Re: NS and AaD curves

"Anon." <bob.ohara@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:dh9vl8$2u70$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

> g wrote:
>> "Anon." <bob.ohara@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:dgst1b$t6v$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
> <snip>
>>>Fitness also has to have a (genetic) heritable component, if
>>>evolution is to occur. So, as driving a car is not a heritable trait
>>>in that sense (the extent to which it is inherited is cultural), so
>>>we wouldn't describe it as a fitness trait.
>>
>>
>> Without any intent to be impudent, let me disclose that the best
>> sense I have been able to grasp is a circular definition whereby that
>> which has the fitness to survive is that which survives, while that
>> which does not have that fitness does not survive. To me that is no
>> more enlightening than to say A is equal to B and the way that can be
>> ascertained is by observing the fact that B is equal to A.
>>
> You're not the first person to notice that!
>
> It's a reasonable point, but I think it's a problem with the way the
> subject is presented. The way out of the circular definition is to
> notice that we can define fitness in terms of other properties of an
> organism. For example, if we introduce a crop variety with a new
> disease resistance to farmers, then we can predict that a fungus which
> does not have the protein that is used by the resistance to detect the
> fungus will survive better, and hence be fitter (and all that that
> entails). In other words, we can go from a physiological, biochemical
> or anatomical measurement to a prediction in change in frequency.
> Fitness is just the bridging concept that helps us do it.

Well put. And note that someone (I thought it was Dawkins in The Extended
Phenotype, but I haven't been able to verify that via Googling) argued
that there was a certain degree of tautology in the concept of "survival
of the fittest", but that this was true of most significant scientific
theories (e.g. F=MA is now true by definition: the genius of Newton was
in recognizing the tautology). I'm not sure I agree with the argument - I
prefer your explanation - but it was at least a different take on the
common criticism that survival of the fittest is a circular argument.

Yours,

Bill Morse

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What natural selection can do - whoisyourcreator.com
    ... organisms with that change survive and reproduce at a higher rate. ... You are arguing that natural selection is a tautology. ... slightly superior fitness for its environment, ... And who survives long enough to reproduce is often a ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: NS and AaD curves
    ... >>> which has the fitness to survive is that which survives, ... >>> which does not have that fitness does not survive. ... > in recognizing the tautology). ... second empirical fact is that ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: NS and AaD curves
    ... >>> which has the fitness to survive is that which survives, ... >>> which does not have that fitness does not survive. ... > common criticism that survival of the fittest is a circular argument. ... There literally are TONS of hard evidence from paleotology, ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: What natural selection can do - whoisyourcreator.com
    ... change survive and reproduce at a higher rate. ... fitness for its environment, it may still be gobbled up by a predator ... survives long enough to reproduce is often a matter of luck. ... Philosophy of Science 49:268-273. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: NS and AaD curves
    ... >>>describe it as a fitness trait. ... >> fitness to survive is that which survives, while that which does not have ... >> no gene that works in all sets of externalities. ... > between species, then they are probably conserved within a species. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)