Jump to content

Talk:Survival of the fittest

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 189.172.41.108 (talk) at 23:32, 26 July 2015 (→Did Darwin regret adopting the phrase "Survival of the fittest"?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

How was fitness measured

Other than noting the organism survived how was it's fitness measured ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TongueSpeaker (talk • contribs) 11:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gene-centric

Removed:

They also adopt a gene-centric view of evolution.

("They" referrrs to evolutionary scientists") This is irrelevant to the article, and is inaccurate from what I've heard, where evolutionists generally often focus on the individual organism as the unit of selection. This gets into the issue of "selection of" and "selection for", which are beyond the scope of this article.you are so retardBold textSmall Text AdamRetchless 21:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't you read The Selfish Gene? You ought to. Individual selection is usually more or less equivalent to gene selection, and it may be simpler to look at it that way, but reductionism is widely accepted. Dunc|☺ 21:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the presentation of the idea of 'survival of the fittest' as a tautology. Inherent in the statement is the idea that "those most fit to survive are the only ones who will or should." That's hardly a tautological statement.-McC 03:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--

You are simply re-arranging the phrase, "those most fit to survive are the only ones who will or should" simply re-presents the same tautological statement. How do you then tell which creatures are the ones most fit? They survived. Its like saying "a circle is round".

You're right about the non-tautological character of the idea, but wrong if you think that it necessarily involves a 'should.' Even Spencer's reasoning was not that simply. --Christofurio 20:22, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
See my edits. "Survival of the fittest", when naively applied to individuals, is only one part of the story, and this part taken alone is indeed tautological. When the full picture is considered, the tautology falls down.--Thomas Arelatensis 19:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the phrase

Okay, where does the phrase "survival of the fittest" come from? In this article it says that it was first mentioned in Social Statics. But if you follow the link on that article page to the online copy, and search that for either survival or fittest, then you find nothing. Please, someone with a proper encyclopedia on his/her shelf should look this one up. 80.126.3.128 20:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A very good point. Some attribute it to Social Statics and some to First Principles of 1862, but it isn't in online versions of these texts, and a number of sources confirm more credibly that Spencer introduced the phrase “survival of the fittest” in (Principles of Biology [1864], vol. 1, p. 444).. ...dave souza 11:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then there is a heavy fault in the first sentence, as well as in the article about Herbert Spencer ; The Origins of Species appeared in 1859 ; so before Spencer. 205.236.147.59 (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused about why Darwin is using the term. After Spencer used it, did Darwin adapt it and change later editions of OoS? 141.14.245.244 (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Publictransport4us (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Yes you are right. Charles Darwin did not use the term in the 1st to 4th editions. The first time he mentions Herman Spencer coining the term "survival of the fittest" is in his 5th edition published in 1869 (London: John Murray. 5th edition; Chapter III, page 72).[reply] 

You can follow the different editions online <ref>(http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F387&viewtype=side&pageseq=1)</ref>

Darwin uses the phrase in 'The Variation Of Animals And Plants Under Domestication' -- Volume 2, chapter XX, first paragraph: "The power of Selection, whether exercised by man, or brought into play under nature through the struggle for existence and the consequent survival of the fittest, absolutely depends on the variability of organic beings." The date for this work is 1868, a year before the sixth edition of the Origin :) Kind Regards Robert Karl Stonjek —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.158.79 (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tautology

This sentence taken from the current revision of the article:

Unfortunately, although in evolutionary biology the word "fitness" has nothing to do with being "fit" as fitness is measured in terms of survival and reproductive success, the similarity with the adjective "fit" leads many to charge the phrase "survival of the fittest" is equivalent to saying "survival of those who survive best" or "reproduction of those who reproduce most", i.e., that it is a tautology.

This can be rewritten as: "although fitness really means better survival and reproduction, some say that 'survival of the fittest' is equivalent to 'survival of those who survive best' or 'reproduction of those who reproduce most'". Well, duh ! Clearly this sentence is problematic.

The modern scientific of fitness is reproductive success (although this can be calculated in different ways). In the deprecated meaning that Spencer had in mind, the expression "survival of the fittest" ("survival of those who are better adapted for survival") is pretty much tautological. In the modern sense of the term ("survival of those who reproduce better"), it does not mean much. This is why scientists have stopped using it.

