Brings to mind the short story "The Last Neanderthal" by Loren Eisley.

I thought neanderthals were a unique species.

There's no such thing.

oj-

Just kidding. But if they interbred, which always seemed likely to me, and developed into how we look today, what happens to the 'fitness' paradigm?

yes, there's nothing left of the fitness paradigm.

Garbage. The Designer simply waved his wand and "pfftt!" snuffed them out?

Why isn't this in school curricula? It's a Theory, too.

Question mark??

D'oh!

Ben Lange, what does "Theory" mean to you once you capitalize it?

"yes, there's nothing left of the fitness paradigm."

Only all the living things you see around you...

creeper:

all the living things you see around you...

That's why Theory needs to be capitalized.

Orrin,

What does 'Theory' mean to you once you capitalize it?

Tom C.,

"But if they interbred, which always seemed likely to me, and developed into how we look today, what happens to the 'fitness' paradigm?"

It's likely that they interpred at some points. To what extent this happened and to what extent it led to how we look today is another question. As to how it impacts the 'fitness' paradigm... well we don't look like Neanderthals so much these days, and we've made significantly more room for cranial capacity. I'd say on that front we're more fit than a Neanderthal was 40,000 years ago.

creeper:

You have faith in a Theory, not comprehension of a theory.

"These characteristics could be explained by interbreeding, or seen as Neanderthal ancestry,"

That there was interbreeding is certain. Men, particullarly young men out on a military expedition will attempt to interbreed with any female they find.

OTOH, there is no evidence from DNA analysis that there are any ancestral lines of modern day men other than the one female and 3 male lines that came out of Africa 50 -- 70,000 years ago.

If there were neanderthals existing contemporaneously with men, then our ancestors killed them. When they tried to breed with the Neanderthal women, there were either no offspring, or they were mules.

Thanks for the definition, Orrin. It's helpful in a way. I take it you're aware of some of the other definitions of 'theory' that are out there.

Like it or not, the theory of evolution is accepted as a valid scientific theory and has far more evidence and research to back it up than either Creationism or Intelligent Design do. That's not to say that they can't catch up, just that they haven't, and it doesn't look like they're even bothered to try anytime soon.

Critics are welcome to point out the weaknesses of the theory of evolution whenever they wish. It should be possible to do so without resorting to obfuscation and obscurantism, both of which of course paint a dim picture of the quality of the critics' position.

No, the Theory is. You're welcome to it, everyone has to have one.

Robert:

Being the same species there wouldn't necessarily be much DNA difference.

creeper;

Well, actually, Neanderthals had a larger cranial capacity than modern humans. I don't think having less cranial capacity counts as having "made significantly more room for cranial capacity".

Then smaller cranial capacity is fitter!

But there is no "fitter." All there is is "a bunch of stuff happened."

"No, the Theory is."

No, the theory of evolution is (accepted as a valid scientific theory). You not liking that doesn't change it.

My bad on the Neanderthal cranial capacity; I had some of the other pre-historic variations in mind. Actually Orrin not so long ago had a post up about the theory that Neanderthals fell into decline for reasons related to how they organized their economy.

David,

A bunch of stuff happened, with a natural tendency over time to favor the fitter.

In order to have a test of fitness, it is first necessary to define the environment where such a test will take place.
There's no universal "fitter", although humans come close.

Michael:

Are you sure? Why don't you spend a couple of days naked in a forest without food or fire and then get back to us.

Uh, oh, I just realized I left myself wide open for the tale of how man evolved nimble fingers and a bigger brain so he could invent central heating.

In order to have a test it has to be set up and administered...

creeper:

Just restating your faith over anjd over again doesn't advance us any past the point where you face the question of why Darwinism is anything other than a faith.

Orrin,

since you like using the word "Darwinism" rather fluidly, I prefer to stick to the term "theory of evolution" or "modern theory of evolution", which from what I've seen is less prone to misunderstandings.

If you insist on seeing everything in religious terms, you're welcome to interpreting the theory of evolution as a faith. Where you go awry is when you claim it is just a faith, since this completely ignores the obvious fact that the theory of evolution is first and foremost a scientific theory (see here - http://wilstar.com/theories.htm - for an explanation of 'scientific theory') that continues to find overwhelming acceptance in the scientific community.

with a natural tendency over time to favor the fitter.

Ah, so it is all teleological.

