Active Users:733 Time:03/04/2025 11:11:05 AM
The questions go deeper Bramhodoulos Send a noteboard - 06/08/2011 08:38:31 PM
I'd illustrate the issue with some sort of genetic landscape plot, where all the little details such as "fitness" and likelihood to survive during current conditions is based on a height in the landscape. Now, imagine that you have peaks in this landscape, where breeding and survival rates are higher than everywhere else. Then it follows that the closer individuals of a species is to the peaks in their particular fitness landscape, the more likely they are to pass their genes onwards. This part of the theory is fairly simple; but the problem is the landscape. It will be constantly changing due to billions of factors entering into survival rates/ general fitness - some factors can be rather large, like availability of nutrients and presence of predators (in polar bear form or viruses, it doesn't matter much) and certain other environmental conditions, but a lot of the things are factors you can't really consider unless you are omniscient (red feathers, hard beak :P)... :P So, in short, it is extremely complex to find the fitness landscape for a species at any given time, and as such, it is all but impossible to design an experiment or observation that could falsify the initial assumption. Suffice to say that there has not yet been any conclusive evidence to say that it doesn't work...

Now, to take a Popperesque view of science in this case might be somewhat flawed... complex biological systems simply have too many factors to consider; Poppers views are more properly applied to science where you can churn the numbers for everything involved instead of doing large scale simulations based on approximations.


Lets grant you have infinite knowledge of genes in all individuals in a population and all there relative and interdependent probability to contribute to the genepool. How would you reconstruct the fitness landscape, given that it is stable?

Or the other way around, what if you would know the landscape perfectly, given that it is stable, how would you evaluate the difference in survival rate of different individuals?

My question is: arn't the two actually the same? Hence, arn't they a tautology?

As for Popper, my problem is not that NS is too complicated to be tested or falsified, my problem is that, even with perfect knowledge it could not be falsified.
If anything NS is too simple to be falsified: it is always true.
Reply to message
Natural selection - 06/08/2011 03:51:26 PM 1073 Views
selection for suitability - 06/08/2011 04:18:51 PM 719 Views
Thanks for your responce - 06/08/2011 04:41:20 PM 836 Views
I can't speak for LadyLorraine and won't try, but here's how I see it: - 06/08/2011 06:49:49 PM 777 Views
Just a question - 06/08/2011 07:18:09 PM 765 Views
Yes it can - 06/08/2011 07:41:59 PM 638 Views
But how? - 06/08/2011 07:52:10 PM 835 Views
Okay, I think I see what you're saying - 08/08/2011 05:30:43 PM 652 Views
Close - 08/08/2011 05:41:46 PM 852 Views
Re: Just a question - 06/08/2011 07:49:21 PM 858 Views
I'm not sure I understand you - 06/08/2011 08:20:44 PM 760 Views
All tautologies are truisms, but not all truisms are tautologies. - 06/08/2011 09:38:12 PM 779 Views
Then it is still a tautology - 06/08/2011 09:45:33 PM 789 Views
You can know it's beneifical to a particular individual, but it's harder to say for populations. - 06/08/2011 10:18:16 PM 891 Views
Maybe... - 07/08/2011 01:55:54 PM 749 Views
As I understand it - 06/08/2011 06:04:44 PM 710 Views
Better... - 06/08/2011 06:36:38 PM 694 Views
Actually - 06/08/2011 10:13:51 PM 784 Views
Re: Actually - 06/08/2011 10:37:33 PM 922 Views
Re: Actually - 06/08/2011 11:38:52 PM 849 Views
Oeh - 07/08/2011 01:54:19 PM 700 Views
Hmmm... there's some truth to that - 06/08/2011 06:36:35 PM 795 Views
Re: Hmmm... there's some truth to that - 06/08/2011 07:08:25 PM 796 Views
Re: Hmmm... there's some truth to that - 07/08/2011 12:46:23 AM 789 Views
The complexity of the problem makes it all but impossible to falsify... - 06/08/2011 08:26:06 PM 813 Views
The questions go deeper - 06/08/2011 08:38:31 PM 811 Views
Re: The questions go deeper - 06/08/2011 09:10:32 PM 797 Views
I think I know why you don't understand my question. - 06/08/2011 09:38:41 PM 818 Views
TalkOrigins addresses this at length. - 06/08/2011 11:14:52 PM 873 Views
Not very much, but interesting none the less - 06/08/2011 11:38:36 PM 866 Views
Re: Natural selection - 07/08/2011 03:00:30 AM 794 Views
Thanks a lot - 07/08/2011 01:38:39 PM 938 Views
2 things - 07/08/2011 04:00:35 PM 699 Views
Re: 2 things - 07/08/2011 04:33:00 PM 919 Views
Re: 2 things - 07/08/2011 05:48:26 PM 730 Views
My best guess - 07/08/2011 06:00:28 PM 762 Views
Re: My best guess - 07/08/2011 06:37:58 PM 704 Views
Re: My best guess - 07/08/2011 06:47:26 PM 860 Views
Re: My best guess - 07/08/2011 07:02:27 PM 707 Views
Re: My best guess - 07/08/2011 09:09:57 PM 817 Views

Reply to Message