Teaching Evolution to Evolutionists

[Assyrian]

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

No I questioned your use of 'fit'

Evidentally he was making a comparision.

Indeed.

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!

Nah. You need to show survival of the fittest means either fit or unfit. Darwin when he was talking of survival of the fittest of course discussed variations that lead to one organism being selected rather than another, which itself contradicts your tautology argument, but Darwin never heard of your particular word games with the word fit so there is no reason to expect him to answer you point.

It is interesting all you can do it try dismiss my point by claiming Darwin never address it directly, rather than answering the point yourself.

 

[Montalban]

No I questioned your use of 'fit'

Only by suggesting something about it being used in a degree of comparison, which I addressed. Not much of a point then and not any better

Indeed.

Great

Nah. You need to show survival of the fittest means either fit or unfit. Darwin when he was talking of survival of the fittest of course discussed variations that lead to one organism being selected rather than another, which itself contradicts your tautology argument, but Darwin never heard of your particular word games with the word fit so there is no reason to expect him to answer you point.

So Darwin talking about some things not surviving, or being fit is different from me discussing it?

I love that "Darwin never heard of your particular word games..."

Let me know when you're through with comedy

 

[shernren]

This just in:

In theory, competition between asexual lineages can lead to second-order selection for greater evolutionary potential. To test this hypothesis, we revived a frozen population of Escherichia coli from a long-term evolution experiment and compared the fitness and ultimate fates of four genetically distinct clones. Surprisingly, two clones with beneficial mutations that would eventually take over the population had significantly lower competitive fitness than two clones with mutations that later went extinct. By replaying evolution many times from these clones, we showed that the eventual winners likely prevailed because they had greater potential for further adaptation. Genetic interactions that reduce the benefit of certain regulatory mutations in the eventual losers appear to explain, at least in part, why they were outcompeted.
​

Second-Order Selection for Evolvability in a Large Escherichia coli Population

Point, set and match.

 

[Montalban]

Known only after the fact that that which survived survived

 

[Assyrian]

Only by suggesting something about it being used in a degree of comparison, which I addressed. Not much of a point then and not any better

You really need to stop hiding behind the 'I've already addressed this' line. If you had shown the flaw in our argument, explaining your point again more clearly can only serve to educated us all about evolution. Unless of course you just handwaved the problems away and you don't want to go over it again.

Your claim that Darwin should have discussed fitness in a certain way does not address my point. It is simply making excuses. Fittest means there is a comparison being made. Your use of fit allows no comparison. An organism is either fit because it survives or doesn't survive and isn't fit.

Once you have degrees of fitness, fitness does not simply mean if it survives or not and survival of the fittest cannot be a tautology.

Indeed

Great

So if fittest is comparing level of fitness, there is more to fitness that surviving or not surviving.

So Darwin talking about some things not surviving, or being fit is different from me discussing it?

Yes

I love that "Darwin never heard of your particular word games..."

Let me know when you're through with comedy

You know it is odd that you should go back to insist Darwin answered your argument a certain way when earlier on you did not care what he said.

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.​

 

[Montalban]

You really need to stop hiding behind the 'I've already addressed this' line. If you had shown the flaw in our argument, explaining your point again more clearly can only serve to educated us all about evolution. Unless of course you just handwaved the problems away and you don't want to go over it again.

I accept you don't have a point. Only you are trying to make something of his use of a superlative.

Your claim that Darwin should have discussed fitness in a certain way does not address my point.

I made no such claim. YOU did!

It is simply making excuses. Fittest means there is a comparison being made. Your use of fit allows no comparison. An organism is either fit because it survives or doesn't survive and isn't fit.

Yes, there's a comparison between that which is fit, and that which is not.

Once you have degrees of fitness, fitness does not simply mean if it survives or not and survival of the fittest cannot be a tautology.

For the second time I ask you to show Darwin using the term this way.

Did he say that there are fit, fitter, and fittest?

So if fittest is comparing level of fitness, there is more to fitness that surviving or not surviving.

So you keep saying. This strangely you say I'm saying it

 

[Montalban]

For anyone else interested, although I've been accused of arguing over language - semantics, Assyrian has done just that.

He claims that by Darwin using the term "Fittest" (a superlative) there must be degrees of 'fit'.

That is, something might be 'fit', another 'fitter', and another 'fittest'.

I am happy to admit this might be the case, so I've asked him to show Darwin saying this.

However that's not happened.

Instead I've been told I'M MAKING THAT CLAIM then he repeats himself making that same claim and telling me that I can't make Darwin use the term in the way I want - when I'm doing no such thing.

So I've asked again for him to show this.

Nothing.

I accept that 'fittest' is a comparative - used between that which does survive compared to that which doesn't.

If there's degrees of 'fit' used by Darwin he's welcome to show this.

