Community Messageboard: I'm not sure I understand you by Bramhodoulos

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

I'm not sure I understand you Bramhodoulos Send a noteboard - 06/08/2011 08:20:44 PM

A benefit TO the environment seems like going too far, because that statement itself is an entry into the philosophical, but an increased survival rate is a metric for benefits IN the environment: The greater survival of organisms with a certain trait in a certain environment over that of organisms without it suggests a natural, mechanical and non-directed selection for such traits generally. Without guidance, traits that help an organism in a given environment come to predominate over those that either don't help or even harm organisms, because organisms with helpful traits live longer and breed more than others. The scientific test of the theory is whether we can observe the results it predicts over time: If we do, that's evidence the theory is valid; if not, that's counterevidence (bearing in mind, as always, that evidence does not necessarily reach the level of conclusive proof).

That's just one laymans limited understanding though, so take it for what it's worth; there's a reason I didn't leap up to give my opinion.

I think I understood the TO/IN in the way you explain it and your explanation sort of agrees with what LadyLorriane tried to say.

The tautology problem does not go away with your way of explaining it though, since you don't tell us how we "know" what individuals will be selected, before they are selected. Yes, taking in mind that we are dealing with probability, rather than with absolute numbers.
If a new individual is born, even when given all the possible information about it's DNA and it's environment, (and given that this individual does not have an obvious and gigantic disability), how would you determine it's "benefit in the environment" or it's "chances to procreate" before it actually happens? My point is that you can only measure that afterwards and if it can only be measured afterwards, it cannot be predicted or tested.

It can be tested, just not predicted; however, I'd wager most people would say the goal is a description rather than a prediction of the process. That is to say, not to identify which traits are most helpful to their possessors and document their growing prevalence as evidence of natural selection, but to document helpful traits enhancing survival and thereby predominating in future generations as evidence of natural selection. I think what we're dealing with is a truism rather than a tautology, and while the two are very similar, there are critical differences: A truism is a statement of undeniable fact, like "2+2=4"; a tautology is an equivalency masquerading as a comparison, like "2+2 resembles 4".

For this part I would like to refer to my latest responce to Belals Girl.
I'm not sure you understand the problem I have with a tautology (or a truism for that matter). If NS is a tautology, OR a truism doesn't matter for my argument. It is true. No problem. Of cource it is true and in fact, when stated in tautological or truistic form, I totally agree with NS.
The problem is that it does not explain anything, other than that it describes a pattern we observe in nature in a way that makes sense.

Natural selection, as I understand it, is the phenomenon of traits enhancing survival predominating over time as they become an increasingly large part of the gene pool, forcing out less useful traits.

Technically I could argue that this is on the edge of a discription of the proces of NS and the result of NS.
Maybe it's better to limit NS to the fact that some organisms survive and others don't and that a pattern of frequency can in some way be related (if only potential) to specific (genetic) traits. This causes a shift in the frequency of genes in the gene pool.
The fact we observe shifts in frequencies proves that nature has been selecting (given the fact that the science of statistics needs sufficient data to make such claims).

But when we say that NS = change (of the frequencies of genes) in the gene pool, while we can only determine NS by observing this change, then we have a tautology (or truism if you prefer). An observation. In fact, an observation that can not be "tested" since you can not predict how (or even that) the gene pool wil change.
Because it changes most of the time (if only a little) in most species we can "predict" that it wil change in any given species over several generations, but we already knew that.
And even if it does not change, we could postulate that there have been new traits, but that NS has prevented them from entering the gene pool.

Hence, NS cannot be falsified, since any observation can be explained by NS.

Organisms with traits enhancing survival are, by definition, more likely to survive and pass on those traits, and those without them are less likely; that's a truism, not a tautology.

I've checked Wikipedia, but as far as I can tell this is still a tautology (notice your phrase "by definition"

, but it doesn't matter concerning my point.

Identifying such traits specifically is immaterial to verifying the occurrence of that process; in fact, the attempt can actually prejudice it because traits that might initially seem more beneficial can prove otherwise in practice. It's difficult to dispute the occurrence of natural selection as defined above, because it's what we would logically expect and all evidence supports it (again, it's important to note that's not automatically proof, just very compelling evidence). An independent opposing force would almost be required to PREVENT it.

Here you speak of "all evidence supports it", my whole point is that of cource all evidence supports it, since there is no way I can think of a test that would produce evidence that does not support it. Even when given a universe where all laws of nature are different and life being made of gold atoms and electrons in a shell of uranium, there is simply no way any test can ever produce evidence to the contrary. That's the problem.

