Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

A problem of Gradualism and the Survival of the Fittest within Evolutionary Theory.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A problem of Gradualism and the Survival of the Fittest within Evolutionary Theory.

    A brief discussion is presented below concerning a problem of gradualism in relation to the notion of survival of the fittest as proposed within the theory of Evolution.

    Gradualism proposes all organs of biological bodies arose through a process of mutations within a population to give rise to organs that function within a living body. The functionality of an organ, or organs permits a biological population to act in a way that gives the organism a benefit and thereby provides an opportunity for the biological population to survive. The survival of the biological population is caused by the functionality of organs, which arise through a process of gradualism. But gradualism assumes 1) a time when the organ (A) did not exist, and later, 2) a time when organ (A) existed, but was not functional, and 3) a time when organ (A) was not fully functional. During these times of say several million years when the biological organism functioned without the use of the developing organ, the organism as an historical population survived.

    So the theory of evolution must posit organ development over a long time period, whereby the organs develop to help the population survive. But at the same time, the population already survives without the organ development. For during the time of organ development the organ is non functional, and not required for survival. Therefore I propose that the theory of evolution contains a contradiction according to the theory's notion of survival in relation to the principle of gradualism as stated below -

    1) Gradualism occurs to account for fully functioning organs and consequently the survival of the population in accord with the principle of survival of the fittest. So survival of the fittest is the good that acts as the sufficient motive for gradual development of organs.

    2) Gradualism is not required for the survival of the population in accord with the principle of survival of the fittest. For populations survive without the organ’s functionality when the organ is in the process of development. So survival of the fittest is the good that acts, but not as the sufficient motive for gradual development of organs.

    Survival of the fittest in relation to gradualism implies survival of the fittest to be both the sufficient and insufficient motive for the development of organs. The simultaneous affirmation and denial of the survival of the fittest in relation to gradualism infers the theory of evolution contains at least one contradiction.

    Therefore the theory of evolution is false.

    JM

  • #2
    Hey, he's back from the matrix. Welcome back John Martin.

    Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
    Gradualism proposes all organs of biological bodies arose through a process of mutations within a population to give rise to organs that function within a living body.
    Minor nitpick, the biological theory of gradualism doesn't 'propose' this, but it follows as an 'implication'.

    But gradualism assumes 1) a time when the organ (A) did not exist, and later, 2) a time when organ (A) existed, but was not functional, and 3) a time when organ (A) was not fully functional.
    The actual development of organs is not part of the assumptions of gradualism, but belongs to a different place. There is no 'assumption' like what you're outlying above. Which is also technically wrong, because another possibility is that an organ could have had multiple purposes, and only later did more specialized organs develop. Since you don't deal with this possibility, the rest of the argument unfortunately is wrong.

    1) Gradualism occurs to account for fully functioning organs
    Another language nitpick, gradualism doesn't 'account' for the existence of fully functioning organs, all that gradualism posits is that any development of natural features occur 'gradually' over a period of many generations. A full account for how organs of living creatures developed is sought elsewhere. Though details are lacking in so far as organs don't fossilize very well.

    So survival of the fittest is the good that acts as the sufficient motive for gradual development of organs... So survival of the fittest is the good that acts, but not as the sufficient motive for gradual development of organs.
    I see you're trying to explain things in terms of thomistic metaphysics, unfortunately you don't seem to understand the terms that you're using. The 'survival of the fittest', which first of all is a slogan, and not actually part of modern evolutionary theory doesn't act in any way. You seem to describe it both as a final cause and an essence, which doesn't make sense.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
      a time when organ (A) existed, but was not functional
      I think Dawkins deals with this quite nicely in some of his books. He looks at examples of wings, eyes and sonar.

      He notes that wings when only partially developed do not allow the animal to fly, but they do allow it to survive a fall from higher than it could have without them. For every step in the growth of the wings, there is a correspondingly increased height from which the animal can successfully fall without dying. So they potentially confer survival value at each and every stage of their evolution.

      That being said, there are obvious examples of animals existing currently which have wings (due to their evolutionary history) but for whom the wings are not very functional: Flightless birds. e.g. Ostriches, kakapo, weka etc.