The fundamental problem with the expression "survival of the fittest" is that it does not take into account the key requirement of heritability. You can have survival of the fittest, and yet have no evolution at all, if this superior "fitness" (whether in the old or modern sense) is not based on heritable traits; but if this superior fitness is indeed based on heritable traits, evolution mechanically ensues. Check out the link to Ridley's explanation in the "external links" section.

Yes Marcosantezana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been at the page with his somewhat "interpretive" views. You should see what he did to natural selection (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Marcosantezana). Basically, someone needs to go through it with a toothcomb, but there' no point trying to talk to him because won't get any response out of him. — Dunc|☺ 19:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted his most revecent changes, but we ought to consider reverting to this version and simply reading through his changes for any useful bit. JeffBurdges 18:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs source

The phrase is a metaphor, not a scientific description; and it is not generally used by biologists, who almost exclusively prefer to use the phrase "natural selection". <br\>

Such an argument requires a citation. Could anyone provide that? Aranherunar 12:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OR/POV

Example: In The Man Versus The State of 1884 Spencer used this phrase to reinforce his social theories, writing "Thus by survival of the fittest, the militant type of society becomes characterized by profound confidence in the governing power, joined with a loyalty causing submission to it in all matters whatever." Companies which offer better goods and services survive better in the marketplace and tend to accumulate an ever-growing market share. Poorly-adapting companies will be forced out by better-adapting ones: "killed" by the competition.

Spencer's work is badly cited here (it's in the postscript to the work)! Furthermore, the second clause about companies does not pertain to the cite provided here. Criticism of Spencer's use of the phrase should be properly sourced according to WP:NOR, after it is explained what Spencer actually meant. Incinerator2.0 22:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revamped the paragraph. It no longer claims that he was using the phrase to support his theories. In fact you could argue that Spencer's notion of "survival of the fittest" is quite different from Darwin's notion. It sounds like he could be talking about Lamarckian evolution, group selection, memetics, etc... all at the same time. Mistercupcake 04:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"tautology" section

the "tautology" section was quite obviously written by somebody who has not understood the claim to the statement's tautology, instead going on about a "modern sense of 'fit'" (presumably "physical fitness"), apparently unaware of the generic sense "suited, proper". The example just illustrates the concept all over again without addressing the tautology issue. The gazelle example,

The faster gazelle would therefore be "selected", i.e., it would have higher relative fitness than slower ones, etc, but not "because it is selected" but rather because it can run faster and thus can escape better

says illustrates an incidence of one criterion for fitness in a certain context, i.e. "fastness". But a fast gazelle is not just fit because it is fast, but because it lives in an environment where speed is beneficial. the same gazelle would not profit from its fastness in another environment (say, on an island with no predators). It is therefore not "fit because it is fast", but proves fit by being selected.

In the causality chain that leads from functional differences to higher absolute or realized fitness nothing is tautological, since fitness is simply a measurement of the result of selection, a result that is determined by one's biological functionality.

it is true that fitness is "simply a measurement of the result of selection", which is the entire point. It is unclear why this is supposed to be "not tautological". dab (ᛏ) 18:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Note: much of the "Is 'survival of the fittest' a tautology?" section appears word for word at http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~txm/thesis/node17.html. It's not clear which is the original. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.41.8.179 (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reproductive success not in Origin

Following the Tautology links section http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA500.html "....What Darwin said is that heritable variations lead to differential reproductive success."