But seriously folks ... It can't favor the "fitter" unless fitter means survivor. So, evolution is the study of a bunch of stuff happening resulting in the survival of the survivors.

Darwin came to a fork in the road, and took all three.

Time for a switch in tine

creeper;

Scientists are entitled to a faith too, but even Ernst Mayr dismissed the notion that it's science.

Orrin,

I've asked you before where you thought Mayr said such a thing. The quote you provided did not confirm your claim.

Orrin is afraid to acknowledge what Mayr did say. I tried to get him to before you arrived, creeper.

I'd deny it too were I you guys--damned inconvenient.

I'm happy to be persuaded that Mayr said it if only you could come up with a quote to back up your claim. The one you cited last time we discussed this failed utterly at that; in fact he confirmed within those very quotes that biology and evolutionary theory were [some kind of] sciences[, if not physical].

"Robert: Being the same species there wouldn't necessarily be much DNA difference."

You have assumed the conclusion. The question is wheter the Neaderthals are the same species. The test is whether the two populations could interbreed. The available evidence is that all lineages male and female in the modern population came out of a very small group that originated in Africa ~100-200,000 years ago and migrated out of Africa ~50-70,000 years ago.

They either displaced or exterminated the Neanderthals, but it is most unlikely that they did not try to interbreed. Men will have sex with sheep. Apparently there were no breeding survivors of those attempts.

Just to make it clear that these -

I'm happy to be persuaded that Mayr said it if only you could come up with a quote to back up your claim. The one you cited last time we discussed this failed utterly at that; in fact he confirmed within those very quotes that biology and evolutionary theory were [some kind of] sciences[, if not physical].

- were not my words, and were edited by Orrin.

What I had said was:

I'm happy to be persuaded that Mayr said it if only you could come up with a quote to back up your claim. The one you cited last time we discussed this failed utterly at that; in fact he confirmed within those very quotes that biology and evolutionary theory were in fact sciences.

(Emphasis mine in both cases.)

Mayr never claimed evolutionary biology was not a science[, just not a physical one,] and its special requirements[, like not being subject to experimentation or observation and] dealing by necessity in large parts with events in the part, do not change that.

In the last paragraph of my previous post, "in the part" should read "in the past".

"special requirements" teehee...

Teehee indeed. The special requirements of the theory of evolution are that out of necessity the theory in large part has to concern itself with events that lie millions of years in the past. Other hard sciences concern themselves with the here and now, and thus experiments can be concocted and executed at will.

While parts of the theory of evolution can be tested in the here and now - as relates to genetics, for example - others rely on the hypothetico-deductive method. Relying on this method does not flip something from being a science to being a faith.

David:

"But seriously folks ... It can't favor the "fitter" unless fitter means survivor. So, evolution is the study of a bunch of stuff happening resulting in the survival of the survivors....Darwin came to a fork in the road, and took all three."

You still don't get the whole teleology/non-teleology fitness thing?

Sorry, but, jeez...

It's a bit like watching the cleverest kid in school fail a simple test because he's been staring at it so long that he thinks it's difficult.

Baffling.

Brit:

Where'd you get the idea we think Darwinists are the brightest kids in the class? You guys don't even understand the inherent weakness of a tautology.

David:

Hint for the clever boys: if there was no aim from the outset, there's no teleology.

That's it. The rest is just flapping.

OJ:

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.........

There is an aim from the outset--everything around us. Darwinism is teleological.

creeper:

no observation, no experimentation, no science.

Darwinism say no aim.

ID say yes aim.

Dat de whole point.

brit:

Darwinism says it can explain how we got where we are--aim.

Brit:

So Darwinism is all random? Were the natural selection mutations any different from the random ones or do we just judge them so in hindsight?

Orrin here: "no observation, no experimentation, no science."

Orrin elsewhere: "Once you include them [observation and experimentation] it fails and is simple faith, not science."

The ability to have tea and no tea at the same time...

"Darwinism says it can explain how we got where we are--aim."

No, "aim" and "teleology" imply that someone had chosen where we would be right now from the outset.

That is a very different thing from looking from the vantage point of where we are right now and trying to figure out how we got here.

"So Darwinism is all random? Were the natural selection mutations any different from the random ones or do we just judge them so in hindsight?"

The mutations at each stage are random. The ones more effective at surviving and propagating do so. Whether we "judge them so" is irrelevant.