Reply to message

Natural selection Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 03:51:26 PM 992 Views

selection for suitability LadyLorraine - 06/08/2011 04:18:51 PM 643 Views

Thanks for your responce

Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 04:41:20 PM 762 Views

I can't speak for LadyLorraine and won't try, but here's how I see it: Joel - 06/08/2011 06:49:49 PM 686 Views

Just a question Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 07:18:09 PM 690 Views

Yes it can ßelals Girl - 06/08/2011 07:41:59 PM 571 Views

But how? Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 07:52:10 PM 758 Views

Okay, I think I see what you're saying ßelals Girl - 08/08/2011 05:30:43 PM 580 Views

Close Bramhodoulos - 08/08/2011 05:41:46 PM 774 Views

Re: Just a question Joel - 06/08/2011 07:49:21 PM 780 Views

I'm not sure I understand you Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 08:20:44 PM 669 Views

All tautologies are truisms, but not all truisms are tautologies. Joel - 06/08/2011 09:38:12 PM 698 Views

Then it is still a tautology Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 09:45:33 PM 702 Views

You can know it's beneifical to a particular individual, but it's harder to say for populations. Joel - 06/08/2011 10:18:16 PM 799 Views

Maybe... Bramhodoulos - 07/08/2011 01:55:54 PM 658 Views

I'm more inclined toward his logic, but possibly toward your conclusions. Joel - 09/08/2011 12:45:46 AM 740 Views

we can't really know ahead of time what makes a specific trait benefical in that environment LadyLorraine - 09/08/2011 06:16:02 PM 813 Views

As I understand it Praziquantel - 06/08/2011 06:04:44 PM 634 Views

Better... Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 06:36:38 PM 616 Views

Actually Praziquantel - 06/08/2011 10:13:51 PM 705 Views

Re: Actually Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 10:37:33 PM 847 Views

Re: Actually Praziquantel - 06/08/2011 11:38:52 PM 775 Views

Oeh Bramhodoulos - 07/08/2011 01:54:19 PM 623 Views

Did you perhaps mean "beneficial in the environment" rather than "beneficial to the environment"? Joel - 06/08/2011 06:34:44 PM 755 Views

yes. I did not really phrase that very clearly. *NM* LadyLorraine - 09/08/2011 06:14:11 PM 299 Views

No biggy; from what Bram said, I underestimated how well you were understood anyway. Joel - 09/08/2011 06:45:16 PM 683 Views

Hmmm... there's some truth to that Isaac - 06/08/2011 06:36:35 PM 704 Views

Re: Hmmm... there's some truth to that Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 07:08:25 PM 716 Views

Re: Hmmm... there's some truth to that Isaac - 07/08/2011 12:46:23 AM 705 Views

The complexity of the problem makes it all but impossible to falsify... jh - 06/08/2011 08:26:06 PM 736 Views

The questions go deeper Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 08:38:31 PM 737 Views

Re: The questions go deeper jh - 06/08/2011 09:10:32 PM 713 Views

I think I know why you don't understand my question. Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 09:38:41 PM 743 Views

How many equation's has Moraine screwed up?

*NM* Isaac - 06/08/2011 09:45:36 PM 306 Views

100% I think Moriaine is a very beneficial trait that contributes a lot to the RAFO pool

*NM* Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 09:46:54 PM 330 Views

TalkOrigins addresses this at length. Dreaded Anomaly - 06/08/2011 11:14:52 PM 793 Views

Not very much, but interesting none the less Bramhodoulos - 06/08/2011 11:38:36 PM 790 Views

Re: Natural selection Night Walker - 07/08/2011 03:00:30 AM 714 Views

Thanks a lot Bramhodoulos - 07/08/2011 01:38:39 PM 858 Views

2 things Night Walker - 07/08/2011 04:00:35 PM 633 Views

Re: 2 things Bramhodoulos - 07/08/2011 04:33:00 PM 843 Views

Re: 2 things Night Walker - 07/08/2011 05:48:26 PM 655 Views

My best guess Bramhodoulos - 07/08/2011 06:00:28 PM 691 Views

Re: My best guess Night Walker - 07/08/2011 06:37:58 PM 625 Views

Re: My best guess Bramhodoulos - 07/08/2011 06:47:26 PM 778 Views

Re: My best guess Night Walker - 07/08/2011 07:02:27 PM 626 Views

Re: My best guess Bramhodoulos - 07/08/2011 09:09:57 PM 744 Views

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Reply to Message

Subject

Formatting

Smiley Codes

Body

<quote id="219709">
<quote id="219702"><quote id="219698"><quote id="219691">A benefit TO the environment seems like going too far, because that statement itself is an entry into the philosophical, but an increased survival rate is a metric for benefits IN the environment:  The greater survival of organisms with a certain trait in a certain environment over that of organisms without it suggests a natural, mechanical and non-directed selection for such traits generally.  Without guidance, traits that help an organism in a given environment come to predominate over those that either don't help or even harm organisms, because organisms with helpful traits live longer and breed more than others.  The scientific test of the theory is whether we can observe the results it predicts over time:  If we do, that's evidence the theory is valid; if not, that's counterevidence (bearing in mind, as always, that evidence does not necessarily reach the level of conclusive proof).