Where did Darwin say this reproductive success and differential appears nowhere in Origin of Species from http://www.gutenbergpress.org ? TongueSpeaker 18:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weiner appears to be paraphrasing Darwin's writings: a possible source is "Owing to this struggle for life, any variation, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any species, in its infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to external nature, will tend to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by its offspring. The offspring, also, will thus have a better chance of surviving, for, of the many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a small number can survive. I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term of Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection."[1] .. dave souza, talk 19:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly because reproductive success on Wikipedia redirects to Natural Selection. I just want to know who formally established that reproductive success means Natural Selection and where was it published. The word Natural Selection did'nt even exist before 1859 or am I mistaken? I know that Artificial Selection was only coined by Darwin in 1859. Reproductive success is one of the most widely used phrases in the Evolution literature and thus it must have it's own page on Wikipedia. What if cows were meant to produce beer instead of milk, would a cow still be a "success"? TongueSpeaker 22:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be ideal if we could track down the origin of the phrase "reproductive success", but I'm really not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying the term is somehow ill-defined? Ask any biologist today, and they'll give you an exact definition of reproductive success and explain precisely why it is the lynchpin of natural selection. The article on pulley says "It is not recorded when or by whom the pulley was first developed", but I think it's safe to say the idea of a pulley is well defined. No clue what that beercow comment is about; reproductive success has nothing to do with what an animal is "meant" to do.89.0.31.110 14:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the TalkOrigins link you show above, the paragraph including the statement "What Darwin said is that heritable variations lead to differential reproductive success." is attributed to Weiner, Jonathan. 1994. The Beak of the Finch. New York: Knopf. The term natural means of selection was used by Darwin in his essay of 1842 and his 1844 revision of his essay as published in 1858 includes the term natural selection. The 1842 essay says "But if man selects, then new races rapidly formed," the term artificial selection appears in The Origin in 1859. .. dave souza, talk 01:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this thread "What Naturaled and Who did the Selecting" http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/38df9a9a127281a8/733affebf9ef9aca?lnk=st&q=&rnum=3#733affebf9ef9aca I was told that the phrase Micro Evolution in the Oxford English Dictionary is from 1911, citing the American Naturalist v. 45, p. 256. The first for Macro Evolution is Dobzhansky's "Genetics & Origin of Species".. Virtually nobody knows this because everybody seems to just invent new phrases as they go along. I still don't know who established Reproductive Success or when was the phrase used for the first time. Did Weiner formally establish this in 1994? And my point as I made still stands, Darwin did not use the word differential, yet everybody thinks he did. To clarify this confusion we should track down the person and first usage of the phrase and how this person formally established this concept in the same way the Fourier established the Fourier Transform. We are told that Evolution or NS is not circular in its argument. It is as though somebody has simply decreed that it is impossible to phrase Evolution, NS, Reproductive Success in a circular manner. In order to demonstrate that we are not using circular or tautological arguments, we must somehow agree on some way of formulating these concepts so that they are circular. Presently anybody and everybody simply postulates that this or that formulation of NS is circular or not, but we are never told who formally established it as such. TongueSpeaker 18:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? Evolution, simplified to omit lateral gene transfer, artificial selection, and all that jazz, is the diversification of life via the combination of mutation (predicated on the heritability of traits) and natural selection. An individual's reproductive success, simply put, is how long its genes remain in the gene pool. Natural selection is the idea that individuals well equipped to survive and reproduce in an environment do, and individuals poorly equipped to survive and reproduce don't. In other words, that creatures equipped for reproductive success in an environment are, indeed, reproductively successful. Exceedingly simple, but hardly circular. 89.0.31.110 14:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derive Fitness from first principles

Berlinski asked in his book that "Fitness" be derived from first principles: p.277 First edtion Black Mischief: "... In general trouble arises simply because the connection between biological traits and fitness is never derived from first principles. If the pig were to be born with wheels mounted on ball bearings instead of trotters, would it be better off on some scale of porcine fitness?"TongueSpeaker 16:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no scale of porcine fitness. It really isn't that complex, y'know. If the pig passes on its genes, it is fit. The longer the genes stay in the gene pool, the fitter they are. End of story.89.0.31.110 14:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The term "fitness" can be troublesome in the finer points (see Dawkins, "The Extended Phenotype", chap. 10), but this quote makes no sense. Nobody cares how the pig gets higher reproductive success, as long as whatever caused this success is heritable. If it is, then it will mechanically propagate throughout the population, and if it is not, then it will mechanically die off. Please read the "tautology" section of this article again.--Thomas Arelatensis 12:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Natural Selection also metaphor!

'The phrase is a metaphor, not a scientific description; and it is not generally used by biologists, who almost exclusively prefer to use the phrase "natural selection".' Kind of true but disguises the fact that "natural selection" is more of a metaphor. The word 'natural' in natural selection is often misunderstood. It does not mean natural in the sense of distinguising from the supernatural. It doesn't mean natural in the everyday sense of "the likely course of events without interference". It doesn't even mean "occuring in nature". Strictly, at least according to the original meaning, it means "performed by Mother Nature" and so natural selection is a least as metaphorical as "survival of the fitest"! — Axel147 22:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you thought I was just being pedantic Wallace himself makes this point in a letter to Darwin!