Great, so there is no such process as natural selection. It's just another way of saying "what survived, survived. What didn't, didn't."

creeper;

Yes, your argument that it's "special" is an attempt to avoid having it disproved by applying scientific standards.

There is no survival, just mutation.

creeper:

Yes, the theory has to account for where we are now. The end is chosen.

"Yes, your argument that it's "special" is an attempt to avoid having it disproved by applying scientific standards."

By which scientific standards is the theory of evolution disproven?

"There is no survival, just mutation."

If there were no survival, you wouldn't be here.

"Yes, the theory has to account for where we are now. The end is chosen."

And?

and that makes it teleological.

Who by your understanding is doing the choosing in your statement "The end is chosen"?

Reality

Mmkay...

And how does this thing called "Reality" make choices exactly?

It meant that Darwinism has no choices--everything had to happen this way.

Brit: I think that I owe you a thank you, so, "Thank you."

I do think that I get "teleology." Evolution wasn't designed to achieve a particular end, says Darwin, or, at least, the results we see don't require design to achieve a particular end. So if, as creeper says, it does have "a natural tendency over time to favor the fitter", that's just happenstance. But, of course, Darwinism was designed with the end of showing that the present state of evolution could have been achieved without teleology, giving us meta-teleology. QED.

But also, I take it, evolution, which does have a tendency over time to favor the fitter, is consistent with a theory that says that evolution was designed to have a tendency over time to favor the fitter, because now we not being just random but rather expect, caterus parebus, that creatures later in time will be more fit. So, now it is compatible with teleology.

But what can "fitter" mean? As we are the result of a series of random mutations that may or may not survive, depending upon the environment, "fitter" can only be judged by survival. I am alive and the dinosaurs are not, so I have survived and I am fitter. But if I had been alive at the time of the dinosaurs, it seems unlikely that I would have survived where a T. Rex, for example, couldn't. So, I'm not fitter, so now we have evidence that indicates that evolution does not have a tendancy towards greater fitness, so it may not be teleological after all.

So, you win: Darwinism is trivial, after all.

"It meant that Darwinism has no choices--everything had to happen this way."

How does that work as an answer to "how does this thing called "Reality" make choices exactly?"?

"It meant that Darwinism has no choices--everything had to happen this way."

Since we are in the present and the present is what it is, whatever happened in the past is what led us to this present and not some other present. I know that may seem blindingly obvious, but your comment makes me think this needs to be pointed out.

This does not mean that there were no choices involved in the past, merely that those choices did lead to this present.

Say for example we want to write the biography of a 50-year-old man with a wife, an ex-wife, three kids, a career etc. Our account of that man's life would feature choices he made throughout his life - having married this woman instead of that one, having had kids, having picked one job, failed, picked another job, etc. etc. Those are all choices that person made, and if he had made different choices, he would be in a different position today - he could be single, or in a better or worse job, or have less kids, or more, or stayed with his first wife or whatever.

We may puzzle over what influenced his choices and life events but as it is, his choices did result in who and where he is today, and there would be nothing wrong with looking to his current existence for clues. Our account of his life would not be invalidated because it actually does bring us to a description of who he is today - quite the contrary, actually.

[Editor's note: Observe the resort to Intelligent Design theory?]

Again, just to make it clear that these -

Mayr never claimed evolutionary biology was not a science[, just not a physical one,] and its special requirements[, like not being subject to experimentation or observation and] dealing by necessity in large parts with events in the part, do not change that.

- were not my words, and were edited by Orrin.

What I had said was:

Mayr never claimed evolutionary biology was not a science and its special requirements, dealing by necessity in large parts with events in the past, do not change that.

Mayr did not say that evolutionary biology was not a physical science.

I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise, Orrin, if you can come up with a quote to support your claim. The last quote you provided (in another post) failed to back up your claim and confirmed the opposite.

David,

"But also, I take it, evolution, which does have a tendency over time to favor the fitter, is consistent with a theory that says that evolution was designed to have a tendency over time to favor the fitter, because now we not being just random but rather expect, caterus parebus, that creatures later in time will be more fit. So, now it is compatible with teleology."

The theory of evolution appears to me at least to be compatible with a creator having set the process in motion at the outset. In that way it is compatible with teleology but does not necessitate it. What end such a creator would have had in mind and how such a creator would think he could achieve his purpose by pursuing such a path is for a theist to figure out, but one can accept the entire theory of evolution as it stands, with the addendum that it was God who kicked off the whole process.

