Wikipedia:

In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. The genes that are passed on to an organism's offspring produce the inherited traits that are the basis of evolution. Mutations in genes can produce new or altered traits in individuals, resulting in the appearance of heritable differences between organisms, but new traits also come from the transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. In species that reproduce sexually, new combinations of genes are produced by genetic recombination, which can increase the variation in traits between organisms. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population.

There are two major mechanisms driving evolution. The first is natural selection, which is a process causing heritable traits that are helpful for survival and reproduction to become more common in a population, and harmful traits to become more rare. This occurs because individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to reproduce successfully, so that more individuals in the next generation inherit these traits. Over many generations, adaptations occur through a combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural selection of those variants best-suited for their environment. In contrast, genetic drift produces random changes in the frequency of traits in a population. Genetic drift results from the role chance plays in whether a given individual will survive and reproduce. Though the changes produced in any one generation by drift and selection are small, differences accumulate with each subsequent generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the organisms.

When you loook at:
natural selection, which is a process causing heritable traits that are helpful for survival and reproduction become more common in a population, and harmful traits to become more rare
It says that natural selection cause helpful traits (defined as the one who help for reproduction and survival) to survive :P

It is a tautology
So it is true but it is not helpful at all

It would be tautological if the only content of the theory of evolution was that "The fittest survive" and "The fittest are defined to be those who survive".

However, the definition of "fitness" is not simply "those which survive must have been 'fit' and those which didn't weren't". Rather, "fitness" is defined by the environment in which organisms live and interact.

Natural selection says that those organisms that are better adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce than those who are not so well adapted. Notice that this is a prediction, and not something that is determined after the fact by looking at which creatures survived and which did not.

Hmm I think fitness is defined by reproductive fitness. Those who reproduce can survive.

Dinosaurs had no trouble with reproduction but they could not adapt to massive environmental changes.

However, the definition of "fitness" is not simply "those which survive must have been 'fit' and those which didn't weren't". Rather, "fitness" is defined by the environment in which organisms live and interact.

Natural selection says that those organisms that are better adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce than those who are not so well adapted. Notice that this is a prediction, and not something that is determined after the fact by looking at which creatures survived and which did not.

It is still a tautology because environment is present in the definition of both fitness and the one who survived.

What is the meaning of "organisms which are adatped to their environment"
except that "they are more likely to survive and reproduce in this environement"

It is really a tautology, the conclusion/prediction "organisms are more likely to survive and reproduce in this environment" is included in the statement: "organisms are adatped to their environment"

Else what would be the meaning of being adapted to an environment?

It is really a tautology, the conclusion/prediction "organisms are more likely to survive and reproduce in this environment" is included in the statement: "organisms are adatped to their environment" The role of time is different.

Evolutionary theory does not say "these organisms are more likely to survive and reproduce, therefore they are better adapted ", or vice versa. That would be projecting into the future. The future is unknown. We don't know if the beings we see are well adapted to next year's world, regardless of their current reproductive advantages.

Evolutionary theory explains the present in terms of the past, not the future in terms of the present. Although it can be used to project or predict a little, it's the origin rather than the fate of species that is its subject.

Evolutionary theory explains the present in terms of the past, not the future in terms of the present. Although it can be used to project or predict a little, it's the origin rather than the fate of species that is its subject.

Why you talk about time, the tautology is atemporal. it works in both sense.

Let's see:

To say that "organisms are adatped to their environment" (present) is to say that "they are more likely to survive and reproduce in this environement" (future)

To say "organism survived and reproduced" (present) is to say that "they were more adapted to their environment" (past)

You see, both are tautologies

Not all those that survive are equally fit. There is a variable degree of fitness due to the variations within the genome. One may reproduce, but the offspring may be fewer and weaker, and thus not fit so well to the current environment. But the environment could undergo change which makes the less fit organisms flourish. In the long term this guides the adaptations that become more common.

Consider this:
I have two bacteria, a blue and a green culture. The green contains a gene which can neutralize certain Penicillin. The blue does not.
I place these 2 cultures into the same environment (some Petri dish with a soy mixture)
I notice that each type makes up 50% of the total culture.

