Re: Theory of gradual evolution finally on Wikipedia

On Nov 11, 2:22 pm, peter <prath...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29
"....It describes the capability of an individual of certain genotype
to reproduce, and usually is equal to the proportion of the
individual's genes in all the genes of the next generation. If
differences in individual genotypes affect fitness, then the
frequencies of the genotypes will change over generations; the
genotypes with higher fitness become more common. This process is
called natural selection...."

First we need to know according to which individual is the above
paragraph? Lets just start off with the first issue: Darwin didn't
know about genes, so why is the above then called "natural selection".
In answering me you must refer to what Darwin actually said and
specifically the only place he came close to giving us his definition
of natural selection (notice I said close) - the quote Wikipedia
fraudulently misquoted and still is not fixed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natural_selection#Darwin.27s_hypothesis_section_fraudulent_misquotation

"..I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if
useful, is preserved, by the term natural selection, in order to mark
its relation to man's power of selection...."

To understand Darwin's intent(hopefully) we read the next paragraph:
".... But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the
Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally
convenient. We have seen that man by selection can certainly produce
great results, and can adapt organic beings to his own uses, through
the accumulation of slight but useful variations, given to him by the
hand of Nature. But Natural Selection, we shall hereafter see, is a
power incessantly ready for action, and is as immeasurably superior to
man's feeble efforts, as the works of Nature are to those of Art...."

Now Peter what I want to know from you is if Chris Colby on
talkorigins.org writes an article saying that SoF is "misleading" then
what impact does this have on NS? As you can see Darwin's usage of NS
is intertwined with SoF. And allow me to show you yet again the egg
dance Wilkins and Harshman has performed on this whole SoF issue:

Chris Colby:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html#natsel The
phrase "survival of the fittest" is often used synonymously with
natural selection. The phrase is both incomplete and misleading.

John Wilkins:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/cc737705dbc10c8e?tvc=1
"... "survival of the fittest" is a verbal shorthand for complex math.
The *math* is not a tautology - for the terms in the equations are
interpreted, which means they are what gives the equations substance.
For SotF to be an *empty* tautology, and not a contentful one (i.e., a
definition), you would need to show that the terms are not
interpretable...."

John Wilkins wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/38df9a9a127281a8/cea310284f6d201c#cea310284f6d201c
"..Many were worried about the voluntaristic implications of the use
of the term "selection": this is why Wallace and Spencer insisted on
changing it to "survival of the fittest", which lacks that
implication. Darwin adopted it, but it raised a whole host of other
problems - the main one being that it made the whole thing into a
tautology, which it wasn't. The main difficulty is that our language
*is* voluntaristic, and we don't have a ready made vocabulary without
connontations for talking about an a posteriori outcome. "Goals" are
unfortunately part of the vernacular - we talk about "in order to" in
biology, but we *don't* mean that a particular biological property
thereby happened with that outcome in "mind". Because it achieved that
result, it was retained. That's selection in biology..."

John Harshman: http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/65ec48d891d6b4b9/85cc1b8964d9e435#85cc1b8964d9e435
On Jun 21, 3:08 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
We don't know what Darwin's intent was with "survival of the fittest".

That's not even Darwin's phrase, but Spencer's. And of course we know,
at least those of us who can read. It's just an intended synonym for
natural selection. I see you are changing the subject from natural
selection and unconscious selection to artificial selection.

And thus Peter when I ask "who says so?" it is with good reason since
individuals establish theories.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why dont mitochondria have junk DNA?
    ... >>>the genes are conserved by selection. ... We will sometimes see nuclear ... >> preserved by natural selection since the original mutation event. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Group selection in the breeding of super chickens
    ... Darwinian natural selection within one natural population is to artificially ... Talking about competition between genes is a narrow, ... there can be no sexually mature individuals ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Why dont mitochondria have junk DNA?
    ... >>>Most of the rps genes transferred from the mitochondial genome to the ... >>>nuclear genome in several lineages. ... >>>natural selection as opposed to random drift. ... > preserved by natural selection since the original mutation event. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • In the news: Cornell finds natural selection in humans
    ... N.Y. -- The most detailed analysis to date of how humans differ from ... one another at the DNA level shows strong evidence that natural selection has ... scientists analyzed 11,624 genes, comparing how genes vary not only among 39 ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwins morality
    ... > selection is genetically determinist and based on sacrificing one's self ... SOMETHING THAT NO OTHER SPECIES HAS EVER ASPIRED ... If natural selection followed the classical models ... to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)