      Another example Dawkins looks at is the eye. Light sensitivity is something that occurs on the molecular level - some molecules will do something if exposed to light, and so light sensitivity of some kind is fairly simple for organisms to incorporate (e.g. plants grow toward the light). Obviously an entity that can detect the direction light is coming from has survival value over one that can merely detect that there is light. Likewise one that can distinguish between different intensities and colors of light will have increased survival value. And so on. Every step up the chain of improvements in ability to see the world around an entity confers increased survival value.

      And many types of eyes have evolved in evolutionary history. There is a fly, with compound eyes, humans with two single eyes, some amphibious creatures have a transparent eyelid which protects their eyes when they go underwater, most insects that pollinate plants see much further into the UV than humans (and most plants have designs on them in the UV to attract pollinators which we can't see, and annoying this causes bees to be attracted to anyone wearing dark blue because it's close to the UV).

      Then there's sonar, where animals with 'normal' hearing like humans can learn to detect echoes (very helpful for some blind people), and so animals that live in the dark where eyesight isn't very useful (e.g. bats), have gone down the evolutionary path of gradual improvements to their hearing and gradual improvements to their ability to emit a rhythmic sound to cause echoes. Obviously each step of the way down that path has survival value, as an animal that can perceive it's surroundings even slightly better than its companion is that much more likely to survive.
      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
        But gradualism assumes 1) a time when the organ (A) did not exist, and later, 2) a time when organ (A) existed, but was not functional, and 3) a time when organ (A) was not fully functional.

        The actual development of organs is not part of the assumptions of gradualism, but belongs to a different place. There is no 'assumption' like what you're outlying above. Which is also technically wrong, because another possibility is that an organ could have had multiple purposes, and only later did more specialized organs develop. Since you don't deal with this possibility, the rest of the argument unfortunately is wrong.
        Gradualism is assumed within modern evolutionary theory as stated in a recently published book entitled The Evolution of Organ Systems authored by Andreas Schmidt-Rhaesa, and published through Oxford University Press. The abstract given for the book clearly indicates gradualism is involved in the formation of organs within modern evolutionary theory.

        The field of systematics has developed remarkably over the last few decades. A multitude of new methods and contributions from diverse biological fields — including molecular genetics and developmental biology — have provided a wealth of phylogenetic hypotheses, some confirming traditional views and others contradicting them. There is now sufficient evidence to draw up a ‘tree of life’ based on fairly robust phylogenetic relationships. This book aims to apply these new phylogenies to an evolutionary interpretation of animal organ systems and body architecture. Organs do not appear suddenly during evolution: instead they are composed of far simpler structures. In some cases, it is even possible to trace particular molecules or physiological pathways as far back as pre-animal history. What emerges is a fascinating picture, showing how animals have combined ancestral and new elements in novel ways to form constantly changing responses to environmental requirements. The book starts with a general overview of animal systematics to set the framework for the discussion of organ system evolution. The chapters deal with the general organization, integument, musculature, nervous system, sensory structures, body cavities, excretory, respiratory and circulatory organs, the intestinal and reproductive system, and spermatozoa. Each organ system is presented with its function, the diversity of forms that are realized among metazoan animals, and the reconstruction of its evolution.
        Gradualism is assumed where the author states "Organs do not appear suddenly during evolution: instead they are composed of far simpler structures. In some cases, it is even possible to trace particular molecules or physiological pathways as far back as pre-animal history." Organs then must develop from simpler structures at a prior time and then become new, or more complex organs as time progresses. Such change in organs occurs from simpler to more complex, indicating a form of gradualism is assumed.

        Gradualism is also assumed where the author says "Each organ system is presented with its function, the diversity of forms that are realized among metazoan animals, and the reconstruction of its evolution." The "reconstruction of its evolution" implies gradualism is involved in the appearance of organs and biological systems within animals.

        Gradualism is also espoused by the New Engliand Complex systems institute

        Gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are two ways in which the evolution of a species can occur. A species can evolve by only one of these, or by both. Scientists think that species with a shorter evolution evolved mostly by punctuated equilibrium, and those with a longer evolution evolved mostly by gradualism.
        Gradualism is also taken for granted by Wikipedia -

        Phyletic gradualism is a model of evolution which theorizes that most speciation is slow, uniform and gradual.[1] When evolution occurs in this mode, it is usually by the steady transformation of a whole species into a new one (through a process called anagenesis). In this view no clear line of demarcation exists between an ancestral species and a descendant species, unless splitting occurs. The theory is contrasted with punctuated equilibrium.

