Re: Revised Tautology FAQ - Thread-5

All-seeing-I wrote:
On Oct 29, 8:34 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All-seeing-I wrote:
On Oct 25, 8:59 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All-seeing-I wrote:
On Oct 25, 3:02 pm, Robert Camp <robertlc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2009-10-25 12:41:02 -0700, All-seeing-I <ap...@xxxxxxxxx> said:
On Oct 25, 1:16 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[cut to a specific point]
A recent version of the tautology argument can be found in
Ann Coulter's 2005 book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism"
where she says:
"The second prong of Darwin's "theory" is generally nothing but
a circular statement: Through the process of natural
selection, the "fittest" survive. Who are the "fittest"? The
ones who survive! Why look - it happens every time! The
"survival of the fittest" would be a joke if it weren't part
of the belief system of a fanatical cult infesting the
Scientific Community. The beauty of having a scientific
theory that's a tautology is that it can't be disproved."
(pp. 212-213) [2].
Ann is exactly correct. She is also very perceptive when she mentions
there is a fanatical cult infesting the Scientific Community.
Who is to say if a stronger species did not die out to allow survival
of the weakest in some cases? No one really knows the unknown
variables that were in play on the earth millions of years ago. Any
one of those unknowns could have allowed for the weakest to survive
instead.
All mammals and birds have offspring that are handicapped with
infantile helplessness. Infantile helplessness is a direct challenge
to Darwinism. So much so that unless Darwinists can explain
"altricial" births properly, Creationists can say Darwinism is
disproved on that basis alone.
I will have to admit Dawkins` brilliance. He has foisted evolution
into the forefront with arguments in his books that, on first
appearance, seen logical, even seem acceptable. But evolution is all
smoke and mirrors. It is nothing more then a dog and pony show.
Evolutionists are like those cute little seals blowing their cute
little horns that play Dawkin-Tunes on golden pond. But if you listen
to the song they are playing carefully you will notice it is out of
tune. It does not harmonize with the rest of Earth or with all of the
other processes on the earth. It does not even harmonize within
itself.
IOW evolution is not a natural theory. If forces the round pegs of
valid information into the square holes of disinformation.
The resolute determination with which you resist education would be
admirable, in a weird sort of way, if it weren't so pathological.
RLC- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
OK. Let's look at one of my "pathological" points. I claim that no one
really knows the unknown variables that were in play on the earth
millions of years ago. Therefore Darwin's claim that "Survival Of The
Fittest" is an outrageous and erroneous claim.
You actually have part of a point here. It's very difficult to show
selection happening in any individual case in the remote past. But that
point has nothing to do with whether natural selection is a tautology.
(It isn't). Nor does it have anything to do with whether evolution
actually happened in the remote past. (It did.)
And you mistake the claims of evolutionary biology. We generally don't
try to show selection happening in the remote past, only in the present.
We can infer long past selection only from DNA sequences, and only
statistically. And we can ask, if similar events have happened many
times, we can infer the factors correlated with those events. None of
this is what you think.
You can ask that but you have no way of showing it; No way to verify
it with tests.
Here you are wrong. You could do the concentrated changes test, or the
independent contrasts test, or any of a variety of others. There's quite
a sizeable literature on this, you know. Or, rather, you don't know.

Evolutionary science makes correlations from what can be observed
today with what you think may have happened in the past. Then an
inference that has to take place based on the available data to arrive
at your conclusions. But that does not necessarily mean you have all
available data. Which was my point.
If that was your point, you forgot to state it. And of course you have
all available data. That's what "available" means. You don't have all
possible data, which is perhaps what you thought you were saying. But
this is always true, no matter what the question. Evolution is no
different in this respect from any other science, or from everyday life.
And yet we do know some things.

Hypothetically, You may find a fossil that is 50 MYO and then another
that is 10 MYO and then, based on modern observations and DNA, infer
that the two are related. But your inference is based on very little
data considering the amount of time that has passed. In actuality you
have no idea what was taking place on a dynamic earth back then. To
make such a claim as "survival of the fittest", while an appealing
idea; is simply not reality.
I will first note that you have confused common descent with natural
selection. We don't have to know anything about natural selection to
reliably infer relationships. That paragraph is a non sequitur.