My dear Darwin,— I have been so repeatedly struck by the utter inability of number of intelligent persons to see clearly, or at all, the self-acting and necessary effects of Natural Selection, that I am led to conclude that the term itself, and your mode of illustrating it however beautiful to many of us, are yet not the best adapted to impress it on the general naturalistic public...I think [the difficulty in understanding] arises almost entirely from your choice of the term Natural Selection, and so constantly comparing it in its effects to man's selection, and also to your so frequently personifying nature as 'selecting', as 'preferring', 'as seeking only the good of the species', etc., etc. To the few this is as clear as daylight, and beautifully suggestive, but to many it is evidently a stumbling block....I wish, therefore to suggest to you the possibility of entirely avoiding this source of misconception in your great work (if now not too late)...by adopting Spencer's term viz. 'Survival of the Fittest'. This term is a plain expression of the fact; 'Natural Selection' is a metaphorical expression of it, and to a certain degree indirect and incorrect, since, even personifying Nature, she does not so much select special variations as exterminate the most unfavourable ones.

— Axel147 20:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was published as Letter from A.R. Wallace to C. Darwin, July 2, 1866 (James Marchant, Alfred Russel Wallace. Letters and Reminiscences, Vol. I, p. 171, online [2]) -- 89.247.63.225 (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"survival of the fittest" and morality

Do we really even need this? It's not POV to omit every bit of grossly fallicious creationist drivel that's about. --Pvednes 18:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your belief, creationism is still widely believed. Besides, this does go into morals. Hitler after all used this thought to kill Jews and promote the perfect Arian race. Not saying that this originally deals with morals, but after such people as Hitler, it is extremely controversial. -Yancyfry 03:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I appreciate that having expressed YEC ideas in Mein Kampf and having promoted Luther's ideas of persecuting Jews Hitler can be associated with creationism, but really these sort of connections are an over-simplification. ... dave souza, talk 18:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else think that whole paragraph is incredibly argumentative? I think the references (Is/Ought and consequences fallacy) are fine, but this paragraph is basically a detailed refutation of an ill-defined criticism. I also don't the way that capitalism, war, and racism are being umbrella'd together. It just looks like textbook strawman to me. I might take a shot at rewriting the whole thing later, when I have more time.

Four out of four of the links in the "Tautology Links" section lead to articles all sharing the same perspective. I have added a fifth link to an article sharing the other major perspective. If providing only a single perspective is your idea of balance please delete all links but those leading to articles with the same point of view. 76.29.90.227 03:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Steve[reply]

NS remains a tautology

To say that an airplane is a tautology is meaningless, nor does it stop the plane from flying. So too with NS; traits do lead to differential reproductive success. Of the two types of tautologies, rhetorical and logical, NS remains a rhetorical tautology in reference to its ability to explain genetic information. Just as the word "airplane" is not a tautology unless it is used as an explanation for why aircraft can fly, so NS is not a tautology unless used as an explanation for the origin of genetic information. A thing of itself is not a tautology. A thing used as an explanation for its own traits is a tautology. In fact, a thing used to explain its own traits results in a rhetorical tautology. Rhetorical and logical tautologies are different constructs that produce the same effect: circular reasoning. Circular reasoning results when one attempts to provide an explanation for one's axioms. What I am saying is that NS as an explanation for the origin of species is a statement of faith.

That some die explains not why others survive. That some survive does not explain genetic info. DNA causes replication and variation. The environment causes death. What causes genetic information? The very basis of evolution (reproduction and variation) is the outcome of genetic information. Yet what causes genetic information? The environment causes death, but the fact that some die does not explain why others survive. What causes genetic information? There is no natural selection without genetic information. Yet, what causes genetic information?

In summary, NS is a tautology when used as an explanation for the origin of genetic info, that is, when used to explain the origin of species, because genetic information causes the reproduction and variation from which nature can select. 76.29.90.227 03:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Steve[reply]

The problem is that "natural selection" is not what you seem to think it is. Have you read the "tautology" section of this article. Natural selection is not just survival of the fittest". Natural selection is the portion of the variation in reproductive success, that is caused by heritable characters. If variation in reproductive success is not caused by heritable characters, then it's not part of NS. Real NS does explain what you call "genetic information" (which I understand to mean "why useful genes are present in living creatures"). It's true that "survival of the fittest", on its own and taken out of context, cannot. That's no argument against NS. --Thomas Arelatensis 12:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would really appreciate if somebody found out where the phrase originates, especially since the versions on this page and Spencer's page tell quite different stories. Drivehonor 18:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking that up, good point. References added, the origin (but not the quote) is also given in Brittanica and in Desmond & Moore's Darwin. .. dave souza, talk 21:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No longer accepted?