I now add the aforementioned penicillin to the environment and come back a week later. If I apply the law of natural selection, would I expect culture blue or green to be dominant?
Green; and since I have been able to make a prediction, it is not a tautology.

Feel free to experiment.
-Andrew

Hmm I think fitness is defined by reproductive fitness. Those who reproduce can survive.

You have already gone down that road on another thread. The dinosaurs reproduced as did many animals which have become extinct. You have been given a correct answer ; try and understand it because what you think is irrelevant owing to your woeful lack of understanding of evolutionary theory.

The fundamental notion of evolution is tautological in a way- the same way that "I think, therefore I am" is tautological.

This kind of tautology is really an obvious truth.
The notion that "forms which reliably reproduce themselves are likely to persist" is just as obviously true as "I think, therefore I am."

The fundamental notion of evolution is tautological in a way- the same way that "I think, therefore I am" is tautological.

This kind of tautology is really an obvious truth.
The notion that "forms which reliably reproduce themselves are likely to persist" is just as obviously true as "I think, therefore I am."

Right


and since I have been able to make a prediction, it is not a tautology.
-Andrew

It is still a tautology, it is self evident
The prediction arise from the fact that you know the tautology which is self evident AND the fact that you know that "the green bacteria contains a gene which can neutralize certain Penicillin."

Be careful to be aware of your premises before concluding

Of course, being tautological (in the stated sense) doesn't mean it isn't useful.

On the contrary, this particular truth has very powerful consequences, and a profound impact on our understanding of the world.

Although I called it an "obvious truth" earlier, you shouldn't forget that this "obvious truth" and its implications for the development of complex forms from simpler forms was not recognized before Darwin.

So we agree now, theory of evolution is a tautology :)

right it help to see the world in special manner

The consequence a you said has a profound aspect on our view of the world but it is also why people find it very dangerous because it is a ideology that as any tautology in mathematics coudl be replaced by another tautology.

a tautology is a view of the world, not the world.

Another tautology: god created the species (god= creator, species = creation )

So we agree now, theory of evolution is a tautology
No. A fundamental idea of the theory of evolution is (in a way) a tautology. More correctly, it's an obvious truth.
Obviously, not all obvious truths have the same meaning - you can't generally substitute one for another in any meaningful way.

Descarte's "I think, therefore I am" is a tautology (with obviously different meaning to "forms which reliably reproduce are likely to persist"). His "Discourse on Method" is not.

Another tautology: god created the species (god= creator, species = creation )

That's not a tautology unless you arbitrarily change the meaning of words (a useless exercise). Here's a useless tautology for you:

The cause of life on Earth is what caused life on Earth.

You might be tempted to substitute some other word for "The cause of life" (eg "god", "evolution", "aliens", "abiogenesis from RNAP"). But if you do so, then the sentence is no longer a tautology - "the cause of life" is given non-tautologous attributes.

To say that "organisms are adatped to their environment" (present) is to say that "they are more likely to survive and reproduce in this environement" (future)

To say "organism survived and reproduced" (present) is to say that "they were more adapted to their environment" (past)

You see, both are tautologies You seem to be defining the word "adapted", rather than describing a tautology. Others would define it differently - pointing out that sexual selection, for example, often gives evolutionary advantage to non-adaptive traits.

No. A fundamental idea of the theory of evolution is (in a way) a tautology. More correctly, it's an obvious truth.
Obviously, not all obvious truths have the same meaning - you can't generally substitute one for another in any meaningful way.

Descarte's "I think, therefore I am" is a tautology (with obviously different meaning to "forms which reliably reproduce are likely to persist"). His "Discourse on Method" is not.

More correctly?
Tautologies of course are obvious truth, this statement is itself a tautology :D

I never say they have the same meaning, that was in fact my point, that two tautologies result in different conceptual world.

The point is that because it is a tautology it should not be considered as giving us information about the reality, it is only a view of reality like saying that god created the universe, nobody can deny this if god is defined as creator.

