"g" <gillawton@earthlink.net
Sometimes this layman ponders evolutionary mechanisms in the abstract.
Let me explain.
We are all too familiar with the wide-spread popular notion of "survival
of
the fittest."
As this layman has submitted previously (and shall not beat the drum
again
here), he
discerns that the expression "survival of the fittest" is at worst a
begging
of a circular
logic, wherein that which is most fit survives, and the way we know --
therefore -- what
species or individual is most fit? Because it's still here.
But, again, that is at its worst. And this layman, liking to look at all
the various sides
of any idea, does not wish to bog down in any logically circular cul de
sac,
but wishes
to see as much sense as can be seen. And, as far as the term "fitness"
having a pragmatic
value in research, there is no question of it. "Fitness" is the quality
of
*having* survived.
That is not the question at issue. The question at issue for this layman
is
one of whether
the notion of "survival of the fittest" falls into the category of
logical
fallacy known as
"hoc, ergo proctor hoc."
If two motor vehicles collide at an intersection, and the driver of the
one
vehicle lives
to drive another day, while the other does not, just how much can we read
into that
about which driver was the most fit to survive.
JE:-
The philosopher Herbert Spencer who coined the tautology "survival of the
fittest" which remains to this very day the most common identification of
what evolutionary theory is supposed to be (an amazing but entirely
unfortunate achievement) did NOT provide a defined subject for "survival"
as
in: "the survival of exactly WHAT?".
Tautologies can be a predicated subject forming a non tautology or remain
just a non predicated circular argument. A subject and predicate cannot
exist within just a tautology simply because every logical connection
remains reversible. In the reasoning process only the predicate can
constitute a valid inductive inference (not the subject) requiring a non
reversible logical link in just the one way: FROM subject TO the
predicate.
This is because the subject must be able to be deduced from the assumed
predicate and the predicate induced from the subject. A rational test of
the
predicate is that, at the very least, the subject can be deduced from it.
If
no predicate exists then no subject by deduction is all that is possible,
therefore no rationale.
Tautologies can be continuously expanded (e.g. mathematics). However they
only remain rational if they can be deduced from a NON tautology (become
the
subject of an assumed predicate and not the reverse). I consider this is
what Gödel has proven. All of mathematics remains just a tautology which
can
only remain rational if mathematics is entirely deductive from a predicate
outside of mathematics. I propose that this predicate is the supposition
of
the universal set.
If we propose that Spencer's survival predicate remained subject to an
"organism" we end up with this non tautology: Those organisms (subject)
which survive longer (predicate) are considered fitter only because they
must eventually replace shorter living organisms over time. While this non
tautology does makes sense it is NOT necessarily correct. An organism that
only lives longer does not necessarily replace shorter living organisms
over
time because it has to reproduce more to be able to do that. The correct
subject and predicate is not "organism and survival" it is "organism and
reproduction": Those organisms which reproduce more per population are
considered fitter than those which reproduce less simply because only
those
which reproduce more can ever replace others over time, no matter how
short
in life span the fitter organism happens to be. Not only did Spencer leave
his survival predicate without a defined subject, he also used entirely
the
wrong predicate!
Today, "survival of the fittest" means "phylogenetic gene survival" where
"gene" replaces "organism" as the defined subject. However the "survival"
predicate only remains ambiguous. Here is a website which describes what
phylogeny is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogeny
As just a NON predicated tautology: Those genes which survive
phylogenetically remain the fittest only because they phylogenetically
survive! If we now employ a gene subject instead of the organism subject
(which we used above) this becomes: Those genes which phylogenetically
survive longer are considered fitter only because they must eventually
replace shorter phylogenetically living genes. However, this non tautology
remains ambiguous because phylogenetic gene "survival" is exactly the same
thing as gene _replication_ which in turn is the same as organism
reproduction. Only gene _replicates_ as "gene survival" can allow one gene
type to "phylogenetically survive longer" where in nature these
replications
are all via organism reproductions. Even an exact replicate of a thing is
never "the thing in itself" simply because it can occupy a different space
and time. Phylogenetic gene replication can only mean organism
reproduction
because a phylogeny (or phylogenesis) "is the origin and evolution of a
set
of organisms, usually a set of species" (quote from the above website).