        1) Gradualism occurs to account for fully functioning organs

        Another language nitpick, gradualism doesn't 'account' for the existence of fully functioning organs, all that gradualism posits is that any development of natural features occur 'gradually' over a period of many generations. A full account for how organs of living creatures developed is sought elsewhere. Though details are lacking in so far as organs don't fossilize very well.
        Gradualism is the principle of slow change to bring about a new species. Gradualism then includes various biological mechanisms to account for gradual biological change.

        So survival of the fittest is the good that acts as the sufficient motive for gradual development of organs... So survival of the fittest is the good that acts, but not as the sufficient motive for gradual development of organs.

        I see you're trying to explain things in terms of thomistic metaphysics, unfortunately you don't seem to understand the terms that you're using. The 'survival of the fittest', which first of all is a slogan, and not actually part of modern evolutionary theory doesn't act in any way. You seem to describe it both as a final cause and an essence, which doesn't make sense.
        Fitness is discussed below by Wikipedia as a probability of a class of individuals.

        Fitness is often defined as a propensity or probability, rather than the actual number of offspring. For example, according to Maynard Smith, "Fitness is a property, not of an individual, but of a class of individuals — for example homozygous for allele A at a particular locus. Thus the phrase ’expected number of offspring’ means the average number, not the number produced by some one individual. If the first human infant with a gene for levitation were struck by lightning in its pram, this would not prove the new genotype to have low fitness, but only that the particular child was unlucky." [2]

        Equivalently, "the fitness of the individual - having an array x of phenotypes — is the probability, s(x), that the individual will be included among the group selected as parents of the next generation."[3]
        As the individuals have being, and being is good, the fitness as a probability of the being of a class of individuals is a measure of the good of a class of individuals. As good is that which acts as a motive for action in accord with final causation, fitness is a measure of final causation. My prior statement - "So survival of the fittest is the good that acts as the sufficient motive for gradual development of organs... So survival of the fittest is the good that acts, but not as the sufficient motive for gradual development of organs," may be altered to say So survival of the fittest fitness is the good that acts as the sufficient motive for gradual development of organs... So survival of the fittest fitness is the good that acts, but not as the sufficient motive for gradual development of organs.

        The problem remains, for gradualism and fitness are parts of modern evolutionary theory which are incompatible with each other as shown in the above contradiction presented in the OP.

        JM

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
          Gradualism is assumed within modern evolutionary theory as stated in a recently published book entitled The Evolution of Organ Systems authored by Andreas Schmidt-Rhaesa, and published through Oxford University Press. The abstract given for the book clearly indicates gradualism is involved in the formation of organs within modern evolutionary theory.



          Gradualism is assumed where the author states "Organs do not appear suddenly during evolution: instead they are composed of far simpler structures. In some cases, it is even possible to trace particular molecules or physiological pathways as far back as pre-animal history." Organs then must develop from simpler structures at a prior time and then become new, or more complex organs as time progresses. Such change in organs occurs from simpler to more complex, indicating a form of gradualism is assumed.

          Gradualism is also assumed where the author says "Each organ system is presented with its function, the diversity of forms that are realized among metazoan animals, and the reconstruction of its evolution." The "reconstruction of its evolution" implies gradualism is involved in the appearance of organs and biological systems within animals.

          Gradualism is also espoused by the New Engliand Complex systems institute



          Gradualism is also taken for granted by Wikipedia -






          Gradualism is the principle of slow change to bring about a new species. Gradualism then includes various biological mechanisms to account for gradual biological change.



          Fitness is discussed below by Wikipedia as a probability of a class of individuals.



          As the individuals have being, and being is good, the fitness as a probability of the being of a class of individuals is a measure of the good of a class of individuals. As good is that which acts as a motive for action in accord with final causation, fitness is a measure of final causation. My prior statement - "So survival of the fittest is the good that acts as the sufficient motive for gradual development of organs... So survival of the fittest is the good that acts, but not as the sufficient motive for gradual development of organs," may be altered to say So survival of the fittest fitness is the good that acts as the sufficient motive for gradual development of organs... So survival of the fittest fitness is the good that acts, but not as the sufficient motive for gradual development of organs.