"forms which reliably reproduce are likely to persist" : the linking verb "are" is not denyable
but it is so obvious that it does not help
The only thing that is not obvious is that forms are said to reproduce as well as to fail to reproduce. (something that everybody knew before)

That's not a tautology unless you arbitrarily change the meaning of words (a useless exercise). Here's a useless tautology for you:

The cause of life on Earth is what caused life on Earth.

You might be tempted to substitute some other word for "The cause of life" (eg "god", "evolution", "aliens", "abiogenesis from RNAP"). But if you do so, then the sentence is no longer a tautology - "the cause of life" is given non-tautologous attributes.

look:
"forms which reliably reproduce are likely to persist"
and
"The cause of life on Earth is what caused life on Earth."

both do not give any information. evrything is included in the premise,

true, meanign differ, one is talking about the existence of a cause of life on earth while the other is talking about the fact that forms reproduce with uncertainty
that's it!

Consideration of that obvious truth opened up some very productive lines of thinking that led to testable hypotheses about life on Earth.
Have you read On the Origin of Species (http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/)

Consideration of that obvious truth opened up some very productive lines of thinking that led to testable hypotheses about life on Earth.

I have to recognize that my openning post was too provocative (it was done in purpose):
"It is a tautology
So it is true but it is not helpful at all"

But my point was that the theoory of evolution should not be stated as a fundamental aspect of the universe that answer everything about life and the origin of species, it is only an obvious truth, a tautology (for using a more provocative word) that brings a particular point of view.


Have you read On the Origin of Species (http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/)?

No, I did not read it, but it is one of many books that I would probably enjoy to look at it, whenever it will happen.

So you say that the theory of Evolution is an obvious truth (it's not... only one of its fundamental ideas is), and then you imply that this makes it meaningless?

But my point was that the theory of evolution should not be stated as a fundamental aspect of the universe that answer everything about life and the origin of species


The only thing that it DOES do is provide answers on the origin of species - but other than that you have a point - accepting the evidence that supports the ToE does not prescribe nor preclude beleif in pretty much anything else - so why does it cause so many people's brains to go into meltdown?

The question was posed to me: "why is this thread it the Religion subforum?"

I pondered it and realized that there is no religion being discussed but nor is the thread scientific enough to move to Biology -indeed, the OP is anti-scientific. Nor is moving it to pseudoscience sufficient, since it might give the impression to the less educated that there is some agreement to the idea that "evolution isn't science."

That leaves only one alternative.

Philosophy then, since we're discussing tautologies?

True. Maybe a SuperMod/Admin with entitlements to the Cesspool could move there?

I am sad of your decision, I am not at all against theory of evolution as such (i said it is a tautology, in other words an obvious truth)
I was against the current idea that theory of evolution is a fundamental truth ABOUT REALITY because many other tautology exist which gives different views. I repeat , I never say it is meaning less !
it is true I make a mistake to put it on the religion forum but I just wanted to create a thread, I was at this time in the religion forum (sorry for the mistake).
That should probably be put in biology because it is about the theory of evolution, I think it is important than people understand that it is a tautology, especially biologists (many people still deny it, as you can see at the beginning of the thread) Please be open, we reached a conclusion, Pete agreed that it was a tautology, why putting in it in a garbage forum, It is unfair. especially because you did not wait for my defense.

I would like to complain: who is the guy who move the thread ?

Does the thread really disturb you?
If you think there is no forum to put it, don't you think that there is a need for another forum where we can express some free idea (if really you think it cannot put anywhere).
How can you discard a thread that at least give one information: theory of evolution is a tautology.

Thank you to rethink your decision.

It's not a tautology, hence the classification of this thread as nothing more than intellectual flotsam. If it were so obvious, someone would have thought of it before Darwin.

spidergoat: do you know that in mathematics solving an equation is to find the tautology ?
It does not make the task easy

Ok, but to return to a simple example: just as it's a mistake to assume that a swinging weight is moving in a straight line, or the distance between two points is a straight line, it's a mistake to assume that a theory of the evolution, of systems with "live agents" - that interact in ways wholly different to the ways atoms and molecules in a gas or a solid do - doing the evolving, is a matter of straight lines. Simple, really.