Actually, it is possible that 38% of the American public holds this view, according to Gallup.

"I am alive and the dinosaurs are not, so I have survived and I am fitter. But if I had been alive at the time of the dinosaurs, it seems unlikely that I would have survived where a T. Rex, for example, couldn't. So, I'm not fitter, so now we have evidence that indicates that evolution does not have a tendancy towards greater fitness, so it may not be teleological after all."

Survival is entirely dependent on the environment the organism lives in. The dinosaurs were the fittest at one point in time, but when whatever killed the dinosaurs (meteor strike or whatever) came along, other organisms (early mammals) survived and, in this changed environment, were fitter than the dinosaurs. A similar scenario would be if we had a nuclear war and only certain insects survived. If the environment changes quickly and drastically, an organism that may be fit in a previous context may soon be toast.

Otherwise fit organisms succumbing to relatively sudden and catastrophic changes in the environment does not take away from the idea that organisms over long periods of time mutate and evolve according to survival pressures.

David:

Yes, everything you said in that last post is pretty much on the money.

There no such thing as absolute 'fitness'. Fitness is defined by whatever is consistent with survival in whatever the environment happens to be at any given time.

You can call it 'trivial' if you like. That's a compliment to Darwinism.

It's simple, and once you've grasped it, really very obvious.

Which is why it's only controversial amongst the scientifically illiterate and/or those who fear the implications for their religious beliefs.

Peter:

Non-teleology and randomness are separate concepts.

(The extent to which evolution is purely random is debated among Darwinists. That is, they disagree over the answer to the question "if you could go back in time and run evolution all over again, would life look like it does now by 2005?"

Some Darwinists say that it would look unrecognisably different, because of the sheer quantity of chance factors and variables in evolution. Others think that it would look similar. As I understand it, the prevailing opinion seems to be that you'd probably have a bunch of creatures with eyes, blood, limbs and sex, but you wouldn't necessarily have elephants, finches, roses...and you sure as hell wouldn't have Peter Burnet sitting at a computer.)

All of which is interesting, but beside the point I made above.

All Darwinists, whatever their opinion on 'randomness', agree that there is no reason to think that there was a conscious aim from the outset in evolution.

This makes Darwinism a 'non-teleological' theory. It is also why ID has been developed as a rival theory. ID, by contrast, claims that there IS reason to think there is a conscious aim (a design), behind or in evolution, to end up 'here'. That makes ID a 'teleological' theory.

That's a key factor in distinguishing the two. Otherwise what's the point of ID?

Quite why OJ wants to argue that Darwinism is teleological and also wrong, or how he thinks this can help him, I have no idea. Except that of all the confused, muddle-headed Darwin-bashers, Orrin is the mostest.

David:

Um, actually, not everything in your last post is on the money. Specfically, the last paragraph about fitness.

Fitness is not an attribute like 'strength', 'speed', 'big teeth' etc. Whatever is consistent with survival in the current environment, for whatver reason, we call 'fit'.

Brit:

Im not talking about teleology. I'm asking whether natural selection has any meaning.

Brit, I won't stick you with all the popular versions of Darwinism, but surely you would agree that even high priests like Dawkins and Mayr argue (or desperately want us to believe) that natural selection is a process, or a component of the modern synthesis. But if all mutations are random at the time they occur, and there is absolutely no imperative that would lead a certain mutation to occur in preference to any other , then all we are left with is the banal observation that some mutations survived and some didn't. This could be for slow natural reasons or dramatic natural ones like meteors and climate change or even designed ones like nuclear exposions. But really, who (or what gene) cares or responds? It isn't a process at all, just an after-the-fact observation of a hodge-podge of historical facts---and a very rough one as the observation can't take all the historical missed opportunities into account. Even the concept of fitness (survival) has to be stripped of any content, because where does the imperative to survive come from? Dawkins should have called his book: "The Selfish History".

Suely darwinism stands or falls on the idea that there is something or things impelling the mutation process, or some imperative that influences it, at least sometimes. If not, then its all ok by me, and very, very dull. And it makes even the most plausible just so stories completely meaningless. Speciation then becomes a mathematically wild conjecture.

