Adaptation

Adaptation premise

https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/2f3cf220828e13cf#

There is no test that can measure your fitness, you don't possess a property called fitness, and don't have more or less 'fit' parts that enable you to survive. A fitness measurement machine doesn't exist.

Because adaptationists know that "survival of the fittest" is a tautology they came up with a new formulation of the phrase that gave us an independent criterion of fitness - the environment. Success in survival is now tick-boxed as: "better adapted for the immediate, local environment". But this is a tautology too. An environment, like a destination, isn't a geographical place. A description of an environment is cast in terms of a creature's attributes. As my environment is already described by my attributes I can't be adapted TO my environment. And even less can I be "better adapted" to my environment. "Survival of the fittest" There is only one thing being considered here. "Survival" describes the "fittest" as the scientists know. With the premise of Adaption There is STILL only one thing on offer here, as adaption describes an environment, as the scientists have failed to notice.

An environment is a description of a habitat. And a habitat is creature-specific. It isn't a geographical place. For example, the geographical place "the top of mount Everest and the kitchen sink" is not a habitat because a creature doesn't fullfil the requirements to exist in such a large physical place. Also, the clutter on my desk isn't a habitat as it offers an insufficient description of a creature's attributes/habitat.

Fitness isn't a measurable quality. A creature is, by being an existing creature, fit. The creature doesn't "have" fit parts or alleles. If parts and alleles constitute the creature, then they don't also require a property called "fitness" that helps it exist. I don't see the significance of saying that evolution is about populations. Like the term "fit" can't apply to individuals, the term "evolve" can't apply to populations. There aren't properties and processes (fit, evolve,) above and beyond the individual and the population. An environment is, at the same time, logically entails, a description of a set of attributes.

Adaptation confuses an environment with a geographical place. An environment entails the description of what allows an animal to survive, and this description logically entails a creature's attributes.

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

John jones notes

http://www.groupsrv.com/science/about431656.html

---

****************

Because scientists know that "survival of the fittest" is a tautology they came up with a new formulation of the phrase that gave us an independent criterion of fitness - the environment. Success in survival is now tick-boxed as: "better adapted for the immediate, local environment".

But this is a tautology too. An environment, like a destination, isn't a geographical place. A description of an environment is cast in terms of a creature's attributes. As my environment is already described by my attributes I can't be adapted TO my environment. And even less can I be "better adapted" to my environment. "Survival of the fittest" There is only one thing being considered here. "Survival" describes the "fittest" as the scientists know. With the premise of Adaption There is STILL only one thing on offer here, as adaption describes an environment, as the scientists have failed to notice. An environment is a description of a habitat. And a habitat is creature-specific. It isn't a geographical place. For example, the geographical place "the top of mount Everest and the kitchen sink" is not a habitat because a creature doesn't fulfil the requirements to exist in such a large physical place. Also, the clutter on my desk isn't a habitat as it offers an insufficient description of a creature's attributes/habitat.

Fitness isn't a measurable quality. A creature is, by being an existing creature, fit. The creature doesn't "have" fit parts or alleles. If parts and alleles constitute the creature, then they don't also require a property called "fitness" that helps it exist. I don't see the significance of saying that evolution is about populations. Like the term "fit" can't apply to individuals, the term "evolve" can't apply to populations. There aren't properties and processes (fit, evolve,) above and beyond the individual and the population. An environment is, at the same time, logically entails, a description of a set of attributes.

Adaptation confuses an environment with a geographical place. An environment entails the description of what allows an animal to survive, and this description logically entails a creature's attributes.

notes 1

http://www.groupsrv.com/science/about431656-0-asc-15.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest is a bog-standard tautology. It falsely leads us to consider "survival of the fitest" as a fact. But it isn't a fact. Survival is necessarily of the fittest. No matter what survives.

The fittest, by definition, are those that survive. So survival of the fittest indicates that there are other sorts of survival that don't depend on being fit. Hardly.

We determine whether evolutionary theories are tautological or not by examining grammar.

[quote:c333f5dad6]They are theoretical and based upon probabilities. [/quote:c333f5dad6] No, they are base on grammar, not existential considerations.

Fitness isn't a measurable quality. A creature is, by being an existing creature, fit. The creature doesn't "have" fit parts or alleles. If parts and alleles constitute the creature, then they don't also require a property called "fitness" that helps it exist.