That's just one laymans limited understanding though, so take it for what it's worth; there's a reason I didn't leap up to give my opinion. ;)</quote>

I think I understood the TO/IN in the way you explain it and your explanation sort of agrees with what LadyLorriane tried to say.

The tautology problem does not go away with your way of explaining it though, since you don't tell us how we "know" what individuals will be selected, before they are selected. Yes, taking in mind that we are dealing with probability, rather than with absolute numbers.
If a new individual is born, even when given all the possible information about it's DNA and it's environment, (and given that this individual does not have an obvious and gigantic disability), how would you determine it's "benefit in the environment" or it's "chances to procreate" before it actually happens? My point is that you can only measure that afterwards and if it can only be measured afterwards, it cannot be predicted or tested.</quote>
It can be tested, just not predicted; however, I'd wager most people would say the goal is a description rather than a prediction of the process.  That is to say, not to identify which traits are most helpful to their possessors and document their growing prevalence as evidence of natural selection, but to document helpful traits enhancing survival and thereby predominating in future generations as evidence of natural selection.  I think what we're dealing with is a truism rather than a tautology, and while the two are very similar, there are critical differences:  A truism is a statement of undeniable fact, like "2+2=4"; a tautology is an equivalency masquerading as a comparison, like "2+2 resembles 4".</quote> 
For this part I would like to refer to my latest responce to Belals Girl.
I'm not sure you understand the problem I have with a tautology (or a truism for that matter). If NS is a tautology, OR a truism doesn't matter for my argument. It is true. No problem. Of cource it is true and in fact, when stated in tautological or truistic form, I totally agree with NS.
The problem is that it does not explain anything, other than that it describes a pattern we observe in nature in a way that makes sense.

<quote id="219702">Natural selection, as I understand it, is the phenomenon of traits enhancing survival predominating over time as they become an increasingly large part of the gene pool, forcing out less useful traits.</quote>
Technically I could argue that this is on the edge of a discription of the proces of NS and the result of NS.
Maybe it's better to limit NS to the fact that some organisms survive and others don't and that a pattern of frequency can in some way be related (if only potential) to specific (genetic) traits. This <i>causes</i> a shift in the frequency of genes in the gene pool.
The fact we observe shifts in frequencies proves that nature has been selecting (given the fact that the science of statistics needs sufficient data to make such claims).

But when we say that NS = change (of the frequencies of genes) in the gene pool, while we can only determine NS by observing this change, then we have a tautology (or truism if you prefer). An observation. In fact, an observation that can not be "tested" since you can not predict how (or even that) the gene pool wil change.
Because it changes most of the time (if only a little) in most species we can "predict" that it wil change in any given species over several generations, but we already knew that.
And even if it does not change, we could postulate that there have been new traits, but that NS has prevented them from entering the gene pool.

Hence, NS cannot be falsified, since any observation can be explained by NS.

<quote id="219702">Organisms with traits enhancing survival are, by definition, more likely to survive and pass on those traits, and those without them are less likely; that's a truism, not a tautology.</quote>
I've checked Wikipedia, but as far as I can tell this is still a tautology (notice your phrase "by definition"), but it doesn't matter concerning my point.

<quote id="219702">Identifying such traits specifically is immaterial to verifying the occurrence of that process; in fact, the attempt can actually prejudice it because traits that might initially seem more beneficial can prove otherwise in practice.  It's difficult to dispute the occurrence of natural selection as defined above, because it's what we would logically expect and all evidence supports it (again, it's important to note that's not automatically proof, just very compelling evidence).  An independent opposing force would almost be required to PREVENT it.</quote>
Here you speak of "all evidence supports it", my whole point is that of cource all evidence supports it, since there is no way I can think of a test that would produce evidence that does not support it. Even when given a universe where all laws of nature are different and life being made of gold atoms and electrons in a shell of uranium, there is simply <i>no way</i> any test can ever produce evidence to the contrary. That's the problem.
</quote>

Link title

Link url

Send notification emails?

Username

Password