I tend to agree with Orrin that ID is just another kind of darwinism where you wave a wand and replace natural selection with ID. Both of them end up mundane and extremely, extremely limited as explanations for existence and the human condition. Let's ban both from science classes.

Whatever is consistent with survival in the current environment, for whatver reason, we call 'fit'.

In other words, fitness doesn't mean anything.

Thus Mayr:

Darwin founded a new branch of life science, evolutionary biology. Four of his contributions to evolutionary biology are especially important, as they held considerable sway beyond that discipline. The first is the non-constancy of species, or the modern conception of evolution itself. The second is the notion of branching evolution, implying the common descent of all species of living things on earth from a single unique origin. Up until 1859, all evolutionary proposals, such as that of naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, instead endorsed linear evolution, a teleological march toward greater perfection that had been in vogue since Aristotle's concept of Scala Naturae, the chain of being. Darwin further noted that evolution must be gradual, with no major breaks or discontinuities. Finally, he reasoned that the mechanism of evolution was natural selection.

These four insights served as the foundation for Darwin's founding of a new branch of the philosophy of science, a philosophy of biology. Despite the passing of a century before this new branch of philosophy fully developed, its eventual form is based on Darwinian concepts. For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science - the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.

ERNST MAYR: One of the surprising things that I discovered in my work on the philosophy of biology is that when it comes to the physical sciences, any new theory is based on a law, on a natural law. Yet as several leading philosophers have stated, and I agree with them, there are no laws in biology like those of physics. Biologists often use the word law, but for something to be a law, it has to have no exceptions. A law must be beyond space and time, and therefore it cannot be specific. Every general truth in biology though is specific. Biological "laws" are restricted to certain parts of the living world, or certain localized situations, and they are restricted in time. So we can say that their are no laws in biology, except in functional biology which, as I claim, is much closer to the physical sciences, than the historical science of evolution.

Peter:

Like David, you make a problem out of something very simple and uncontroversial.

You're staring too hard at the puzzle, when it isn't really a puzzle at all. You fail to grasp how easy this all is.

Forget modern synthesis for now. Let's go back to basics.

There is no semi-mystical external force 'natural selection' driving in one particular direction or another.

Some things, some mutations, some phenotypes, some characteristics, are more consistent with survival at the particular time in the particular environment than others. Okay? Trivial and obvious.

Which mutations/phenotypes/characteristics those are will depend on the environment, not on some inherent goodness/badness or 'fitness.' 'Fit', in the lexicon, just means those things which happen to be surviving at the time.

Darwinism points out the blindingly, embarrasingly obvious (yes 'trivial') point that if that is the case, life on earth will change over time as the environment changes. This is another way of saying that those things which are fit (suviving) at one time and in one environment will not necessarily be fit in another

Darwinism then posits/theorises/predicts/suggests, surely not unreasonably, that indeed that's how life on earth HAS changed over time, and that's why we have the natural history that we do. The evidence for this suggestion comes from matching observations about the Earth's changing environment through history, and its changing life.

The study of evolution involves the study of precisely why and how some things have been more consistent with survival. That's why the study of evolution goes hand in hand with the study of the history of the earth's climate, geology, geography, biogeography, population migrations, predator/prey numbers etc.

In other words, the study of evolution is the study of the history of life in the earth's environment.

You're being too clever. You can't see the wood for the trees because, like David, and like many other clever people who can't understand it, you've become obsessed with trying to read too much into words like 'law of natural selection'.

Peter,

Natural selection may well be trivial, banal and/or dull. That doesn't make it not true, nor does it make it something that should be banned from science classes. "2+2=4" is a trivial, banal and dull observation, but most definitely belongs on the curriculum at some point.

"I won't stick you with all the popular versions of Darwinism, but surely you would agree that even high priests like Dawkins and Mayr argue (or desperately want us to believe) that natural selection is a process, or a component of the modern synthesis."

Natural selection is indeed a component of the modern synthesis, but it is not the only one, nor is it invoked to explain absolutely everything.

"But if all mutations are random at the time they occur, and there is absolutely no imperative that would lead a certain mutation to occur in preference to any other , then all we are left with is the banal observation that some mutations survived and some didn't."

I think what you're missing here is what happens when this happens recursively. If a fitter mutation survives and propagates, you are talking about a different starting point from which mutations then occur. Over successive generations, this leads to larger morphological changes, in the direction of improved fitness vis a vis the environment.