I have just shown you that the survival of the fittest notion can be
proved inaccurate because of "unknowns" that may have existed millions
of years ago like the swine flu.
You have shown nothing at all.

You need "survival of the fittest" because it is a key component of
Darwin's ToE.
No, we need natural selection because it explains lots of data, mostly
the real-time sort you claim to like.

You also need divergence. But there is no observations of that either..
Both are inferred on data that is incomplete and inconclusive. Couple
that with a dynamic earth and no one can say with any certainty what
happened millions of years ago.
That's your intellectual nihilism talking again. If you require complete
data, it's not just the past we don't know anything about. It's
everything. Because we have no complete data.

All you can do is "infer" and "correlate" as you have clearly stated
above,
Yes, and that's how everything operates. It's how science and life work.

Now, common sense would dictate the more data available to you the
stronger your correlations and inferences will be. Well, your data is
spread out over many millions of years; Some of it is incomplete
unless you have evidence of all the viruses from millions of years
ago.
I hardly call data spread out over millions of years strong evidence
for the type of evolution that would produce a human from a distant
ape-like creature via divergence and survival of the fittest. IOW the
corelations and inferences are interpretations based on weak
evidences.
Again you have confused natural selection with common descent. It is
indeed difficult to determine just what environmental factors were
responsible for the separate adaptations (or presumed adaptation)
possessed by humans and chimps. But it's easy to tell that they're close
relatives. You don't need to invoke natural selection to do the latter..





Today scientists tell us that the Swine Flu may kill those that are
healthy and younger before it kills the older and weaker. Not because
of a prior immunity but because the younger have a healthier immune
system that would set of a "storm" of inflammation in the lungs
causing a secondary disease.
Clearly that is a case of survival of the weakest by natural
selection; And, could be an example of an unknown that existed
millions of years ago which allowed the survival of the weakest
instead of survival of the fittest. Thereby effectivly destroying
Darwin's Survival Of The Fittest notion.
Again, you confuse what fitness means. Whatever gives an individual an
advantage is fitter in that circumstance than whatever doesn't.
Characters that increase fitness in one situation may indeed decrease it
in another.
So in the case of the swine flu the "fittest" is actually the weakest?
Now THAT is amusing. But I am not suprised.
The old and weak are now the ones selected fit to survive, but, the
old and the weak have less of a chance to reproduce.
Ain't it evolution that stresses those more able to reproduce are
generally the ones most fit to survive? Why yes! I think it is ToE
that said that.
Conclusion: The entire theory of evolution is a contradiction. It
becomes necessary to keep evolution in separate pieces so no one
notices the contradictions.
This is your willful ignorance talking. The contradiction is entirely in
your head. If your claim is correct about the swine flu, then as a
selective agent it acts contrary to most other selection. It's no
surprise to see that. Many selective agents are opposed, and evolution
is replete with tradeoffs. Your contradiction exists only if you persist
in thinking that "fit" means "strong". If you're strong and swine flu
kills you, you aren't all that fit, as dead people have little chance of
reproducing.

The first step toward correcting your ignorance would be admitting it.
heh... wow. You should get an award. 3 tricks in one sentence. No
wonder you are 'king-o-the-apes'
Evolutionist Trickery #216
"When you cannot answer simply claim it is THEM that does not
understand"
I did answer. That was extra advice.

Evolutionist Trickery #790b
"Hide your ignorance by claiming the other person is ignorant"
Do you really think you know more about the subject than I do?

Evolutionist Trickery #27
"Redefing words is necessary to understand evolution"
What ...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your arguments aways hinge on everyone being SO much dumber then you.
That is a sign of low self esteem pal.

Please don't confuse ignorance with stupidity, or you with everyone. One of my claims is that you (not everyone) are almost completely ignorant (not stupid) on the subjects you discuss here. And I think you provide abundant evidence of that claim.