          The problem remains, for gradualism and fitness are parts of modern evolutionary theory which are incompatible with each other as shown in the above contradiction presented in the OP.

          JM
          Accept that your O.P. is mistaken in its assumptions.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
            The survival of the biological population is caused by the functionality of organs, which arise through a process of gradualism. But gradualism assumes 1) a time when the organ (A) did not exist, and later, 2) a time when organ (A) existed, but was not functional, and 3) a time when organ (A) was not fully functional. During these times of say several million years when the biological organism functioned without the use of the developing organ, the organism as an historical population survived.
            No, gradualism does not assume that.
            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
              a time when organ (A) existed, but was not functional

              I think Dawkins deals with this quite nicely in some of his books. He looks at examples of wings, eyes and sonar.

              He notes that wings when only partially developed do not allow the animal to fly, but they do allow it to survive a fall from higher than it could have without them. For every step in the growth of the wings, there is a correspondingly increased height from which the animal can successfully fall without dying. So they potentially confer survival value at each and every stage of their evolution.
              The evolutionist’s claim's concerning development of wings does not account for a lack of correspondence between a need for flight and the corresponding biological causes within the bird that cause the wings and flight. An occasion for survival of the animal through flight does not necessitate, or cause any biological causes within the bird (animal) to cause wings. The evolutionist's thinking in the bird example above and other similar examples always assumes a correspondence between the circumstantial need caused extrinsically caused by the environment and a corresponding intrinsic biological cause within the animal that provides for that extrinsic need. The lack of any real relationship between circumstantial need and the corresponding interior biological causes to satisfy that need implies evolutionary theory has two opposing outcomes for the same problem -

              1) The animal has a real need as determined by the surrounding environment, such as an animal needs to fly to avoid a predator. The need is not fulfilled and the animal goes to extinction.

              2) The animal has a real need as determined by the surrounding environment, such as an animal needs to fly to avoid a predator. The need is fulfilled only by chance mutations and the animal continues to live among the same predators. The fulfilled need, (such as flight) occurs over millions of years, so the so called need to overcome the predator is both grave and thereby necessary to avoid extinction, but also not grave, for the process required to avoid the predator occurs over a long time period. Consequently the theory of evolution contains yet another contradiction concerning the gravity of the threat cause by a predator which both causes A) extinction in a short time, if mutations occur in the animal to bird evolution do not occur over a long time, but B) the same predator does not cause extinction in a short time, if mutations occur in the animal to bird evoltion over a long time.

              Neither of the two opposing outcomes proposed by evolutionary theory are satisfactory.

              That being said, there are obvious examples of animals existing currently which have wings (due to their evolutionary history) but for whom the wings are not very functional: Flightless birds. e.g. Ostriches, kakapo, weka etc.
              Maybe they are not fully functional, but they are fully formed so the wings can be used in flight. The evolutionists only assume wings that are not very functional are evidence for gradualism when in fact the wings may always have been the same old wings on chickens from the time of creation. The wings on chickens are what they are meant to be and nothing else. The evolutionists must assume otherwise about the wings, even though there is much evidence for stasis within the fossil record.

              Another example Dawkins looks at is the eye. Light sensitivity is something that occurs on the molecular level - some molecules will do something if exposed to light, and so light sensitivity of some kind is fairly simple for organisms to incorporate (e.g. plants grow toward the light). Obviously an entity that can detect the direction light is coming from has survival value over one that can merely detect that there is light. Likewise one that can distinguish between different intensities and colors of light will have increased survival value. And so on. Every step up the chain of improvements in ability to see the world around an entity confers increased survival value.
              So the evolutionists claim. But the evolution of the eye assumes much that is never demonstrated. Every step of the evolution of the eye assumes 1) each step is functional and 2) each step necessarily leads to further steps. Both assumptions are problematic.

              1) assumes no steps that are non functional and thereby do not increase the survivability of a species. Such lack of improvement means the evolutionists claims concerning the evolution of the eye contain the same contradiction exposed in the OP. For a non functional eye is part of the process that causes fitness, but as non fnctional, adds nothing to fitness.

