Natural selection, my ass (Page 16)

wellsmark76
(Post deleted by staff 3 years ago)
MJ59
MJ59:
3 years ago Report
0
theHating
3 years ago Report
0
wellsmark76
(Post deleted by staff 3 years ago)
theHating
3 years ago Report
0
theHating
theHating: I'd naturally select some of that

3 years ago Report
0
wellsmark76
(Post deleted by staff 3 years ago)
theHating
theHating: Today's Donkey News

3 years ago Report
1
theHating
3 years ago Report
0
wellsmark76
(Post deleted by staff 3 years ago)
MJ59
MJ59:
3 years ago Report
1
sensus fail
3 years ago Report
0
theHating
theHating: I like this one,

"Not being able to use natural selection to predict something that is stupidly complicated isnt 'predictive impotence.'"

So not only is it crap, but is able to tell you that you cant use it to predict anything?
3 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: Where did you get the quote above from, Mr Hating?

Seems what is being claimed is that natural selection enjoys some degree of predictive power (i.e, it is NOT predictively impotent), though inadequate to accurately predict something of the complexity of evolutionary trajectories.

To which I'd respond: The principle of natural selection--owing to its tautologous nature--enjoys precisely zero predictive power (except, of course, for the trivially vacuous -- "The fitter outdo the less fit" ). In other words, it IS predictively impotent.

Moreover, expecting something of the complexity of evolution to be captured (largely) in a trite one-liner is a little . . . shall we say, overly sanguine.
(Edited by AchillesSinatra)
3 years ago Report
0
theHating
theHating: I got this quote from someone on an evolution forum.

I'm still looking for a trite one-liner lol

Im about ready to concede it can't be done give up.

"Surely you aren't suggesting we need to define a universal fitness function that applies to all species in all ecologies? You understand that 1) such a universal function has nothing to do with the logical validity of natural selection (species 1 in environment A cares nothing that its factors of success are the same or different from those of species 2 in environment B... you can run fifty genetic algorithms with different fitness functions and they'll all work fine) and 2) if such a function existed then it would have been impossible for natural selection to have led to the diversity of life that exists today. All life would have converged on the same adaptation to match that universal fitness function."

Yes, where is this universal function/main process which unites all populations of stuff? Oh, if such a thing existed then the main process which unites them would have been impossible?

Errmmm.....
3 years ago Report
1
MJ59
MJ59: Evolution is crap!

SQUAWK!! I have spoken!


Now go to hell damn yas!
3 years ago Report
1
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: Mr Hating,

Your interlocutor in the quote above speaks of the "logical validity" of natural selection. In so doing -- apparently without realizing it -- he is effectively confirming all I've been saying in this thread.

That is, the principle of natural selection is indeed true, but it it a truth of language (or logic, if you prefer), which puts it in exactly the same boat as other truths of language/logic such as "Bachelors are unmarried men" and "Lemurs are lemurs".

To know the truth of such statements, no empirical investigation is necessary. All that is required is linguistic competence, and then to close your eyes and think. Tautologically/analytically true statements such as these have no predictive or explanatory power, thus would not normally be expected to have any place in empirical science.

These stand in contrast to synthetic statements such as "The speed of light is [enter speed here]" which DO have empirical content, thus are the kind of thing we expect to find in science.

You're not gonna learn the truth (or falsity) of "The speed of light is [enter speed here]" by closing your eyes and thinking about it!
3 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: @ TheHating

Re

" . . . if such a function existed then it would have been impossible for natural selection to have led to the diversity of life that exists today. All life would have converged on the same adaptation to match that universal fitness function." - your interlocutor

And your response:

"Yes, where is this universal function/main process which unites all populations of stuff? Oh, if such a thing existed then the main process which unites them would have been impossible?" - TheHating




Your interlocutor seems to be (partially) explaining away the predictive impotence of natural selection theory on the grounds that ecologies differ both synchronically (at the same time) and diachronically (through time). I.e., ecologies differ from place to place and from time to time.

What he says about ecologies differing is quite true, of course. On the other hand, if this is supposed to be a vindication for the predictive impotence of natural selection, then it's no vindication at all.

Supposing there were no ecological variations to consider, i.e. the environment was held fixed (in a very large laboratory, for example).

Natural selection STILL remains predictively impotent. Whatever organisms are contained within that huge environmentally-stable biosphere, the only thing natural selection theory can predict is that the fitter WILL or MIGHT (depending on your definition of fitness) outdo the less fit.

And this has been covered earlier in the thread.

If the fitter are defined as those who are more reproductively successful, then it is not possible -- AS A MATTER OF LOGIC/DEFINITION -- for the less fit to be more reproductively successful than the more fit. Those who survive and reproduce more successfully JUST ARE (by definition) the more fit.

If a "propensity interpretation" of fitness is adopted, on the other hand, then all that natural selection theory can tell us is that the more fit will TEND TO be more reproductively successful than the less fit.

To rephrase the latter case, those with a propensity (i.e., a tendency) to survive and reproduce successfully will TEND TO (though not always) do so more successfully than than those less fit.

See the prob? The logical loop remains.

As I've said a billion times, to break the circularity (i.e, the logical truth) of the principle of natural selection, "fitness" (= well-adaptedness) will have to be defined with no appeal to survival and reproductive success.

As I've also said, stated as a general principle (i.e. no mention of rabbits or lemurs), no one has ever done this.

Guess why? It can't be done.



Now, there's nothing wrong with a tautology per se. But a logically-true statement such as "Bachelors are unmarried men" and "The fitter/better-adapted survive and reproduce more successfully than those less so" is the kind of thing we might expect to find in a dictionary, where merely the meanings of words are explained; not hailed as a great scientific discovery.

And next time you hear someone say "The principle of natural selection is highly confirmed", tell him the statement "Bachelors are unmarried men" is also highly confirmed.

(In case the final part is not clear to anyone, statements which are true in virtue of the meaning of their component terms DO NOT REQUIRE empirical confirmation).


By analogy, next time you hear a scientist say "The Irish elk died out because it was maladapted", tell him "Peter is a bachelor because he is not married".

Both statements have precisely the same predictive and explanatory value: none!


(Edited by AchillesSinatra)
3 years ago Report
0
Corwin
Corwin: Hmmm... I might naturally select Achilles' ass... what are the other choices?

Would this be a matter of "survival of the fist"? (_!_)

3 years ago Report
1
MJ59
MJ59: Stop makin an ass of yerself!
3 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: What the elk?
3 years ago Report
0
MJ59
MJ59: Oh deer!!
3 years ago Report
0
theHating
theHating: "By analogy, next time you hear a scientist say "The Irish elk died out because it was mal-adapted", tell him "Peter is a bachelor because he is not married"."

Nice..

You're the best, Achilles :beerbeerbeerbeerbeerbeer:
3 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: Trained by the bescht -- British Intelligensch
3 years ago Report
0
theHating
theHating: Lmao
3 years ago Report
0