First, No one said anything about who was "physically" the strongest.
But it should be common knowledge that the younger and stronger of the
species has a better chance of passing their genes on. For evolution
to work, it needs all the hope and chances there are. Crossing one's
fingers helps too. The younger and stronger is the best chance for
evolution to carry those susposed slight changes foward which in turn
allows a better chance for species survival.

You are woefully ignorant and confused. First, I would like to point out that youth is not a genetic characteristic and is not subject to selection. Second, you are talking as if evolution is a god whose wishes can be thwarted by that nasty swine flu. If there are genetic differences in the population that cause some individuals to be more resistant than others, that characteristic will, all else being equal, increase in frequency in the population. None of what you say is meaningful.

Next, we witness with the swine flu a chance for the YOUNGER and
stronger of
BOTH sexes to be killed off first.(if it were not for modern
medicine). The younger and stronger have a better chance at
reproduction if for no other reason they are younger and have more
years to reproduce.

Again, you seem to understand nothing about natural selection. Youth is not selectable.

If this type of virus was harsher and was world wide and happened two
hundred thousand years ago it would effectively killed off all of the
younger male and female of the entire species; which in turn would
severely limit the reproduction of the species. How can that be
misconstrued as the fittest surviving?

Why, because the misconstruction is all yours. Fitness isn't a property of species, but of individuals within populations. And it relates to genetic differences. So far you haven't considered any genetic differences at all. Had you noticed?

But that is not the point. You keep missing the point. The point is
there could have been any number of unknown variables in play on an
ancient and dynamic earth
that would impact the development of a species in ways that are
completely different then the ToE outlines.

That's an illusory point. How can you say anything of that sort when you have no idea what the ToE outlines?

Swine flu eludes to us an example of the most fittest not making it.
It has the potential to remove the youngest of both sexes thereby
leaving the least viable behind for reproduction.

Now, one could argue that natural selection chose the older of the
species to survive. If that is the case then NS was attempting a
distinction and not an evolution for species survival.

Natural selection attempts nothing. Stop personifying a simple, natural process. Natural selection chooses nothing. What you're talking about here isn't even natural selection, since it appears to involve no genetic differences.

Because in order for evolution to happen the best of the species gets
it's genes into the next generation, not the worse. The older of the
species is not generally considered to be the best prime target for
reproduction within a species if for no other reason because of
genetic damages that has accumulated over time.

Either was you look at it the "survival of the fittest" is yet another
Achilles heel for evolution.

Or perhaps you are looking at it wrong, because you have no idea what natural selection is. It's really hard not to base arguments on your ignorance, when your claims are based on ignorance.

That is strike 2

1) You need survival of the fittest to be true for evolution to be
true
2) You need divergence to be true for evolution to be true.

There is no observed evidence of divergence that can be witnessed
other then variation within the same "kind" of life. Now we see that
other unknown variables on an ancient and dynamic earth could impact
species survival that contradicts the ToE.

I hope I have shown, above, that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Revised Tautology FAQ - Thread-5
    ... Who is to say if a stronger species did not die out to allow survival ... He has foisted evolution ... point has nothing to do with whether natural selection is a tautology. ... misconstrued as the fittest surviving? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Natural selection is a false term - says Darwin in Origin Species
    ... language had any meaning at all. ... Chomsky says that natural selection can't explain where ... evolution for example are used so inter-changeably that nobody even ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Revised Tautology FAQ - Thread-5
    ... He has foisted evolution ... point has nothing to do with whether natural selection is a tautology. ... I will first note that you have confused common descent with natural selection. ... The entire theory of evolution is a contradiction. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Evolutionary Theory
    ... controlled random mutations and contingent selection ... Evolution and Natural Selection. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • OT Mutation and Selection - was - Come on people...
    ... ::: I'm sure you are aware that all of us carry many mutations. ... :: Evolution doesn't have a direction, ... :: surviving long enough to produce progeny. ... selection is a very blunt tool that works slowly ...
    (uk.rec.humour)