Vkothii,
right ;)
... and?
straigt line or not, it is still a tautology,

Why admin/moderator do not move it to another place that the garbage ?
In fact, if it is not moved, I will consider to look more often in the garbage, I forgot that it is so common that people throw valuable things in the garbage.

I just hope it is not the case here in this "scientific" forum

Admin/moderator, are you listenning?

The tautology argument is crap. Both sides of the equation are not equal. There is no "fittest", there are degrees of fitness.

The tautology argument is crap. Both sides of the equation are not equal. There is no "fittest", there are degrees of fitness.

degrees of fitness is also implicated by the fact that reproduction of forms come also in degree.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html

Interesting it is something that is in debate (Popper...)
It should not been put in the garbage

The article itself is not enough to reject theory of evolution as s tautology


those that could be expected to survive because of their adaptations and functional efficiency, when compared to others in the population. This is not a tautology, or, if it is, then so is the Newtonian equation F=ma


They agree finally ;)
Newtonian equation while a tautology is now replaced by quantum mechanics and theory of relativity :)

As as said, a tautology even if being true does not imply that it is about reality: it is a view of reality.

My point is now clear: Theory of evolution should not be considered as sacro-saint theory


The current understanding of fitness is dispositional. That is to say, fitness is a disposition of a trait to reproduce better than competitors. It is not deterministic

again a tautology (it does not need to be deterministic to be a tautology)


The paper is far from being conclusive.

Spidergoat, did you read it?

Newtonian equation while a tautology is now replaced by quantum mechanics and theory of relativity
Well, your definition of "tautology" may not square with the understanding by other people (like me) of what one is.
I've noticed that varying definitions seem to be the thing these days, so, what the hey?

So, you appear to conclude that Newton's F=ma is one of these tautology things? Not sure I'd agree (or that too many others would), because it's a discovered relation between force and mass; a ratio, not a prescription or description.
After all, what the hell is mass? How can the ratio of a mass (whatever "a mass" is) to its acceleration be a tautology? Inertia is tautological..?

the force is defined as F=ma : so it is a tautology
simple

the force is defined as F=ma : so it is a tautology
simple

So was the fact that force is the product of mass and acceleration a tautology before the relationship was discovered ?

Further, the fact that we can quantify force in the above way is not, as you claim, a tautology. Prove it !

Something that tautologises F = ma might be: "work requires energy to be transmitted as a force, over time".

Work is an integral of energy "lost" or "extracted" i.e. a change in energy, apparent as a force that "pushes" something towards and away from an "equilibrium" or ground state.

E = mc^2 isn't a tautology, it's an equivalence (another relation), and an equivalence (like F = ma) just isn't tautological.

Exactly. Ronan is so anxious to make his point that he has overlooked the fact that a tautology provides no new information, e.g., a square has four sides. F=ma does provide new information.

F=ma is a tautology because F is defined as F=ma
It is not difficult
A tautology is not bad :)
It is just that we cannot say that it is about reality
F=ma is not real, it is a creation of the human mind where he believe that it describe reality (an assumption disproved now for the case of classical physics)

if you define F as being equal to ma, then it follows that it is equal to ma

information is afterward, it is when you USE the tautology to predict
but you can use different tautologies (other mathematic equation)

Further, the fact that we can quantify force in the above way is not, as you claim, a tautology. Prove it !

It is not "the fact that we can quantify force in the above way" that is a tautology

it is simply as I said F=ma that is a tautology because it is defined this way , so simple that probably you have difficulties to see it

it is simply as I said F=ma that is a tautology because it is defined this way But you're the one with the "difficulty", I'm afraid.

Since F = ma is not, per se, information, but a way to define what the three things in the equation are (in terms of each other), it's thus only a relationship - it doesn't reveal anything more about "what" mass, or acceleration, or a force are.
Work is however, tautological, because work is "due to the application" of force. Work is something you "get" from a force, or an accelerating mass (they're equivalent).