Gene populations expanding _within_ organisms do not constitute a
phylogeny
of genes within evolutionary theory. It is the organism induction which
includes organism reproduction which remains absolutely essential for any
testable evolutionary science. In fact, each organism must also be fertile
just to be able to replicate genes phylogenetically allowing better
"phylogenetic survival"! IOW the Darwinian selectee is exactly one fertile
organism and not just any organism.
Quite obviously, the gene centric argument is just a massive
simplification/oversimplification of the Darwinian fertile organism
centric
argument. Yet the Neo Darwinistic gene centric argument was and remains to
this very day, chronically misused as a _replacement_ for the Darwinian
fertile organism centric argument (which just remains invisible because of
the extraordinary level of bias that misused heuristic gene centricity has
spawned).
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@ozemail.com.au
You see, if all things were equal (which they NEVER are), and the
distribution of the
force and direction of sudden negative acceleration were *precisely*
divided
up between
the two vehicles, at the same locations on the vehicles... and if both
vehicles involved
were of exactly the same kind, and exactly the same state of repair, and
the
drivers were
seated in exactly the same positions, and each driver was in the same age
range in which
humans have reproductive capacity, and each were of the same sex, and
both
were
hetero-erotic in their choices of conjugal mates... and at least a
hundred
other variables
all were identical, equal, balanced and unvarying... and only one driver
died, while the
other went home and ended up parenting at least one more child... then
and
ONLY then...
would we be justified in assigning to the surviving driver a survival
resulting from a
quality called "fitness."
But, then, the question arises of, "Okay, what if we look at a larger
sampling of motor
vehicle accidents, where one driver walks away and the other goes to a
funeral home.
Can we not assume that a sufficient number of trials has taken place for
many of the
variables to wash... average out... whatever? Can we not assume safely
that
the most
fit drivers, on average, tend to be the ones who survive?
Well, that depends. Are healthy robust teenage drivers not more likely
to
get into, and
die from, motor vehicle accidents and hence statistically more likely not
to
reproduce
than... people who have been teenagers and now are young,
still-reproductively capable
adults?
Hey, here's another issue. Aren't almost half of all motor vehicle
accidents alcohol
related? Oh, okay. Then we know that if it's almost, then MORE than
half
of them
are sobriety related. Right? So, statistically we know that sober
drivers -- being in the
majority -- ought to be gotten off the streets. Right?
No? Well, why not? We are looking at the numbers, and drawing
conclusions
from
them, are we not? If we remove from the traffic arteries all the people
who
are in the
category involved in most of the accidents, non-fatal and fatal alike...
then we reduce
traffic deaths by more than if we remove the lesser category of drunk
drivers, do we
not?
Okay. Enough frivolity. The point can be summed up with this little
saw:
****Logic constructs never lie
****Sometimes they just DON'T APPLY
In the foregoing silliness, many fallacious positings are implied. One
silly and
fallacious implication is that all drivers who die in motor vehicle
accidents can be
divided into two categories: the fit and the dead.
Another silly fallacy is to assume that all traffic accident deaths and
all
plant and
animal deaths arise out of the same set of causes acting upon the same
set
of
qualities, because all the variables cancel out each variable against
each
other
variable.
Am I saying that all motor vehicle deaths are totally random, and that we
cannot
draw any accurate or useful conclusions from them? Heck no. But neither
am
I willing to concede that we can divide things into classes, just because
clear
boundaries can be found to divide a population into two categories, with
no
residuals (everyone involved in a traffic accident has a blood titer of
X-amount
of an illegal substance, or he/she does not).
The categories into which we divide things, and the algorithms we pick to
plug them into, can be factual and empirical. The categories we divide
things
into can be quite clear and precise, and leave no residuals or
exceptions.
The
algorithms we pick to plug our facts and classifications into can be
pristine in
their logic. And STILL we can come out with nonsense conclusions.
If this old layman comes up with some speculative ideas on the issue of
"evolutionary mechanisms," he will try to be positive, rather than
negative.
This message has just tried to clear a little fog out of the popular air
on
one notion that does not seem to this layman to hold water. It remains
to
be
seen, however, whether there are some mechanisms that are less foggy than
the one roasted here.
But please keep in mind that this layman did not say "fitness" is not a
useful
concept in laboratory and field. It is VERY useful and good where it is
applied as a comparative measurement of how many of a population survives
in two or more trials, where variables are minimal, where categorizations
are
appropriate, where an algorithm is appropriate to producing data that
makes
sense, and where what is conceived of as an evolutionary mechanism (if
that
kind of designation is made) actually is one.
g