I don't see the significance of saying that evolution is about populations. Like the term "fit" can't apply to individuals, the term "evolve" can't apply to populations. There aren't properties and processes (fit, evolve,) above and beyond the individual and the population.

An environment is, at the same time, logically entails, a description of a set of attributes.

Matt Silberstein replies to Jones

http://www.groupsrv.com/science/about431656-0-asc-15.html

Silberstein defines natural selection: it is observed that the distribution of alleles in a population changes over generations depending, at least in part, on the morphological characteristics affected by those alleles. That is a far better summary (and still a summary) of the theory of Natural Selection.

Jones replies: The morphological characteristics are, nevertheless, fit if they survive. And they survive because they are the fittest. That's a tautology.

Silbers wrote: [quote:7dd0e3fc5d]It isn't a geographical place. Yes. You seem to be the only one confused about this. For example, the geographical place "the top of mount Everest and the kitchen sink" is not a habitat because a creature doesn't fulfil the requirements to exist in such a large physical place. That is a stupid example because there is no organism that lives on the top of Everest and in the kitchen sink and no where else. There are certainly organisms that have enormous habitats (gray whales, for example). A geographical place is not a habitat because there is more to a habitat than location (weather, etc.). [/quote:7dd0e3fc5d]

JOnes: That's what I said.

JOnes:[quote:7dd0e3fc5d]Also, the clutter on my desk isn't a habitat as it offers an insufficient description of a creature's attributes/habitat.

Silber: Really? How do you know this? I suspect that there is plenty of life on your desk. But it is true that there are places in the world that don't have any life. Remarkably few though, like evolves to survive pretty much everywhere. [/quote:7dd0e3fc5d]

Silber replies: I know, but it is still an insufficient description. We need to know about the factors that involve life, and these factors aren't merely geographical places.

Silber wrote: [quote:7dd0e3fc5d]Your "attributes" do not give sufficient information to describe the environment. Multiple organisms can survive/thrive in the same environment and most organisms can survive/thrive in a variety of environments. [/quote:7dd0e3fc5d]

Jones replies: You are confusing an environment with a geographical place. An environment entails the description of what allows an animal to survive, and this description logically entails a creature's attributes.

Silberstein defines fitness

http://www.groupsrv.com/science/about431656-0-asc-15.html

Fitness is a relationship that depends on both the organism and the environment.

Then learn. Evolution is *defined* in biology to mean the change in allele frequencies in a population of living organisms over generations. Individuals do not, for the most part, experience genetic change during their lifetime. What we are interested in when studying evolution is that change in the inherited characteristics over time.

notes

Adaptation means the acquisition of attributes that weren't in the previous generations. First there was nothing, then something which is like a saying if you give me a million I will raise you a million. From nothing something then a rock and from a rock(mud,crystals whatever vernacular) to a cell. If polar bears descended from a first living(Life1) cell then that first cell didn't contain the information in reserve to instantiate a polar bear millions of years down the line. The information had to acquired because genes can only contain so much information. This is like believing that computer code can add information all by themselves, which can't be done.

The Wikipedia Aristotelians response to this argument is to induce Infinite regress by proposing that the Pattern or design dichotomy must not be assumed, but then not making it clear what are we then to assume. Leaving questions open ended risks Infinite regression - a formal fallacy.

notes

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/directactionenv.html

There can be no doubt that species may become greatly modified through the direct action of environment. I have some excuse for not having formerly insisted more strongly on this head in my Origin of Species, as most of the best facts have been observed since its publication. --- Darwin, Life and Letters, iii. 232

Links Source

Common Ancestor

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/01/the_texas_tree_081481.html The data were so difficult to resolve into a tree that Syvanen lamented, "We've just annihilated the tree of life."20 That's right: DNA data have "annihilated the tree of life." This is certainly in direct conflict with the language in the Pearson textbook -- that DNA "has helped to make evolutionary trees more accurate.'

Indeed, a major review article in Nature reported on how "disparities between molecular and morphological trees" lead to "evolution wars" because "[e]volutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don't resemble those drawn up from morphology."21

Difficulties encountered in using DNA data to reconstruct evolutionary relationships are well documented. Pearson paints a rosy picture about the ease with which DNA can help us reconstruct phylogenetic trees, but this picture is false. Now that they've refused to correct the textbook, students will be badly misled.