Intelligent design redux
- Thread starter Pinball1970
- Start date
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
The dinosaur fossils were put there by Satan to tempt the humans into disbelief.
Almost as big a stretch as virgin birth.
Almost as big a stretch as virgin birth.
axocanth
Registered Senior Member
There's only one way to find out: state it for examination.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
This gets tricky,
I hope that I can make sense of my own thoughts, while staying more or less on topic.
Tautology seems to have definitions in three different disciplines: Language, Logic (Math), Philosophy
Tautology (language)
en.wikipedia.org
Tautology as a semantic concept.
math.stackexchange.com
What is the difference between circular reasoning and tautology?
philosophy.stackexchange.com
It occurs to me that when a tautology does not apply to just a single instance, but to all possible dynamical processes, it becomes a self-evident axiom and AFAIK nobody calls an axiom, "meaningless".
It becomes an example of many different self-organized patterns that have evolved different forms of durability (survivability) under external pressures, each pattern sufficiently durable for survival.
Note that evolved patterns do not necessarily replace older patterns if that original pattern is sufficient to meet an external demand. This is what is responsible for variety within species in the same environment.
We need only look at the number of fish species (~20,000), more or less evolved, that share the same ocean, or the number of surface-dwelling species (~8,000,000), more or less evolved that share the same troposphere.
The only time one species actually dominates an environment and kills all other inhabitants are "invasive species", like humans. And it is not because we are super-adapted to the environment, but we can create our own environment, usually replacing the native population.
Except for insects, that can adapt to everything we can do to the environment. Their gene pool is inexhaustible and eventually, they will compete with humans for the earth itself. (Hellstrom)
I hope that I can make sense of my own thoughts, while staying more or less on topic.
Tautology seems to have definitions in three different disciplines: Language, Logic (Math), Philosophy
Tautology (language)
Tautology (language) - Wikipedia
Tautology as a semantic concept.
Tautology as a syntactic concept.
Is "tautology" a syntactical notion?
I was reading Jerome Keisler's Model Theory and I have found the following characterization of tautology. He first defines what makes a formula valid and points out it could be very difficult to fi...
math.stackexchange.com
What is the difference between circular reasoning and tautology?
Difference between Tautology and Circular Reasoning
Often it is considered that a tautology is the same as a circular reasoning. However, in the Wikipedia entry of Tautology (language), it mentioned that circular reasoning and tautology are differ...
philosophy.stackexchange.com
It occurs to me that when a tautology does not apply to just a single instance, but to all possible dynamical processes, it becomes a self-evident axiom and AFAIK nobody calls an axiom, "meaningless".
It becomes an example of many different self-organized patterns that have evolved different forms of durability (survivability) under external pressures, each pattern sufficiently durable for survival.
Note that evolved patterns do not necessarily replace older patterns if that original pattern is sufficient to meet an external demand. This is what is responsible for variety within species in the same environment.
We need only look at the number of fish species (~20,000), more or less evolved, that share the same ocean, or the number of surface-dwelling species (~8,000,000), more or less evolved that share the same troposphere.
The only time one species actually dominates an environment and kills all other inhabitants are "invasive species", like humans. And it is not because we are super-adapted to the environment, but we can create our own environment, usually replacing the native population.
Except for insects, that can adapt to everything we can do to the environment. Their gene pool is inexhaustible and eventually, they will compete with humans for the earth itself. (Hellstrom)
Last edited:
axocanth
Registered Senior Member
@ Write4U and anyone else interested. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy constitutes a wonderfully informative and reliable source on any number of issues. Bookmark it! I quote below from its entry on fitness:
In a nutshell, then: If the theory of natural selection is to be a respectable, empirical scientific theory with all the attributes that we expect of a good theory (predictive power, explanatory power, etc.) then inter-related terms such as fitness, adaptation, etc. must be defined in such a way that they make no reference whatsoever to survival and reproductive success.
No one, to my knowledge at least, has ever been able to do this, and I have grave doubts that it can be done at all.
Until that day, assuming if it comes at all, the theory of natural selection -- deceptive appearances of being solid science to the contrary notwithstanding -- remains on a par quite literally with other tautologies such as "dogs are dogs", explaining nothing, predicting nothing, and serving no useful function whatsoever.
"But, but, it's so simple" Pinball protests "Even a child could understand it".
I respond: It's all so simple to convince yourself you have understood something when, in fact, you have understood nothing at all.
"But, but . . . " the protests continue "How could top rate scientists such as Charles Darwin and a thousand followers not be aware of this?" "It's just not possible that intelligent scientists galore failed to see that their theory amounts to an empty nothingness on a par with dogs are dogs. C'mon now! Who are you trying to kid?"
First of all, plenty of thinkers have been aware of the problem. Some, including philosophers and scientists themselves have offered solutions. None are satisfactory. The vast majority of scientists, I daresay, have just never even thought about it, or if they did, dismissed it as preposterous.