Perhaps you should look up the word: "tautology" in a thesaurus...?

But you're the one with the "difficulty", I'm afraid.

Since F = ma is not, per se, information, but a way to define what the three things in the equation are (in terms of each other), it's thus only a relationship - it doesn't reveal anything more about "what" mass, or acceleration, or a force are.
Work is however, tautological, because work is "due to the application" of force. Work is something you "get" from a force, or an accelerating mass (they're equivalent).

Perhaps you should look up the word: "tautology" in a thesaurus...?

Tautology is a statement where the predicate (=ma) is included in the subject (F)

Oh dear.

Oh dear.
give me your definition of tautology instead of justing losing your time by posting such kind of post.

[QUOTE=ronan;1858747]Interesting it is something that is in debate (Popper...)
It should not been put in the garbage

The article itself is not enough to reject theory of evolution as s tautology



They agree finally ;)
Newtonian equation while a tautology is now replaced by quantum mechanics and theory of relativity :)

As as said, a tautology even if being true does not imply that it is about reality: it is a view of reality.

My point is now clear: Theory of evolution should not be considered as sacro-saint theory

again a tautology (it does not need to be deterministic to be a tautology)


The paper is far from being conclusive.

Spidergoat, did you read it?

Your point could have been made a long time ago ,and less tortously, if you had simply said that our senses interpret reality.

[QUOTE=ronan;1858747]Interesting it is something that is in debate (Popper...)
It should not been put in the garbage

The article itself is not enough to reject theory of evolution as s tautology



They agree finally ;)
Newtonian equation while a tautology is now replaced by quantum mechanics and theory of relativity :)

As as said, a tautology even if being true does not imply that it is about reality: it is a view of reality.

My point is now clear: Theory of evolution should not be considered as sacro-saint theory

again a tautology (it does not need to be deterministic to be a tautology)


The paper is far from being conclusive.

Spidergoat, did you read it?

Your point could have been made a long time ago ,and less tortously, if you had simply said that our senses interpret reality.
Right, but the fact that evolution theory is a tautology make the claim in another way, That was my point, it was why I created the post.

[QUOTE=Myles;1861865]
Right, but the fact that evolution theory is a tautology make the claim in another way, That was my point, it was why I created the post.

But why single out evolution ? I suspect you have an agenda. Are you a Creationist ?

[QUOTE=ronan;1862456]

But why single out evolution ? I suspect you have an agenda. Are you a Creationist ?

I don't even know what being a creationism would mean?
I can answer your question if you describe me what it is to be a creationist

I just wanted to make people aware of the fact that theory of evolution is a tautology.

[QUOTE=Myles;1862845]

I don't even know what being a creationism would mean?
I can answer your question if you describe me what it is to be a creationist

I just wanted to make people aware of the fact that theory of evolution is a tautology.

And what was your reson for doing so ?

To recall a point that some people ignore

To recall a point that some people ignore

So what ?

If you read the thread you will noticed that some people (including you) did not know it was a tautology,

SO it is important to recall (at least in this forum)

And interestingly, this thread is still in the garbage, I feel like I should put it again on another topic but it won't probably accepted if it come from the guy we put it in the first place

SO maybe you can do it for me ? :)

If you read the thread you will noticed that some people (including you) did not know it was a tautology,

SO it is important to recall (at least in this forum)

And interestingly, this thread is still in the garbage, I feel like I should put it again on another topic but it won't probably accepted if it come from the guy we put it in the first place

SO maybe you can do it for me ? :)

I repeat, so what ?

If you read the thread you will noticed that some people (including you) did not know it was a tautology,

SO it is important to recall (at least in this forum)

And interestingly, this thread is still in the garbage, I feel like I should put it again on another topic but it won't probably accepted if it come from the guy we put it in the first place

SO maybe you can do it for me ? :)

And you don't know the fact that the Theory of Evolution isn't.