No... don't come here and yell at me. I'm simply asking this question. I was told recently that "Survival of the Fittest" is being replaced by another phrase.

Yes, scientists don't use this expression any more. Rather, the mechanism that drives evolution is called "natural selection" - Darwin's own original term. The reason is in the "tautology" section: "survival of the fittest" is just one part of the process, and on its own it is unable to explain adaptive evolution. Natural selection is, more or less, "increased survival (and reproduction) of the fittest, that is caused by heritable characters". --Thomas Arelatensis (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, for a long time it's been seen as problematic because "fittest" in biology means "best fitted" and not the popular modern usage of meaning athletic, or muscle men, or whatever. .. dave souza, talk 18:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's also 4 words to "Natural Selection"'s 2, and scientists are a lazy bunch...217.33.199.77 (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-objective fitness?

Biological fitness is a multi-objective concept hence the statement "fittest" is inappropriate. The following statement is proposed "Survival is mostly for those with non-dominated fitness. E.Ahmed and A.S.Hegazi Mansoura EGYPT.

In modern evolutionary parlance, "fitness" is roughly a shorthand for "genetic contribution to future generations" - i.e. how much of his genetic material an individual managed to transmit to future generations. This is a single value, so multi-objective concepts are not needed. (Thomas Arelatensis, 10 Jan 2008)

Survival of the Fit

Would a mention of the phrase Survival of the fit belong on this page? It is actually the more correct phrases since, fittest implies that the evolutionary procecss chooses for perfection, which isn't the case. Also I've read in places that Survival of the fit predates fittest. 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Would a mention of the phrase survival of the fit belong on this page? Being more correct, since the evolutionary process does not result in the selection of the fittest, Wikipedia should welcome the change. 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I did more or less do this in the lead, with the mention of "survival of the fit enough". However, I see that the phrase "survival of the fit" has better referencing available ([3] [4] [5] [6]), so I might make some changes along those lines.--Father Goose (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"characters" vs "traits" (or "characteristics")

In the 'Is "survival of the fittest" a tautology?' section, I find the (numerous) use of the term "characters" somewhat confusing and think they should all be changed to either "characteristics" or "traits" -- which I think is what is meant, but is are more prevalent.

In spite of that, when I look up the definition of the word "character", it appears that its usage here is technically correct esp in relation to heredity -- even if uncommon in everyday language:

character -- (Genetics) A structure, function, or attribute determined by a gene or group of genes.

Lastly, changing the term as proposed would make it more consistent with the Wikipedia page on heritability only uses the terms "characteristics" or "traits" (mostly the latter).

So, before making this change, I'd like to know others' thoughts. So please add any comments here.

(Martnym (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Seems to make sense.--147.188.192.41 (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "survival of the fittest" is often used in popular culture to mean "survival of the strongest/fastest/most intelligent." This is of course utterly unscientific, since evolutionary fitness has nothing to do with characteristics that are seen as positive by human beings. "Fitter" does not mean "better" (where "better" is a human value judgement). I believe the popular misconception is common enough that it should be addressed in the lead of the article, so I have edited it accordingly.

Misunderstanding survival of the fittest

Such misunderstandings have been normal rather than the exception ever since 1900. This page unfortunately seems to have misunderstood the meaning the word "fit" had in the 1800s, and it should be radically revised. "Fit" meant suitable or appropriate. For example, women of the middle class could often be considered "not a fit wife for her excellent son"(Anne Bronte's novel "Agnes Grey"). The modern and usual meaning of the word is a product ot the 1900s, and Darwin and Spencer had no concept of physical fitness -- a modern luxury. The old concept "fit" represents in itself a relative quality, relative to something, , just like the verb "to fit", as a lid fits on its box. Darwin wanted such a relative concept, so he adopted Spencer's expression. It expressed "suited or adapted to its environment", which is exactly his basis for natural selection. It follows that he could have written "survival of the fit", it expresses almost the same idea. But "fittest" makes the idea of selection of only the best suited characteristics clearer. Mondin (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the point -- it's not the "best suited characteristics" that tend to survive, but just "sufficiently suited characteristics". This is why "surivival of the fit" (or "fit enough") is a better analogy for evolution than "survival of the fittest" is.--Father Goose (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the article a bit to cover the point,[7] hope that helps. . dave souza, talk 23:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty good, but could you make the language a little plainer? "...immediate, local environment, tracking changing environments by differential preservation of organisms" is a bit too big-wordy even for me.--Father Goose (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tautology once again