I don't know where that gets him anyway... but hopefully I can see his evidence before I pass judgment on it.

 

[sfs]

Known only after the fact that that which survived survived

It was known after the fact that those strains that survived, survived. It was also known after the fact that the strains that had survived were the less fit. According to you, this is impossible.

You have two choices at this point: 1) Accept reality and realize that your definition of "fitness" was wrong; 2) Cling to your definition and ignore reality. It's pretty clear which one you're picking.

 

[Assyrian]

I accept you don't have a point. Only you are trying to make something of his use of a superlative.

Not try to make something of the superlative, I made something of the superlative, and showed it contradicted your tautology claims. The fact you have not been able to address the problem shows this quite nicely.

I made no such claim. YOU did!

Montalban: Does Darwin ever split species into "Fit", "Fitter", and "Fittest"?
If he does, you may have a point​

Yes, there's a comparison between that which is fit, and that which is not.

Fittest means there is a comparison with those that are fit, others that are fitter than that, but not as fit as the fittest.

Like I said, your tautology needs the choice between fit and not fit if you want to define fit merely as those who survive and the unfit as those who don't survive. Unfortunately fittest tells us there are factors beyond simple survival that can be looked at. Red squirrels survived in the UK for thousands of years. Clearly they have some measure of fitness for that. During that time you had survival of the fittest within the red squirrel population, some fitter than others and the fittest red squirrels survived. When gray squirrels arrived they proved fitter than the red and started taking over. The reason red squirrels are dying out is not that they aren't fit, but that they aren't fit enough.

For the second time I ask you to show Darwin using the term this way.

Did he say that there are fit, fitter, and fittest?

You asked before and I showed you it was irrelevant. It wasn't Darwin's phrase, as you know, it was Spencers, Darwin adopted it because it described his theory but he did not rewrite Origin in terms of fit fitter and fittest. He did however adopt Spencer's phrase 'survival of the fittest' complete with the superlative rather than your 'survival of the fit'. You are the one who thinks the phrase is a tautology, you should deal with the phrase.

So if fittest is comparing level of fitness, there is more to fitness that surviving or not surviving.

So you keep saying. This strangely you say I'm saying it

No that is me saying it, not you. And the reason I keep saying it is because you have come up with an answer.

 

[Montalban]

Not try to make something of the superlative, I made something of the superlative, and showed it contradicted your tautology claims. The fact you have not been able to address the problem shows this quite nicely.

You've not done so.

Montalban: Does Darwin ever split species into "Fit", "Fitter", and "Fittest"?
If he does, you may have a point​

Apparently you're not aware of the meaning of "IF". That isn't me saying it, it's me saying it's a condition based on what YOU say. Oddly enough you then say it again here....

Fittest means there is a comparison with those that are fit, others that are fitter than that, but not as fit as the fittest.

Apparently you wish to keep making this statement and then saying it's my claim

Like I said, your tautology needs the choice between fit and not fit if you want to define fit merely as those who survive and the unfit as those who don't survive.

That is what Darwin does. I'll ask you a third time to show where he does otherwise

Then you stumble again on me using the word 'if' again.

 

[Montalban]

It was known after the fact that those strains that survived, survived. It was also known after the fact that the strains that had survived were the less fit. According to you, this is impossible.

You have two choices at this point: 1) Accept reality and realize that your definition of "fitness" was wrong; 2) Cling to your definition and ignore reality. It's pretty clear which one you're picking.

Survival of the less fit?

 

[Assyrian]

You've not done so.

If I hadn't, you should have been able to answer my point

Apparently you're not aware of the meaning of "IF". That isn't me saying it, it's me saying it's a condition based on what YOU say. Oddly enough you then say it again here....

There you go.

It isn't of course a condition based on what I said. Just you making excuses to avoid dealing with the problem.

Fittest means there is a comparison with those that are fit, others that are fitter than that, but not as fit as the fittest.

Apparently you wish to keep making this statement and then saying it's my claim

Never said that was your claim. This seem to be another tactic to avoid answering the problem.

That is what Darwin does. I'll ask you a third time to show where he does otherwise

I answered and you ignored it.

if you want to define fit merely as those who survive and the unfit as those who don't survive.

Then you stumble again on me using the word 'if' again.

You don't want to define fit merely as those who survive?

OK I have tried repeatedly to get you to address the problem that fittest says there are comparable degrees of fitness rather than simply surviving or not surviving. You have completely failed to address the point. So I will leave it at that. We can chalk up yet another reason survival of the fittest is not a tautology.

 

[Montalban]

If I hadn't, you should have been able to answer my point

You don't have one. You're not even sure, it seems, if you're arguing something or I am.

There you go.