Another roadblock for you appears to be that you insist on seeing teleology where there is one. It does not need to be decided in advance whether a beneficial mutation will occur before it occurs. All that needs to happen is for there to be a range of mutations/varieties, and for the less fit ones to survive and propagate less, and the more fit ones to survive and propagate more.

If you think natural selection is trivial or mundane, you may have a point. It is such a straightforward and obvious logical progression that once you can ascertain each of its points, its logic is painfully obvious:

1. IF there are organisms that reproduce, and

2. IF offspring inherit traits from their progenitor(s), and

3. IF there is variability of traits, and

4. IF the environment cannot support all members of a growing population,

5. THEN those members of the population with less-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will die out, and

6. THEN those members with more-adaptive traits (determined by the environment) will thrive

"Suely darwinism stands or falls on the idea that there is something or things impelling the mutation process, or some imperative that influences it, at least sometimes."

Do you mean something that guides it in a predetermined direction? No, Darwinism does not stand or fall on that idea at all. Some religions do, I guess, but if I were you I wouldn't pay too much attention to Orrin's mantra that Darwinism is a religion.

"Whatever is consistent with survival in the current environment, for whatver reason, we call 'fit'."

"In other words, fitness doesn't mean anything. "

No, it means what Brit just said. Just because it's simple and obvious doesn't rob it of meaning.

Brit:

Yet it doesn't change over time due to the environment.

creeper:

4,5, & 6 are religioous beliefs, not science.

4 is an IF statement, not a religious belief.

5 and 6 follow so logically from the preceding points that some people consider this a remarkably trivial observation, which in a way it is, I suppose.

You may disagree with them on logical grounds, and are free to debate in that direction, but they are not, by any stretch of the imagination, religious beliefs.

creeper:

"for whatever reason" is a refutation of fitness.

creeper:

you underestimate the stretchiness of your imagination. The if disappears once you start believing in 4, 5 & 6 which Darwinism requires. It's your Trinity.

""for whatever reason" is a refutation of fitness"

What reasons do you think should be excluded in the definition? I see no need to restrict this.

"The if disappears once you start believing in 4, 5 & 6 which Darwinism requires."

Since 4 is the if, how can it disappear "once I start believing in it"?

It stands to reason that once survival pressures increase, those variations that are fitter will survive and propagate. They in turn form the basis for further variation.

stands to reason

But is false. The belief in it is religious.

Orrin,

thank you for once again confirming that Mayr saw biology and evolutionary biology as sciences.

Here's another one, also from Mayr:

Biology could not be recognized as a science of the same rank as physics as long as most biologists accepted certain basic explanatory principles not supported by the laws of the physical sciences and eventually found to be invalid. The two major principles here involved are vitalism and a belief in cosmic teleology. As soon as it had been demonstrated that these two principles are invalid and, more broadly, that none of the phenomena of the living world are in conflict with the natural laws of the physicalists, there was no longer any reason for not recognizing biology as a legitimate autonomous science, equivalent to physics.

"But is false. The belief in it is religious."

When you say it is false, do you mean that the premises are false but the reasoning correct, that the premises are correct but the reasoning is false, or that premises and reasoning are correct but it happens not to apply in each case?

Accepting natural selection as valid is logical once having examined the components and reasoning; it would then need to be refuted, either on the basis of its premises or its reasoning.

Simply disbelieving it without being able to point out a logical or factual flaw would be illogical, and in some cases, including yours, religious.

Orrin,

"Yet it doesn't change over time due to the environment."

What doesn't?

creeper:

Exactly. Belief or disbelief in something unproven is religious in nature.

Biology, not evolutionary biology, which he always carefully separated out.

Accepting natural selection as valid is logical once having examined the components and reasoning.

Mayr was very clear that evolutionary biology was also a [kind of] science.

Brit:

"The study of evolution involves the study of precisely why and how some things have been more consistent with survival"

How, maybe, but surely not why. I'm not sure you and creeper are completely together here. Look, can you imagine a scenario where all mutations were harmful and that, therefore, even absent a catastrophic intervention, nothing survived? I assume not. As you can't say there is anything driving the mutations to prevent this, I presume you will say that most mutations are random and that "good" (conducive to survival) ones will occur based simply on mathematical probability. But you have made it very clear you can't say which is which at the time they occur and there is nothing other than chance to explain them.

