Reflectorites
This was sent to me direct, but it was not marked "private" so I assume it
was meant to go to the Reflector.
On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 20:33:21 -0600 (CST), Susan B wrote:
[...]
>SJ>I wonder how one would test a scientific theory which explains everything
>>from capitalism, to gender relations, through to biology?
SB>a pre-Cambrian rabbit would do the trick.
Now that's what I call a *daring* test! So it seems that all Darwinism explains is
why there are no pre-Cambrian rabbits? And since the Pre-Cambrian was
discovered to be devoid of complex multicellular animal life when Darwin
was still in short pants, it would be a pretty safe bet for Darwinists to
confine their tests to such sure things. It's a bit like claiming to be
able to predict last Saturday's horse races!
And maybe Susan will enlighten us how exactly does Darwinism, a theory
whose riskiest and most meaningful prediction apparently is there will be
no pre-Cambrian rabbits, also make testable predictions about "capitalism"
and "gender relations"?
>SJ>It's also worth noting
>>that Darwin's life wasn't Darwinian: he achieved his wealth through
>>inheritance, not competition,
SB>It never ceases to astonish me how few people understand the Darwinian
>concept of "fittest." They always seem to have some mental image of Arnold
>Schwartzenegger stomping the little guy. They never think "fittest" can mean
>simply more able to go long periods without a drink of water. "Fit" can also
>mean a strong social system which protects the individual "weak" members.
Maybe people wouldn't misunderstand if the Darwinists ceased using
misleading words like "fittest", which means one thing to everyone else, but
something completely different to Darwinists:
"We must not be led astray, however, by the popular characterization of
selection as "the survival of the fittest." the word "fit" has many everyday
connotations-physically fit, morally fit, and so forth-but none of these is
what the evolutionist means by fitness. All that matters for evolutionary
change is survival and reproduction. In evolutionary terms, an Olympic
athlete who never has any children has a fitness of zero whereas J.S. Bach,
who was sedentary and very much overweight, had an unusually high
Darwinian fitness by virtue of his having been the father of twenty
children." (Lewontin R.C., "Human Diversity", 1995, p150).
Darwinian "fittest" originally meant `differential survival' but when it was
found that it didn't always work, the Neo-Darwinists redefined it to mean
`differential reproduction':
"Darwin never tried to define natural selection in a rigid way, but it is fairly
clear that for him it was not a complex concept. It amounted to little more
than the fact that, for various reasons, among all the individuals produced
in nature some die soon and some die late. Thus natural selection, for
Darwin, was differential mortality. In the course of time there has been a
slow change in this view, so that now it is customary to say that natural
selection is differential reproduction. This in turn may be equated with
reproductive success, or leaving the most offspring." (Macbeth N.,
"Darwin Retried", 1971, p40).
But the price paid for saving the theory from falsification is a further
reduction in explanatory power, so nowadays Darwinian "survival of the
fittest" is little more than a tautology, as Koestler points out:
"Once upon a time, it all looked so simple. Nature rewarded the fit with the
carrot of survival and punished the unfit with the stick of extinction. The
trouble only started when it came to defining 'fitness'. Are pygmies fitter
than giants, brunettes fitter than blondes, left-handers fitter than
righthanders? What exactly are the criteria of 'fitness'? The first answer that
comes to mind is: the fittest are obviously those who survive longest. But
when we talk about the evolution of species, the lifespan of individuals is
irrelevant (it may be a day for some insects, a century for tortoises); what
matters is how many offspring they produce in their life-time. Thus natural
selection looks after the survival and reproduction of the fittest, and the
fittest are those which have the highest rate of reproduction - we are
caught in a circular argument which completely begs the question of what
makes evolution evolve." (Koestler A., "Janus: A Summing Up", 1983,
p170).
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"We must not be led astray, however, by the popular characterization of
selection as "the survival of the fittest." the word "fit" has many everyday
connotations-physically fit, morally fit, and so forth-but none of these is
what the evolutionist means by fitness. All that matters for evolutionary
change is survival and reproduction. In evolutionary terms, an Olympic
athlete who never has any children has a fitness of zero whereas J.S. Bach,
who was sedentary and very much overweight, had an unusually high
Darwinian fitness by virtue of his having been the father of twenty
children." (Lewontin R.C., "Human Diversity", Scientific American
Library: New York NY, 1995, p150).
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 11 2000 - 09:03:37 EST