Teaching Evolution to Evolutionists

[Mallon]

Which is only determined if they survive.

That's not true. A phenotypic variant can increase its frequency in the gene pool even if its competitors do not die. I explained this to you before.

 

[Montalban]

That's not true. A phenotypic variant can increase its frequency in the gene pool even if its competitors do not die. I explained this to you before.

How does that make it more fit?

 

[Mallon]

How does that make it more fit?

Fecundity (the ability to reproduce) is basically the main measure of biological fitness. If one population variant is capable of increasing its representation in the next generation of individuals, it is considered the most fit. Again, this does not necessarily require the death of the less fit variant.
Here's a link to help you:

What about fitness?

 

[Montalban]

Fecundity (the ability to reproduce) is basically the main measure of biological fitness. If one population variant is capable of increasing its representation in the next generation of individuals, it is considered the most fit. Again, this does not necessarily require the death of the less fit variant.

That's not necessarily so. You could have seventeen wives, and I only one, but my five children surive a plague and your forty don't then my genese were more fit because they survived.

Here's a link to help you:

What about fitness?

From that site...

This is what it says in part on fitness
A genotype's success at reproducing (the more offspring the genotype leaves, the higher its fitness). Fitness describes how good a particular genotype is at leaving offspring in the next generation relative to other genotypes. Experiments and observations can allow researchers to estimate a genotype's fitness, assigning it a numerical value. For a more detailed explanation, see our resource on fitness in Evolution 101.
Understanding Evolution: Glossary

The second sentence is not dependant on the first - that's modified by the term in brackets, as I've just demonstrated.

In fact they admit that very thing....

"Of course, fitness is a relative thing. A genotype's fitness depends on the environment in which the organism lives. The fittest genotype during an ice age, for example, is probably not the fittest genotype once the ice age is over."
What about fitness?

Thus in their example, you could again have 10 times more offspring than me, but if mine are suited to the change in enviornment then it didn't matter that you had 10 times more offspring!

I hope this information helps

 

[Mallon]

That's not necessarily so. You could have seventeen wives, and I only one, but my five children surive a plague and your forty don't then my genese were more fit because they survived.

Right. Survival is a factor in fitness as well (but not the only one). An organism cannot breed if it doesn't survive long enough to reproduce (this is a part of fecundity -- obviously, dying greatly affects your ability to reproduce). We've covered this ground already in this thread. I don't know why you think it hasn't. To be honest with you, I really don't think you can know what you're talking about if you reject natural selection. It's a fact.

 

[Montalban]

Right. Survival is a factor in fitness as well (but not the only one). An organism cannot breed if it doesn't survive long enough to reproduce (this is a part of fecundity -- obviously, dying greatly affects your ability to reproduce). We've covered this ground already in this thread. I don't know why you think it hasn't.

Again, fitness would depend on its genes surviving. No matter how you keep tweaking this, there's no other criteria. I've just demonstrated this with your own site. A change in circumstances could negate how many kids you have.

If it died before it could breed it wasn't fit for survival.

Apparently you still believe that if all creatures died then natural selection is falsified.

To be honest with you, I really don't think you can know what you're talking about if you reject natural selection. It's a fact.

So I've got to be a Communist to discuss Communism?

 

[Mallon]

Again, fitness would depend on its genes surviving. No matter how you keep tweaking this, there's no other criteria.

And as I've just explained, fecundity is a criterion of fitness beyond just survival. You might well survive some disaster, but if you cannot pass your genes on to the next generation, then it's all for naught.

So I've got to be a Communist to discuss Communism?

This isn't anything like that because Communism is an idealism, not a verifiable fact like natural selection. This is more like listening to someone who denies the existence of rocks trying to teach about geology. It doesn't inspire much confidence that they actually understand what they're talking about. It certainly doesn't make me think that anything I say will make any sense to them.

 

[Montalban]

And as I've just explained, fecundity is a criterion of fitness beyond just survival. You might well survive some disaster, but if you cannot pass your genes on to the next generation, then it's all for naught.

And I just explained that it may not count for anything.


Even YOU SITE recognises a change in circumstances might prove decisive.

This isn't anything like that because Communism is an idealism, not a verifiable fact like natural selection.

Not to Communists!

Your faith in a particular model of evolution is itself interesting.

There are communist/marxist theories of evolution. You just assume your theory is normative because it's the one taught to you and you don't question it.

There's feminist theories of evolution.

This isn't to say that they deny material factors at work.

But for instance a Marxist theory might emphasis evidence of collective action by pre-man types, and their use of their hands in making tools.

Yours, being a capitalisitc theory of evolution might emphasise the triump of individuals and survival through a more dog-eat-dog existence.

Even Darwin, a product of his day described certain female functions as 'coy'.

 

[Mallon]

And I just explained that it may not count for anything.


Even YOU SITE recognises a change in circumstances might prove decisive.

I'm sorry, but that didn't make any sense.

Not to Communists!

Communists still recognize Communism as an ideal -- they just think it's the best ideal. It isn't a fact.

Your faith in a particular model of evolution is itself interesting.

I don't need to have faith in natural selection because it's a fact. Similarly, I don't need to have faith that rocks exist because it's a fact that they do.