Yes BASED ON YOU SAYING IT

Apparently you're confused by conditional sentences. Although that selective quote of yours was not my best sentence. But then you've had many others. I take this then more of your attempt at point-scoring.

You've not shown Darwin making these degrees, and even if he did what point this makes. I could ask you again, which would make it a fourth time, to show Darwin making such statements of degrees, but I won't.

 

[mark kennedy]

I accept that 'fittest' is a comparative - used between that which does survive compared to that which doesn't.

The concept of natural selection had remarkable power for explaining directional and adaptive changes. Its nature is simplicity itself. It is not a force like the forces described in the laws of physics; its mechanism is simply the elimination of inferior individuals. This process of nonrandom elimination impelled Darwin's contemporary, philosopher Herbert Spencer, to describe evolution with the now familiar term "survival of the fittest." (This description was long ridiculed as circular reasoning: "Who are the fittest ? Those who survive." Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought​

Darwin meant by natural selection the death of inferior races, that's really all there is to it. It's philosophical in nature, transcendent in character and atheistic in effect. It is an a prioi (without prior)rejection of all divine causation in natural history. What is more it not only begs the question of proof on it's hands and knees it abandons cause and effect relationships in scientific reasoning altogether. To put it simply, Darwinian natural selection describes the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest thus abandoning causation itself and replacing it with naturalistic assumptions.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Mallon]

The concept of natural selection had remarkable power for explaining directional and adaptive changes. Its nature is simplicity itself. It is not a force like the forces described in the laws of physics; its mechanism is simply the elimination of inferior individuals. This process of nonrandom elimination impelled Darwin's contemporary, philosopher Herbert Spencer, to describe evolution with the now familiar term "survival of the fittest." (This description was long ridiculed as circular reasoning: "Who are the fittest ? Those who survive." Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought​

Darwin meant by natural selection the death of inferior races, that's really all there is to it. It's philosophical in nature, transcendent in character and atheistic in effect. It is an a prioi (without prior)rejection of all divine causation in natural history. What is more it not only begs the question of proof on it's hands and knees it abandons cause and effect relationships in scientific reasoning altogether. To put it simply, Darwinian natural selection describes the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest thus abandoning causation itself and replacing it with naturalistic assumptions.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Those darn natural processes. Never leaving something for God to do.

 

[Montalban]

And that which survives survives

 

[mark kennedy]

Those darn natural processes. Never leaving something for God to do.

In case you missed it, God is the primary first cause and end to which all things are directed in the universe. That's a given but it's ok for a Christian to reject essential Biblical theism categorically. What is surprising is that you don't need a cause for natural selection and yet your definition of science is predicated on it.

Curious, very curious indeed.

 

[mark kennedy]

And that which survives survives

Natural selection is a real phenomenon in nature. What they won't tell you because they don't really think about it is that it's cyclical. Natural selection acts on Darwin's famous Finches when they are isolated on the Galapagos but when their offspring are introduced to the mainland other traits are advantageous. Nothing has changed genetically, these adaptive traits are available as a result of variation that Mendel reduced to a ratio of dominant and recessive traits, it's pretty close to a 3 to 1 ratio.

This is the thing, there is nothing 'selected' from that does not exist as a part of the original design. Evolutionists know this but they are not required to demonstrate or observe the facilitating cause or any cause whatsoever, as long as it's never a miraculous cause.

What I find amusing is that this 'discovery' was made by a guy who knew so much about how favorable traits are inherited that he married his cousin. When bottlenecks in the gene pool produced compromised immune systems his children died. If you ask me, that's natural selection in action. When 'ole flycatcher', as the crew of the HMS Beagle called him, lost his daughters he produced this philosophical premise that rejected God as the primary cause. This philosophical a priori assumption (aka naturalistic assumption) is not science, at least not given the 1st Philosophy of Newton.

The four Rules of the 1726 edition run as follows (omitting some explanatory comments that follow each):

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. Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy​

Natural selection is not science, it's supposition.

 

[Montalban]

My understanding is that a survey of those finches found a different number of species.

My understanding then is that they're not distinct species, but sub-species.

 

[mark kennedy]

My understanding is that a survey of those finches found a different number of species.

My understanding then is that they're not distinct species, but sub-species.

Yea but it's very difficult to tell the various kinds of Finches apart. They are all derived from gene pools that are probably distinguished by very small alleles. I would not be surprised to learn that the genes do not differ from one another, they are being expressed differently.

You kind of have the right idea though, what we are looking at are variations within a species. Darwin considered the term 'species' to be undefinable and used it interchangeably with variations. He, like his evolutionist contemporaries, believed there to be at various sub-species of humans. The examples Darwin liked were the Irish and the Aborigines. As it turns out humans do not speciate no matter what selective pressure or environmental challenge they face. Natural selection does act on human development the way he imagined, these traits just don't produce a new species of humans.