We have thus provided two answers to the tautology objection (http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/tautology.html). The first is that its central premise, that there are no criteria of fitness independent of survival, is false. The second is that natural selection is not applied in practice in the simplistic way the phrase “Survival of the fittest,” suggests. Instead, scientists use selection based reasoning to develop specific, testable hypotheses about the organisms under investigation.

And you don't know the fact that the Theory of Evolution isn't.

We have thus provided two answers to the tautology objection (http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/tautology.html). The first is that its central premise, that there are no criteria of fitness independent of survival, is false. The second is that natural selection is not applied in practice in the simplistic way the phrase “Survival of the fittest,” suggests. Instead, scientists use selection based reasoning to develop specific, testable hypotheses about the organisms under investigation.

The text even if it in some way say that it refutes the fact that theory of evolution is a tautology, it does not.

The text's point is that we can get information from the tautology. I never denied that.
It is like F=ma: it is also a tautology but it gives us information about future or past when we USE it!

let's look at that:
Let us imagine that we have perfect information about the environment in which a population of organisms finds itself. Let us further suppose that we are aware of the full range of extant heritable variation within the population. In those circumstances we could make some definite statements about the future evolution of that population. A group of scientists could examine that information and come to a consensus about which members of the population were the fittest. Plainly there are criteria for fitness independent of mere survival.

It cannot be a argument against the fact that it is a tautology, it is in fact a argument for, listen:
it is because they know everything that they now who will be likely to survive and thus who is the fittest.

To say that some organisms are the fittest in other words is to say they are likely to survive and scientist in this case know that they are likely to survive because we assume that they know everything.

what would be the meaning of fittest otherwise?, answer me that please !

then:

We have thus provided two answers to the tautology objection. The first is that its central premise, that there are no criteria of fitness independent of survival, is false. The second is that natural selection is not applied in practice in the simplistic way the phrase “Survival of the fittest,” suggests. Instead, scientists use selection based reasoning to develop specific, testable hypotheses about the organisms under investigation.

First, in my case it is not an objection to anything , I don't know what the others guys under attack in the text was saying (a creationist view?).
For me I just said that evolution theory is a tautology and as such should not be put a a sacro saint theory. F=ma, even if it still used today is no more perfect for predicting some other phenomena.
Similarly we should expect another theory that won't contradict completely the theory of evolution but a one that could give an other view of nature (and give new prediction not available by the theory of evolution). Maybe we won't find it soon, or maybe never but we should be open to new ideas at least; and recognize that the theory of evolution is one tautology among others (I agree it gives many good predictions but my point was never against that)!

Now I would like to know the fitness criteria which are completely independent of survival (please note that the adverb "completely" is important because as I said the tautology is still there if we give uncertainties to both the survival and the fitness)

to resume,

your first point has to be clarified, the text do not give example of a completely survival independent criteria of fitness (it is in fact impossible because to judge what is fittest is finally to say that regarding the environment, this or that feature is good to survive or to reproduce)
remember to answer my question: what would be the meaning of fittest if it is not about survival?

the second point was not under attack, I know that science USE the theory of evolution for making prediction as a physicist USE F=ma to make prediction

I repeat, so what ?

You know the question "so what?" can be asked infinitely, I would like to know what are you expecting?

You seem to be upset, why you did not answer my question?
Now that you realize that the theory of evolution is a tautology, Why don't you want to put the thread back to another forum that the garbage?

You know the question "so what?" can be asked infinitely, I would like to know what are you expecting?

You seem to be upset, why you did not answer my question?
Now that you realize that the theory of evolution is a tautology, Why don't you want to put the thread back to another forum that the garbage?

You have not shown it to be a tautology, as has already been pointed out. Adios.

what would be the meaning of fittest if it is not about survival?

Altruism. The tendency to give up one's life for those that share your genes. How about an ant that serves as a bridge, or a bee that dies to protect the colony?

what would be the meaning of fittest if it is not about survival?

Altruism. The tendency to give up one's life for those that share your genes. How about an ant that serves as a bridge, or a bee that dies to protect the colony?

altruism is in evolutionary term able to make some gene survive (at species level) because species that have altruism are better equiped to the one who does not.
So it is about survival of the gene in question :)