Natural selection, my ass (Page 9) chronology: Really Chaps you falling into the traditional trap of'Christmas' over indulgence of alcohol and dreaming of casual sex. Best thing we ever did in America was ban Christmas. It is nothing but a fly trap for fools. Achilles you fine fellow, put down that infernal beer pot and and begin reflecting on how you can show proper respect for the ladies, not debauching them. My Christmas drink yesterday was a nice cup of hot chocolate drink. chronology: No idea Old Chap. Nothing against booze myself. But Christmas is an explosive mixture of Public Holiday and over indulgence. Not much fun for folks on Food Stamps. Or Social Security. And for folks who dive in to Christmas with both trotter's in the trough, not much fun for them either when they are paying off the credit card bills, or paying for the medical bill to get rid of the STD they don't even remember contracting.  theHating: A "fit" organism is one which is expected to have survived. (Sometimes they dont all make it) theHating: An upside-down cockroach still has the disposition of right-side up cockroaches to be called "fit"  AchillesSinatra: "A "fit" organism is one which is expected to have survived. (Sometimes they dont all make it)" - TheHating Depends how you define fit. Current orthodoxy has it that the "fit" simply are those who survive and reproduce best. The fit cannot not prevail. AchillesSinatra: Ok, here's what Darwin had in mind... And it's intuitively obvious..... Those beasts with useful stuff, you know like big claws and sharp teeth, tend to do well against the other 90-lb weaklings. But my whole point has been.... can you characterize this principle in a way that is not utterly vacuous? To my knowledge, no one ever has. AchillesSinatra: How about "Those organisms with good stuff do better than those with bad stuff"? get the point yet?  Sir Loin: Chronology, I'm with you on the drinks. Mine was a huge glass of freshly squeezed orange juice with a splash of feijoa. I don't drink alcohol. theHating: "But my whole point has been.... can you characterize this principle in a way that is not utterly vacuous? To my knowledge, no one ever has." "no one" as in no one on the face of the earth? Or just wireclub? theHating: Here is someone rebutting a frothing darwinian: "> Darwin only ever used this phrase once in a personal correspondence and never in a publication. He was not a fan of the phrase Darwin used the phrase "survival of the fittest" both in later editions of *Origin of Species* as well as in *Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication* and as mentioned in the linked article considered it a good summary of natural selection even going so far as to change the title of Chapter 4 of *Origin* to "Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest". Anyway, though, the paper doesn't hinge on that phrase at all. Did you even read it? The argument the paper hinges on is most directly a response to the three observations you listed, which are also explicitly listed in the paper. Specifically, the issue is that because we cannot actually conclude that a trait is under selection by any means other than observing increased reproduction among individuals that possess it, the third thesis that the traits individuals possess are what *lead to* differential reproductive success is not empirically warranted. Causality has not been established, but it is fundamental to the defintiion of natural selection (though not to evolution more broadly). So natural selection is a philosophical argument (analytic) rather than a scientific one (empirical or synthetic). In fact, we know that there are many random and demographic processes that can lead to individuals reproducing more without any causal link to their traits at all, so natural selection cannot stand as a purely analytical argument. Instead, I think the best support for natural selection as a scientific model comes from the same examples of artificial selection that Darwin originally used to support natural selection. These are cases where we can reasonably infer a force of selection that's based on traits. We still can't conclude that the traits that actually increase in frequency under this kind of selection are the ones that are objectively best for the environment (and we often know specifically that they are not) at least there's a causal connection since the evolution is experimental. How that kind of conclusion can be extended to wild populations in a natural environment, which is what natural selection deals with, is not obvious. The conclusion of the paper, though is not at all that natural selection should be thrown out as a result, but that scientists need to return to empirical observation without the assumptions of their philosophical conclusions about natural selection. Challenging assumptions is always good for science." AchillesSinatra: "In fact, we know that there are many random and demographic processes that can lead to individuals reproducing more without any causal link to their traits at all, so natural selection cannot stand as a purely analytical argument." Well, how's that for a non sequitur? It's like saying "natural selection is not a tautology cos we have other stuff, too. You know, like genetic drift and whatnot". How powerful can a theory be? Sometimes the winners win, and sometimes they don't? Go think about that! AchillesSinatra: Let me get this straight.... Your powerful theory suggests the winners tend to win, thanks to natural selection. But sometimes luck gets in the way, by virtue of genetic drift? As theories go, well, I would be ashamed to show my face to a physicist.  AchillesSinatra: @ TheHating Don't make me beg for your kisses By the way, did you write that stuff above yourself? Or copy it from somewhere? AchillesSinatra: I hope that didn't sound disrespectful, Mr Hating. I genuinely welcome any serious contributions. Thank you, sir. I read with interest. AchillesSinatra: Mr Hating, The two most powerful arguments I've seen defending the (putative) non-tautological nature of natural selection came from Steven Pinker ( "The language Instinct" ) and S. J. Gould, can't remember which essay. I think they're both wrong. But both are worthy of respect. It's also possible I'm hopelessly wrong too. Happens a lot. theHating: "It's also possible I'm hopelessly wrong too. Happens a lot." Me too, I just wish I didnt get stabbed and shot over it. theHating: "By the way, did you write that stuff above yourself? Or copy it from somewhere?" I copied it from one of my reddit threads. I didn't write it, but out of 40 or so commenters, this was the only one that seemed to get the point. theHating: survivors survive, reproduce and therefore propagate any heritable characters which have affected their survival and reproductive success. This statement is not tautological.  Fractured fairy tale: Chronology is Starting on his favourite topic Gay Marriage and Gay rights. Just like a Candle In the wind  AchillesSinatra: "This statement is not tautological." - TheHating Sounds an awful lot like it to me, dude. Seems to me what you're saying is "Those organisms with traits relatively conducive to survival, reproduction, and transmission of their genetic material will tend to ...er, survive, reproduce, and transmit their genetic material relatively successfully." To escape the loop, the "fit" will have to be characterized without any reference to survival and reproduction. Otherwise we're stuck with the same old "Those more likely to survive tend to survive". | Science Chat Room 3 People Chatting Similar Conversations |