 

[Montalban]

I'm sorry, but that didn't make any sense.

I've already gone over this.

You say that Fitness is about numbers of off-spring.

I pointed out that if I have but a few children to your many your 'advantage' is no 'advantage' at all if mine have the capacity to survive a change of circumstances

It wouldn't matter if you had 60 more kids than mine if all mine survived.

So the ultimate test for fitness would be that mine survived.

That which survived survived

Communists still recognize Communism as an ideal -- they just think it's the best ideal. It isn't a fact.

It is both an ideal, and a fact to Communists. If it weren't a 'fact' for them then they wouldn't seek to turn that ideal into reality.

I don't need to have faith in natural selection because it's a fact. Similarly, I don't need to have faith that rocks exist because it's a fact that they do.

Good for you!

 

[shernren]

You've not shown this. At best you've used an example of me saying "At best..." followed by your own position.

Apparently you think that natural selection would be refuted if everything died.

Well, what do you think?

If natural selection could be refuted once everything died, then again a fortiori it is not a tautology. A tautology can never be refuted.

If natural selection could not be refuted once everything died, I would like to see you tell me just what would be selecting or selected.

In any case, you've contradicted yourself and not recognized the sheer folly of doing so, and that's more than enough in my book to say you haven't the foggiest notion of any basic ideas in logic.

 

[Montalban]

Well, what do you think?

If natural selection could be refuted once everything died, then again a fortiori it is not a tautology. A tautology can never be refuted.

I didn't say natural selection would be refuted if everything died.

 

[Montalban]

I said several times, such as in posts #107, and #134 that nothing need survive.

I noted that evolution would NOT be refuted by this fact. I said 'survival of the fittest' is about only the fit surviving, and that potentially NOTHING at all would be fit to survive.

In post #128 shernren says that I think that if nothing survives then the fit don't need to survive.

Now he's saying again that's my theory.

People aren't that interested in reading what's written.

But that's okay.

 

[JVPITER]

I said several times, such as in posts #107, and #134 that nothing need survive.

I noted that evolution would NOT be refuted by this fact. I said 'survival of the fittest' is about only the fit surviving, and that potentially NOTHING at all would be fit to survive.

I'm wondering why a thread supposedly about "Teaching Evolution to Evolutionists" has been entirely about whether the phrase "survival of the fittest" is apt or tautological.

Even if the phrase "survival of the fittest" is a complete tautology, I don't see how that has any bearing on the truth or falsity of the theory of evolution.

If it doesn't. why argue about it?


Peace

 

[Matthijs]

Which is only determined if they survive.

No, that is absurd. It occurs when they pass on their genes more than others. Surviving is something you do for a period of time - there is no binary decision involved that labels individuals as surviving / non-surviving.

Nor is a long lifespan necessarily something that gets passed on, so even the actual time spent alive is not necessarily a determining factor - successful gene-transmitting is.

The problem disappears once you get past the confusing language and look at what it is that is actually happening.

 

[Montalban]

I'm wondering why a thread supposedly about "Teaching Evolution to Evolutionists" has been entirely about whether the phrase "survival of the fittest" is apt or tautological.

It hasn't.

I've also discussed about Darwin comparing 'natural selection' to how pigeon breeders select. And so on, but you're not the only one to read only a tiny bit and form an opinion, so don't feel too bad.

Even if the phrase "survival of the fittest" is a complete tautology, I don't see how that has any bearing on the truth or falsity of the theory of evolution.

Again a case of not reading the thread.

If it doesn't. why argue about it?

If it doesn't matter, why not accept it for what it is?

What's the big deal in saying it is a tautology?

 

[Montalban]

No, that is absurd. It occurs when they pass on their genes more than others. Surviving is something you do for a period of time - there is no binary decision involved that labels individuals as surviving / non-surviving.

No it doesn't. I don't mind that you've missed the rebuttal. I'm happy to go over it again.

If someone has 20 kids by sleeping around with a half-dozen women, and I only have three by being with one woman AND YET my genes have an ability to fight a disease AND that disease kills off all the descendants of the man with 20 kids then having 17 kids more than I had meant nothing.

My kids would be 'fit' because they survived.

If that change in circumstances didn't happen and both sets of kids survived then both were 'fit' to survive because they survived.

However a different set of circumstances could occur where-by one of the 20 kids had an ability to meet the change THEN AGAIN that which survived was fit, because it survived.

If your idea worked then poor and unmarried people who statistically have more kids are more fit to survive than rich people. Is that what you're saying?

 

[JVPITER]

Even if the phrase "survival of the fittest" is a complete tautology, I don't see how that has any bearing on the truth or falsity of the theory of evolution.

Again a case of not reading the thread.

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.

If it doesn't matter, why not accept it for what it is?

What's the big deal in saying it is a tautology?

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

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


Peace

 

[JVPITER]

If your idea worked then poor and unmarried people who statistically have more kids are more fit to survive than rich people. Is that what you're saying?

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.


Peace

 

[gluadys]

If your idea worked then poor and unmarried people who statistically have more kids are more fit to survive than rich people. Is that what you're saying?

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?

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