which is useless in understanding what natural selection and why it's important.

As usual you are being obscure while pretending to have a point.

 

[Assyrian]

No. You were suggesting that I was arguing against evolution. Even if it were accepted that the term is a tautology it's not an argument against evolution, it's simply pointing out what it is.

And you also asked me after that assumption if I was against it.

You were wrong about the nature of tautologies, you're wrong about this (your post #31).

So why do creationist keep repeating this particular PRATT? A deep concern about the dangers of tautologies? Or their dislike of evolution and thinking if they can show it is a tautology they undermine it validity? You still haven't told us your reasons for the post. Is it your dislike of all tautologies? Or just evolution? How many posts have you made on cf discussing tautologies that aren't about evolution?

And you've not noted the difference between two different arguments

All tautologies are... (which you're wrong about)

Which you repeat and repeat, but still haven't answered my posts. You know argumentum ad nauseum is a fallacy too.

and

This ("survival of the fittest") is a tautology which you simply say I'm wrong about, repeated like a mantra.

And yet you refuse to answer shernren.

I gave you reasons why survival of the fittest isn't a tautology but you ignored them too.

 

[Montalban]

You have refused to answer my question. Which of the following alternatives is correct?

A. Natural selection is tautological; hence, it always applies.

B. Natural selection is not tautological, because it does not always apply.

Your next post can be as simple as the single letter "A" or "B".

That's okay because no one's answered mine about the meteor.

 

[Montalban]

No it can't because your not asking a real question. Natural selection is an a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causation. It often is a tautology which is useless in understanding what natural selection and why it's important.

As usual you are being obscure while pretending to have a point.

Indeed. The point of the truck driver hitting me (the first example of a 'random' act here), or a meteor hitting a population - neither of them negate 'natural selection' - because someone said it survival was about the genes, and I'm not aware of any gene that allows to avoid being hit by a truck, or a meteor.

The problem is when I raised this, it was ignored so Assyrian and shernren plough on regardless and ask me a question that I was in fact addressing. I don't think a meteor negates the process of 'Natural Selection' as these two champions of evolution seem to think.

 

[Papias]

Montalban wrote:

So you keep saying. Then you refer to your scientists doing something somewhere to back you up

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

 

[shernren]

That's okay because no one's answered mine about the meteor.

Oh, you mean this one?

How did genes make them fit to survive if a meteor can kill them?

The answer is, the mere survival of the organism does not define fitness, as you have been shown repeatedly on this thread. Yes, genes cannot make animals Montofit in the face of a meteor strike - but it still does make them fit. My paradox of the twins with instantly differing Montofitnesses shows that Montofitness is not a suitable definition of fitness.

But since you're so obsessed with tautologies, let's try on a biblical one, shall we?

For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Rom 10:13, ESV)
​

Since calling on the Lord is precisely what saves people (just as surviving is precisely what makes an animal Montofit), this is a tautology. By Montologic, it is meaningless. Gee, I wonder how St. Paul would feel about that.

 

[mark kennedy]

Indeed. The point of the truck driver hitting me (the first example of a 'random' act here), or a meteor hitting a population - neither of them negate 'natural selection' - because someone said it survival was about the genes, and I'm not aware of any gene that allows to avoid being hit by a truck, or a meteor.

The problem is when I raised this, it was ignored so Assyrian and shernren plough on regardless and ask me a question that I was in fact addressing. I don't think a meteor negates the process of 'Natural Selection' as these two champions of evolution seem to think.

They are not champions of evolution, they are obsessed with bashing Biblical literalism. This is meaningless in the Life Sciences but very entertaining in the Darwinian Theater of the Mind. They are performing ad hominems for their audience who will always applaud them as long as they mock and deride creationism.