From this I understand you to be saying natural selection is a kind of ad hoc building block process where random mutations occur in species or genes that have already "survived" and therefore the process goes forward. Sorry, but that doesn't work if all mutations are random because there is no reason why it wouldn't just as likely go backwards or sideways. We are back to the typing monkeys. You are both denying an imperative and relying on it as proof of its existence. There are simply too many perms and coms here to plausibly go from amoeba to man without some direction at play. You say not, but as neither of us can begin to comprehend the extent of those perms and coms, you are relying on...what's the word...oh, yes, faith.

BTW thanks for pointing out I am too clever. Do I take it it's a defect you don't share? :-)

"can you imagine a scenario where all mutations were harmful and that, therefore, even absent a catastrophic intervention, nothing survived? I assume not."

1. It would have to be an extremely small population for this to become a risk. So small a population as to be practically extinct already.

2. The variations we're talking about are generally in very small increments, so that they (most of the time) don't immediately result in certainty of instant death. We're mostly talking about minor changes that give an organism a slight edge in survival.

"that doesn't work if all mutations are random because there is no reason why it wouldn't just as likely go backwards or sideways"

It does go backwards or sideways, but over successive generations the variations that are fitter are more likely to propagate. Like I said: A bunch of stuff happened, with a natural tendency over time to favor the fitter.

"You are both denying an imperative and relying on it as proof of its existence."

What is the imperative that is being denied? Do you mean survival?

Brit/creeper:

Just to be clear, your problem with natural selection is that you want successful mutations to "hold" somehow in order to be built upon, just as Dawkins wanted his monkeys going from gibberish to Shakespeare to be able to "hold" a successful key, but without direction, design or anyone defining the success of the outcome. Can't be done. Unless survival is some force to which we, or cells or genes or whatever are impelled (and it obviously is)you can't make any headway. But you've removed any possibility of that from darwinism.

Peter,

I don't entirely understand your critique. Doesn't the fact that what survives and propagates actually survives and propagates amount to 'holding' certain characteristics?

creeper:

"A kind of science"? Do they teach those in science class or in "kind of science" class?

creeper:

And there you step into the circular.

creeper:

No, not if it is all-the-while mutating randomly without rhyme or reason.

"And there you step into the circular."

Not circular, recursive. Big difference.

a recursive definition defines objects in terms of the already defined objects of the class.

"No, not if it is all-the-while mutating randomly without rhyme or reason."

Mutating randomly, but selecting quite naturally for fitness. The result of that is not a random one.

Yes, the selecting for fitness is where it all goes bung.

Is where it all goes bung or becomes so unspeakably obvious as to be not worth thinking about?

If fitness means ability to survive, then being more fit means that an organism is more likely to survive, and hence 'be selected'.

Yes, if survival is fitness then fitness is survival. All tautologies are true.

creeper:

"selected" by what and for what? Man, you have told us a million times all mutations are random.

You know, one of the objections to darwinists is how they rely on teleological language and take full, if subconscious, advantage of the everyday meanings of it. The usual defence is that language is clumsy and imperfect and they are doing the best they can. Horsepoop. Scientists spew out inscrutable Greek-rooted unpronounceable words by the thousands whenever they want to hide or fluff up the importance of their research. How come you guys stubbornly rely on basic English in this area? "Select" "survival" "random", "selfish" etc. all have everyday ordinary meanings. Use them, please, or invent new ones if they are inadequate.

"Yes, if survival is fitness then fitness is survival. All tautologies are true."

Good, then you won't be disputing that fitter organisms survive and propagate.

There's no such thing as fitter organisms.

Peter,

The mutations are random, but the variations do not survive and propagate with the same level of randomness, but with a natural tendency that favors the fitter.

"There's no such thing as fitter organisms."

One organism thrives; another goes extinct. I'd call the first one fitter.

which is fitter a gray squirrel or a red?

creeper:

"...a natural tendency to favor the fitter."

ten·den·cy
n. pl. ten·den·cies

1. Movement or prevailing movement in a given direction: observed the tendency of the wind; the shoreward tendency of the current.
2. A characteristic likelihood: fabric that has a tendency to wrinkle.
3. A predisposition to think, act, behave, or proceed in a particular way.

I'd go with this one -

"1. Movement or prevailing movement in a given direction"

- with the direction being toward increased survival chances when the organism is under survival pressure.