Second of all, some tautologies are more obvious than others. The empirical vacuity of "Dogs are dogs" is immediately apparent to all. It might take you a bit longer to see that "All ancestors produce offspring" is equally empty of empirical content. And it might take you a lifetime to recognize and understand the empirically vacuous truth of a complex mathematical proof -- Fermat's last theorem, say.
In a nutshell, then: If the theory of natural selection is to be a respectable, empirical scientific theory with all the attributes that we expect of a good theory (predictive power, explanatory power, etc.) then inter-related terms such as fitness, adaptation, etc. must be defined in such a way that they make no reference whatsoever to survival and reproductive success.
No one, to my knowledge at least, has ever been able to do this, and I have grave doubts that it can be done at all.
Until that day, assuming if it comes at all, the theory of natural selection -- deceptive appearances of being solid science to the contrary notwithstanding -- remains on a par quite literally with other tautologies such as "dogs are dogs", explaining nothing, predicting nothing, and serving no useful function whatsoever.
"But, but, it's so simple" Pinball protests "Even a child could understand it".
I respond: It's all so simple to convince yourself you have understood something when, in fact, you have understood nothing at all.
"But, but . . . " the protests continue "How could top rate scientists such as Charles Darwin and a thousand followers not be aware of this?" "It's just not possible that intelligent scientists galore failed to see that their theory amounts to an empty nothingness on a par with dogs are dogs. C'mon now! Who are you trying to kid?"
First of all, plenty of thinkers have been aware of the problem. Some, including philosophers and scientists themselves have offered solutions. None are satisfactory. The vast majority of scientists, I daresay, have just never even thought about it, or if they did, dismissed it as preposterous.
Second of all, some tautologies are more obvious than others. The empirical vacuity of "Dogs are dogs" is immediately apparent to all. It might take you a bit longer to see that "All ancestors produce offspring" is equally empty of empirical content. And it might take you a lifetime to recognize and understand the empirically vacuous truth of a complex mathematical proof -- Fermat's last theorem, say.
Last edited:
axocanth
Registered Senior Member
Yes, I agree, there are differing views on this. Everyone agrees (I think), for example, that "All unmarried men are unmarried" is a tautology. Opinions vary on "All bachelors are unmarried men". Some say it's a tautology, others demur.
With respect to our particular issue at hand, the confusion can be avoided by using the more inclusive term "analytic truth" -- something that is true solely in virtue of the meaning of the constituent terms themselves, i.e., no empirical inquiry (cf. science) is required to ascertain its truth.
I'm arguing that the principle/theory/law (or whatever) of natural selection is an analytic truth.
axocanth
Registered Senior Member
My response: A tautology is a statement, e.g. "All bachelors are unmarried men" (we shall assume this to be a tautology for now). Circular reasoning can only arise when you begin to reason, to make inferences, etc.
If I now proceed to argue or to reason that Mr Smith is a bachelor because he is unmarried, I stand guilty of circular reasoning. I'm arguing in a circle. I'm arguing, in essence, that his singleness is the cause of his singleness.
Likewise for "This organism survived and reproduced successfully because it is/was fit".
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
What if I say, "This organism survived and reproduced successfully because it is/was fitter than its siblings who died without reproducing ?
axocanth
Registered Senior Member
Well, if "fitness" is defined as "success in survival and reproduction", by substitution we get:
"This organism survived and reproduced successfully because it is/was more successful at survival and reproduction than its siblings who died without reproducing."
I trust the circularity is obvious. Any ideas how to escape it?
axocanth
Registered Senior Member
Since Pinball mentioned Jerry Coyne earlier, and I just happen to have his "Why Evolution is True" out from the library, I thought we might take a look at how he encapsulates the idea of natural selection (page 11).
Unlike Pinball who offered only "instances" (moths, etc.) of natural selection, Coyne obligingly offers us a general statement of the principle. Good lad, Jerry! Now let's break this down:
Speaking simplistically, then, let's say that in a given population there are two kinds of genes. One kind enhances an individual's chances of surviving and reproducing successfully. In other words, these genes have a better chance of making it into the next generation. The other kind of genes does the opposite.
Now comes the $64,000 question: Which kind of genes will have "relatively more copies" in the next generation?
Ans: The kind that is relatively likely to make it into the next generation.
"Helpful" mutations -- i.e. those more likely to survive and be reproduced (cf. spread) in subsequent generations -- spread through the population. Meanwhile, the "deleterious" genes -- i.e. those less likely to survive and be represented in subsequent generations (= more likely to be weeded out) -- do not survive and are not represented in subsequent generations (they are "weeded out").
And if that's not all one massive tautology, I'm a monkey's uncle.
Another way to look at all this is to ask yourself: Is there any way this could not be true? or Is there any way it could be otherwise?
Answers on a postcard, please!
Unlike Pinball who offered only "instances" (moths, etc.) of natural selection, Coyne obligingly offers us a general statement of the principle. Good lad, Jerry! Now let's break this down:
Speaking simplistically, then, let's say that in a given population there are two kinds of genes. One kind enhances an individual's chances of surviving and reproducing successfully. In other words, these genes have a better chance of making it into the next generation. The other kind of genes does the opposite.