Any hoot, natural selection is an effect not a cause. My favorite example is arctic wildlife, when a biologist or evolutionist is asked how the other bears (brown, black...etc) adapted to survive in the arctic they will simply say the white coat offered a selective advantage. They need never discover or demonstrate the underlying cause and this is simply not the case in any legitimate scientific analysis. At one time it was, like back in the dark ages, but at least since Newton scientific trust is reduced to cause and effect relationships for natural phenomenon.

Rule 1: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.

Rule 2: Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.

Rule 3: The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.

Rule 4: In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, not withstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions. ( Newton, Principia)​

Survival of the fittest is really just another expression of natural selection. The expression 'natural selection' was based on Darwin's comparison to artificial selection or selective breeding. Just as the breeder selects traits with differential reproductive success nature selects traits for the improved fitness and development of populations over time. In fact, one of the reasons Mendel was doing his research into pea plants in the wake of the age of discovery is that he was looking for how to create hybrids without them reverting back to the wild type. They have a tendency to do that.

In fact genetics was not considered a genuine science for a long time because it dealt with effects (traits) rather then causes. Chromosome theory went a long way to change that and with the discovery of the DNA double helix the underlying cause was determined and demonstrated.

I could go on and on, my point being. Evolution, natural selection and survival of the fittest can be tautologies if they fail to provide a demonstrative cause and a null hypothesis. These terms should be clearly defined at the outset and the rigid formal definition adhered to only in accordance with Newton's 4th rule of evidence for allowing exceptions.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

No. It's not survival of the most likely. What is 'most likely' to survive is known post facto by seeing which survived
...
Fitness is here determined only retrospectively.
...
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.

Evolution, natural selection and survival of the fittest can be tautologies if they fail to provide a demonstrative cause and a null hypothesis.

You both seem to be using something similar to the cosmological argument or infinite regression. Everything has a cause - but what caused the cause?
In religious philosophy this argument is used to try and prove the existance of God, the the being which first caused every event in existance to happen, 'Unmoved Mover'. Many atheists don't accept this argument, simply by asking "What caused God?" Did God have a creator? Some theists reply by saying God created himself. Of course if this is possible then how do we know life did not create itself without the need for any kind of diety?

The two of you appear to be using roughly the same argument about evolution. Natural selection is an effect, rather than a cause - as any evolutionist will tell you, this effect is blind. So natural selection is not the cause of evolution. Similarly genetic mutation is not the cause of evolution because whether these mutations are beneficial or not depends on circumstances. Obviously we cannot change our genes to fit future events. Evolution therefore does not explain the cause of adaptation or the variety of life.

Cut a long post short - if we think the infinite regression argument disproves evolution, does this mean the same argument can be used to disprove God?

(I skipped several posts while skimming the thread so correct me if there's anything I've missed.)

 

[Montalban]

Oh, you mean this one?

Yes

The answer is, the mere survival of the organism does not define fitness, as you have been shown repeatedly on this thread.

What other criteria is there?

Yes, genes cannot make animals Montofit in the face of a meteor strike - but it still does make them fit.

What other criteria is there? What is Montofit? Is this your own formation of a word?

My paradox of the twins with instantly differing Montofitnesses shows that Montofitness is not a suitable definition of fitness.

But since you're so obsessed with tautologies, let's try on a biblical one, shall we?

For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Rom 10:13, ESV)
​

Since calling on the Lord is precisely what saves people (just as surviving is precisely what makes an animal Montofit), this is a tautology. By Montologic, it is meaningless. Gee, I wonder how St. Paul would feel about that.

Thanks for the tu quoque. It also says "Not all who cry Lord! Lord! will be saved but those that do the will of the Father".

However leaving aside another debate about a contradictions in the Bible , it's not a tautology to say that if you do 'x' then 'y' will happen.

It would be a tautology if it said "All who call on God call on God".

 

[Montalban]

The two of you appear to be using roughly the same argument about evolution. Natural selection is an effect, rather than a cause - as any evolutionist will tell you, this effect is blind.