              2) Each step is only assumed, when in fact stasis as found in the fossil record indicates the so called primitive eye has remained the same, and other eyes have also remained the same over time. To posit eye development from one eye at time X to another form of eye at time Y several million years later is only a projection of a theory into the data. The evolutionist is merely performing an act of theory based eisegesis of the fossil evidence.

              And many types of eyes have evolved in evolutionary history. There is a fly, with compound eyes, humans with two single eyes, some amphibious creatures have a transparent eyelid which protects their eyes when they go underwater, most insects that pollinate plants see much further into the UV than humans (and most plants have designs on them in the UV to attract pollinators which we can't see, and annoying this causes bees to be attracted to anyone wearing dark blue because it's close to the UV).
              This is only another claim made by the evolutionists. Flies and other animals such as birds, and dogs, and elephants may also have always been what they are today, with only some minor changes in say height and colour. The evolutionists must perform the fallacies of Hypothesis Contrary to Fact and Pigheadedness.

              Then there's sonar, where animals with 'normal' hearing like humans can learn to detect echoes (very helpful for some blind people), and so animals that live in the dark where eyesight isn't very useful (e.g. bats), have gone down the evolutionary path of gradual improvements to their hearing and gradual improvements to their ability to emit a rhythmic sound to cause echoes. Obviously each step of the way down that path has survival value, as an animal that can perceive it's surroundings even slightly better than its companion is that much more likely to survive.
              So the story goes, and all the time the evolutionist commits multiple fallacies as documented by creationists. See the link above for details.

              The problem of gradualism in relation to fitness remains as explained in the OP.

              JM

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by JimL View Post
                Accept that your O.P. is mistaken in its assumptions.
                Documentation has been made to show my assuptions are consistent with modern evolutionary theory. If you say otherwise, then bring forth the evidence.

                JM

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                  No, gradualism does not assume that.
                  No evidence presented.

                  JM

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                    No evidence presented.
                    I presented exactly the same amount of evidence that you did.
                    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                      A brief discussion is presented below concerning a problem of gradualism in relation to the notion of survival of the fittest as proposed within the theory of Evolution.

                      JM
                      Sorry but "survival of the fittest" isn't proposed within the theory of Evolution. It's merely a buzz-phrase for laymen used in the popular press not unlike "missing link". Neither have anything to do with the science of actual evolutionary theory.

                      Since your premise is faulty your whole logic chain is wrong.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                        Sorry but "survival of the fittest" isn't proposed within the theory of Evolution. It's merely a buzz-phrase for laymen used in the popular press not unlike "missing link". Neither have anything to do with the science of actual evolutionary theory.

                        Since your premise is faulty your whole logic chain is wrong.
                        Survival of the fittest has been altered to fitness, which is part of evolutionary biology.

                        Fitness (often denoted {\displaystyle w} w or ω in population genetics models) is the quantitative representation of natural and sexual selection within evolutionary biology. It can be defined either with respect to a genotype or to a phenotype in a given environment. In either case, it describes individual reproductive success and is equal to the average contribution to the gene pool of the next generation that is made by individuals of the specified genotype or phenotype. The fitness of a genotype is manifested through its phenotype, which is also affected by the developmental environment. The fitness of a given phenotype can also be different in different selective environments.
                        1) Gradualism occurs to account for fully functioning organs and consequently the survival of the population in accord with the principle of survival of the fittest fitness. So survival of the fittest fitness is the good that acts as the sufficient motive for gradual development of organs.

                        2) Gradualism is not required for the survival of the population in accord with the principle of survival of the fittest fitness. For populations survive without the organ’s functionality when the organ is in the process of development. So survival of the fittest fitness is the good that acts, but not as the sufficient motive for gradual development of organs.


                        The contradiction remains and the argument currently stands unrebutted.

                        Evolution is a false theory.

                        JM

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          JM, you are essentially making up definitions and shoehorning them into your premise.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            JM, you are essentially making up definitions and shoehorning them into your premise.
                            Two examples taken from my argument would be some good evidence. Let's see those examples.

                            JM

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by JohnMartin View Post
                              Gradualism is assumed within modern evolutionary theory as stated in a recently published book entitled
                              At no point, in the quotation you provided, is it stated or implied that gradualism is an assumption. Rather gradualism is a theory that follows from the nature of biological development, but the theory of evolution in no way depends on this theory being true. Developments could have happened in random spurts and hopeful monsters as some speculated it did once. The fact that it doesn't is born out by evidence, which again makes it a theory, not an assumption.