"which is fitter a gray squirrel or a red?"

Depends on a lot of things, Orrin, and it's not always possible to make a comparison.

And your proof of this direction, no doubt, is that they survived?

creeper, the key word is "given". Ponder it. Where do all the other mutations fit in?

Given - first definition: specified, fixed.

Prevailing in a fixed direction toward increased fitness when the organism is under survival pressure.

"and your proof of this direction, no doubt, is that they survived?"

Not just that they survived, but that they propagated and over generations kept changing toward increasing fitness. In the cases of Darwin's finches, it wasn't just that the ones that gained a benefit from having a longer beak survived, it was that they propagated, and their offspring - some with marginally shorter, some with marginally longer beaks - again benefited from the longer beak, leading the ones with yet longer beaks to survive and propagate.

"Where do all the other mutations fit in?"

What do you mean by "all the other mutations"? The variations that didn't make it?

creeper:

As we are about to disappear, look at the illustration in the definition you chose--"the shoreward tendency of the current". Presumably this means that of the millions of waves created there is a general force or impulse pushing the waves shoeward that exists and is operating at the time the waves are created, even though many waves may go elsewhere for other reasons or in response to other forces. What you seem to want us to believe is that waves are created willy-nilly with nothing pushing them one way or another, but that there is nonetheless a "tendency" or "direction" pushing them shorewards, the proof of which is that you are sitting on the shore and watching them come in.

Sorry--it was supposed to be a one word (general) bold.

Just to make it clear that this -

"And there you step into the circular."

Not circular, recursive. Big difference.

a recursive definition defines objects in terms of the already defined objects of the class.

- was not what I had posted, and was subsequently edited by Orrin. What I had posted was:

"And there you step into the circular."

Not circular, recursive. Big difference.

Orrin, isn't it easier just to add a comment of your own than to append something to mine without proper accreditation?

I'm not trying to make you believe anything about waves, Peter.

creeper:

But I am trying to make you believe something about tendencies and directions, which is that they must exist outside of the purely physical entities taking them.

Okay, if that's what you're trying to make me believe, then what outside of the purely physical entities is causing the waves?

wind, currents, tectonic shifts, really big fish, Neptune, God, the fairies...how the heck would I know? The point is that you can't get there by saying waves are created completely randomly with no purpose or direction and no way of knowing where they are headed and then say they have a tendency to head shorewards all by themselves.

creeper;

ever possible

"ever possible"

I'm sorry, Orrin, I have no idea what you're referring to here.

creeper:

No. It's easier to make your comments truthful.

Peter,

earlier you said that the observation "what is fit, survives" was so obvious it was trivial. It is obvious, and it is non-teleological.

What you are ignoring now, however, are the obvious consequences of the combination of "what is fit, survives" (namely that when we are talking about organisms that reproduce, those that survive will reproduce, and over successive generations with increasing prevalence) with variation (resulting in both fitter and less fit variations of the same organism - meaning whether they are better or worse at surviving in the environment at hand).

The result of this is that over successive generations, fitter characteristics will become more prevalent - and also now serve as the base for variations, again with fitter and less fit variations of the same organism. We can perceive this increasing prevalence of one characteristic over time as movement, even though it is not physical movement - which is why the analogy to waves etc. is not apt. Another word for this 'movement' would be evolution.

No, you can't perceive it over time in the sense of tracking it. You can only conclude that it must have been fitter because it survived and then conjecture backwards. Harmless fun, but you don't need a "tendency" called natural selection to do that. Just a theory of random chance.

Peter,

What you call random chance is the 'variation' part of the theory of natural selection.

But "a theory of random chance" by itself would only amount to so much noise without the element of those who are fitter to survive actually surviving and propagating in larger proportions. This is where it stops being random and allows for fitter variations to evolve over time.

Without something to guide the process to an end.

"Without something to guide the process to an end."

In reference to what?

Yes, my apologies for the "kind of science" crack, which clearly wasn't yours. Whose it was will forever be a mystery to me. :-)

I think here we are going to have to agree to disagree. It is beyond my ken how an infinite number of random events that are operating independantly of any external force can somehow find a "direction" or "tendency" all by themselves. Your last point is a too ex post facto for my taste. But I do agree with your "so much noise" comment.

Thanks. Until the next time...