Now comes the $64,000 question: Which kind of genes will have "relatively more copies" in the next generation?
Ans: The kind that is relatively likely to make it into the next generation.
"Helpful" mutations -- i.e. those more likely to survive and be reproduced (cf. spread) in subsequent generations -- spread through the population. Meanwhile, the "deleterious" genes -- i.e. those less likely to survive and be represented in subsequent generations (= more likely to be weeded out) -- do not survive and are not represented in subsequent generations (they are "weeded out").
And if that's not all one massive tautology, I'm a monkey's uncle.
Another way to look at all this is to ask yourself: Is there any way this could not be true? or Is there any way it could be otherwise?
Answers on a postcard, please!
axocanth
Registered Senior Member
P.S. How about the kind of thing we typically expect from science, Newton's inverse-square law, say?
Can we conceive of a universe where the inverse-square does not hold? Sure! Another universe might have an inverse-cube law, for example. The inverse-square law happens to be true (we shall assume - forget Einstein) in our universe, but it is not necessarily true.
But can you conceive of a universe where the less fit prevail (generally) over the more fit? Sure doesn't seem like it, any more than we can imagine a universe where triangles don't have three sides. Once again, the vacuity of natural selection is revealed: being true is good news for science; being necessarily true is not.
Now pick your own fave theory and put it to the test.
Can we conceive of a universe where the inverse-square does not hold? Sure! Another universe might have an inverse-cube law, for example. The inverse-square law happens to be true (we shall assume - forget Einstein) in our universe, but it is not necessarily true.
But can you conceive of a universe where the less fit prevail (generally) over the more fit? Sure doesn't seem like it, any more than we can imagine a universe where triangles don't have three sides. Once again, the vacuity of natural selection is revealed: being true is good news for science; being necessarily true is not.
Now pick your own fave theory and put it to the test.
Last edited:
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Stop lying and misrepresenting what I said.
I said "You have variety in species due to traits that can be passed onto the next generation.
Traits that are selected by nature.
You can stick in population sizes and limited resources if you want but if I was explaining this to a layman that is what I would say then give an example."
and " Traits were selected by the environment, we changed the environment but a climate change could do this just as well."
Then I said
"which part of variation in species and heritable traits that are selected by nature/the environment, that you do not understand?"
then I gave you examples of traits. "I gave you an example of a trait, large beak is another, longer leg, more subcutaneous fat, longer neck, sharper teeth. I want you to tell me which part of the description of natural selection I gave you does not explain the example I gave you."
and again
"Variation in species
Heritable traits
Traits selected by nature, natural selection."
Then I related each point to the peppered moth
"Variation in a species. Some moths dark some moths light, some in between.
Pigmentation is a trait.
This trait is heritable. Google "cortex gene."
The environment selects this trait, pre industry, industrial and post industry.
The population changes over time in response to the environment, nature."
Perhaps you needed me to spell out every single word?
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Perhaps you needed me to write the entire paragraph on page 11 that starts "The idea of natural selection is not hard to grasp..."
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
You are completely missing the point as usual. Natural selection shapes populations over time. Traits, features and species were not created specifically as "kinds," from divine creation events, they evolved. Why do you think there was such a back lash from the church? Why do you think Evolution is still not accepted by some religious groups?
That was the whole point of the thread, Creationism, then creation science and finally ID was an attempt to legitimise this religious genesis view of life on earth, masquerade as science and then sneak it into the class room. They failed in 1987 and 2005 trying to do this.
axocanth
Registered Senior Member
I repeatedly asked you to state the principle of natural selection in general form, and in particular which traits are selected. You never did, thus you never stated the general principle. The essential ingredient, indeed the root of the tautology, was omitted. Readers with nothing better to do may refer to our exchange at the bottom of page 70.
There was no lying or misrepresenting (on my part at least). At first I suspected deliberate evasion. It is now clear to me, however, that you simply do not understand the principle of natural selection -- that which you claim a child could grasp.
Last edited:
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
So you needed me to explain which traits? So did not understand that a white moth on a dark back ground would mean it would be picked off by predators? I gave you the ration 98:2, did you need that explaining? And you did not understand that when the environment cleaned up again the ratio reversed? Because now dark moths on a cleaner back ground would now stand out?
Therefore the cortex gene activity in one circumstance is good but bad in another?
What did you think I meant by "longer legs" "sharper teeth"?
So you do actually need every single word and concept explained to you? Right got it. I will bear that in mind going forward.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
It became very obvious right away that he is deliberately trolling. He does not argue in good faith.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Being fitter is not necessarily required to being more successful at reproduction. Sometimes it is proximity that wins the day.
Can you imagine that a Mayfly may be more than 10 miles from the female and has only 24 hrs to get to her or they both die.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
Survival of the fittest.
Survival of the fitter.
Survival of the fit.
And it continues going down hill from there.
...
Survival of the utterly unfit.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
As always, I imagine a passer by or younger person observing the conversation.
What is crazy about this thread is that there has hardly any science discussed regarding ID.
Behe's whole argument at the Dover trial was based on irreducible complexity. It was blown out of the water but that has not been discussed.