                              Gradualism is assumed where the author states "Organs do not appear suddenly during evolution: instead they are composed of far simpler structures. In some cases, it is even possible to trace particular molecules or physiological pathways as far back as pre-animal history."
                              No, that's not stating an assumption. Its true the author does consider gradualism to be true, but he's not assuming it. You can take something for granted in an explanation. No one has to defend that we've been to the moon, each time someone opens a chapter on the history of the moon landing, or any time someone talks about how we landed on the moon.

                              You're equivocating. There's a real difference between taking something for granted, in a text like this, or whether its a necessary assumption to a theory. They're not the same thing.

                              Gradualism is also assumed where the author says "Each organ system is presented with its function, the diversity of forms that are realized among metazoan animals, and the reconstruction of its evolution."
                              The same is true here, gradualism is taken for granted, but its not an assumption of evolutionary biology.

                              Gradualism is also espoused by the New Engliand Complex systems institute
                              Whether an institute of higher learning espouses on a concept, does not make that concept part of the assumptions of evolutionary theory, which are far simpler and somewhat different.

                              Gradualism is also taken for granted by Wikipedia
                              Again, taking something for granted, and it being one of the founding assumptions of evolutionary biology, are different things.

                              Gradualism is the principle of slow change to bring about a new species. Gradualism then includes various biological mechanisms to account for gradual biological change.
                              No, the first sentence here is correct. The latter sentence is false. Gradualism is not the same thing as the theory of evolution. The latter would explain how the changes occurred, which requires both an understanding of competition for natural resources, biogeographical distributions, fossil records, phylogeneticsm, adaptionalism and genetic drift. That's the bedrock of the theory of evolution. Gradualism is just the theory that biological changes occur gradually (in punctuated equilibriums). That's it. In fact the theory of evolution could be proven wrong, and gradualism would still be true.

                              Fitness is discussed below by Wikipedia as a probability of a class of individuals.
                              You're correct. That Wikipedia page does use the word 'fitness'. But you didn't use the word 'fitness', which is a different concept than 'survival of the fittest'. As I and others have pointed out to you now 'survival of the fittest' was a buzzword, a slogan, and not part of either Darwin's original conception of evolution, or the modern day account of it. Rather 'survival of the fittest' was a slogan coined by the Victorian political theorist Herbert Spencer. In particular he used this term is description of sociological developments, in what would later be understood to be Social Darwinism which has been scientifically repudiated.

                              The problem remains,
                              Actually I also deal with your argument, which you seem to have ignored or missed in order to deal with the problems I had with how you used terminology. Your argument is flawed in describing how organs are theorized to develop. Since its wrong its fundamental assumptions, the rest of the argument is also wrong.

                              Survival of the fittest has been altered to fitness, which is part of evolutionary biology.
                              The slogan "survival of the fittest" was not coined by Darwin, but a political theorist. Its also not then, nor now a part of evolutionary biology. As a slogan its highly memorable, and that's probably why you remember it and attribute it wrongly to Darwin or modern day evolutionary biology. As a slogan its good, but its philosophically problematic, since its circular by its nature.

                              The fitness of a species describes its probability of surviving and successfully give birth to its next generation. This is something objectively quantifiable. We can measure this likelihood, and use it in models of population dynamics.

                              'Survival of the fittest' was, as I repeat many times, the Victorian political theorist Herbert Spencers way of summarizing Darwinism. Only its not a summary, in fact its not even a proper statement. If the 'fittest' are those who survive, then the statement becomes a hilarious tautology 'Those who are the most survivable are the ones who survive'

                              It was not altered. The concept of 'fitness' is a different from 'survival of the fittest' as I've just explained.

                              Originally posted by JohnMartin
                              Originally posted by HMS_Beagle
                              JM, you are essentially making up definitions and shoehorning them into your premise.
                              Two examples taken from my argument would be some good evidence. Let's see those examples.
                              Have fun reading this post.
                              Last edited by Leonhard; 06-18-2017, 03:34 AM.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                              48 responses
                              135 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Sparko
                              by Sparko
                               
                              Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                              16 responses
                              74 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                              6 responses
                              46 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X