I've not argued against this. In fact when I cited a textbook about the term being a tautology I noted that they tried to get out of it by comparing 'blind' evolution with selection by breeders - which is also what Darwin did - another mistake.

So natural selection is not the cause of evolution.

The jury is out on this. By changing the population it affects evolution.
"Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population."
Introduction to Evolutionary Biology
Natural selection can cause evolutionary change in a population if the phenotypes also differ in their genotypes (i.e. the variation in the character has a genetic basis).
Teach Evolution and Make it Relevant

By affecting the gene pool it would thus affect evolution.

However leaving that aside the result of natural selection is that which survives survives.

Similarly genetic mutation is not the cause of evolution because whether these mutations are beneficial or not depends on circumstances.

The latter bit is what I talked about very early on regarding if I had the ability to fight a virus and others didn't.

Obviously we cannot change our genes to fit future events. Evolution therefore does not explain the cause of adaptation or the variety of life.

Cut a long post short - if we think the infinite regression argument disproves evolution, does this mean the same argument can be used to disprove God?

I've not been trying to disprove evolution or prove God nor use an argument of infinite regression. I've stated that 'survival of the fittest' is a tautology because it means that which survives survives.

 

[mark kennedy]

You both seem to be using something similar to the cosmological argument or infinite regression. Everything has a cause - but what caused the cause?

First of all I am not making an argument, cause and effect relationships applied to phenomenon in nature is a philosophy of science according to Isaac Newton. I'm just putting that out there, there is no argument, only a working definition of science as a standard.

I do not make arguments for God's existence, it's a self evident fact. What I said was that should 'natural selection' (aka survival of the fittest) abandon the burden to identify a cause it's a tautology. That's about it.

In religious philosophy this argument is used to try and prove the existance of God, the the being which first caused every event in existance to happen, 'Unmoved Mover'. Many atheists don't accept this argument, simply by asking "What caused God?" Did God have a creator? Some theists reply by saying God created himself. Of course if this is possible then how do we know life did not create itself without the need for any kind of diety?

Are you an atheist?

The two of you appear to be using roughly the same argument about evolution. Natural selection is an effect, rather than a cause - as any evolutionist will tell you, this effect is blind. So natural selection is not the cause of evolution. Similarly genetic mutation is not the cause of evolution because whether these mutations are beneficial or not depends on circumstances. Obviously we cannot change our genes to fit future events. Evolution therefore does not explain the cause of adaptation or the variety of life.

Evolution as a theory of changing alleles over time often does explain adaptation. Natural selection is clearly a factor of adaptive evolution but you can't just beg the question of cause. The fact is that the cause is known it's just not adequate to explain the vast array of specialization that would be required from prebiotic to prokaryotic to animalia and plantea cells. That at a bare minimum is required to have at it's core cause a network of molecular mechanisms capable of these developments and adaptations.

Just chanting natural selection like a mantra is a tautology and setting up a strawman argument for a cosmological argument no one is making is hopelessly fallacious.

Cut a long post short - if we think the infinite regression argument disproves evolution, does this mean the same argument can be used to disprove God?

(I skipped several posts while skimming the thread so correct me if there's anything I've missed.)

Yea there is something vital you missed, the cause of beneficial/positive/adaptive change that selection acts upon.

 

[Montalban]

I find it odd that Darwin himself used the example of a rational mind (a breeder) to demonstrate Natural Selection

 

[Mallon]

I find it odd that Darwin himself used the example of a rational mind (a breeder) to demonstrate Natural Selection

It was an analogy. The same processes have been demonstrated to act in nature.

 

[Montalban]

It was an analogy.

Yes, I understand that

The same processes have been demonstrated to act in nature.

What processes? A breeder selectively chooses traits that they have to fit a plan.

How does nature plan?

 

[Mallon]

Yes, I understand that


What processes? A breeder selectively chooses traits that they have to fit a plan.

How does nature plan?

Nature doesn't plan. Natural selection isn't about "planning". It is simply the upshot of heritable variability and resource limitation.