The article writes:

"If certain heritable characters increase or decrease the chances of survival and reproduction of their bearers, then it follows mechanically (by definition of "heritable") that those characters that improve survival and reproduction will increase in frequency over generations."

The problem here is, that you have created a second term of fitness. You officially use fitness as "relative reproductive success" but inofficially you use a second term as "certain heritable characters increase or decrease the chances of survival and reproduction of their bearers". I prefer the notion of fitness as "adaption" or "competencies" in relation to environment, because it is more general. Of course, those competencies should be heritable, but this could include imitation, education etc. (eg heritation of language) as well.

So actually you have nothing solved with fitness = reproductive success. --79.220.172.178 (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds as if you are arguing for the discredited concept of Lamarckism. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Of course I am mentioning "higher" inheritance systems as well, like Jablonka/Lamb are doing this in their book (and you may call this Lamarckism), but my main point was: Defining "fitness = relative reproductive success" plus "certain heritable characters increase or decrease the chances of survival and reproduction of their bearers" does nothing contribute to the "survival of the fittest" tautology problem, because indirectly you then transform the notion of fitness to "certain heritable characters which lead to something". I don't see, why this is better than "adapted to the environment". Sorry for my English, but I am German.--79.220.169.175 (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The difference seems to be that the notion of inheritance of acquired characters, commonly if misleadingly called Lamarkism, has organisms becoming adapted to the environment, while natural selection means that there is a differential advantage in survival and reproduction held be by organisms which happen to fit the environment that they happen to be in at the time. If that advantage persists over numerous generations, then there's a cumulative change in the ditribution of the inherited traits of the population, but no one organism has adapted itself to the environment, every organism has begun with traits which may or may not be useful. Clearer? . . dave souza, talk 11:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't understand that at all, because you talk about acquired characters, and I don't know where this comes from. Nobel prize winner Manfred Eigen (who worked a lot on eary evolution) mentions in one of his books, that "survival of the fittest" is a tautology, if there is only a simple relation between survival (which is population related) and fitness (which is environment related, he calls it value based). As long as you say in your article, that fitness means "relative reproductive success" you do not have solved the tautology problem. The same is true for your response. You now write "while natural selection means that there is a differential advantage in survival and reproduction held be organisms which happen to fit the environment that they happen to be in at the time" (btw: is this correct English: held be organisms?). Once again you use the notion "fit" without explaining it. So you have nothing won. I understand fitness as something, which is related to environment, not to reproduction or population numbers. And please do not talk about Lamarckism, Creationisms, Intelligent Design or any other favorite topics anymore, my problem is a different one. --79.220.169.175 (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, fix typo. Perhaps you're missing the point that organisms vary, and some variations can be inherited. If the inherited variation gives some advantage in the environment of the moment, that helps successful breeding so the variation gets passed on to the next generation, and variations can accumulate. If that seems to be a tautology to you, it didn't seem obvious or true to biologists in the nineteenth century, even after Darwin published his theory. . . dave souza, talk 14:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The articles writes: "However, the expression 'survival of the fittest' (taken on its own and out of context) gives a very incomplete account of the mechanism of natural selection. The reason is that it does not mention a key requirement for natural selection, namely the requirement of heritability. It is true that the phrase 'survival of the fittest', in and by itself, is a tautology if fitness is defined by survival and reproduction. However, natural selection is not just survival of the fittest. Natural selection is the portion of variation in reproductive success, that is caused by heritable characters."
This does not convince me. Survival includes the requirement of heritability or weaker: similarity. The fittest can only survive, if offspring is similar to the fittest, otherwise somebody else survived. The problem still is, that the text does not define fitness. Evolution biology today often uses "fitness = relative reproductive success" which makes survival of the fittest a tautology. What I am saying all the time is: fitness must be defined in relation to environment. The use of 'heritable chararcters' instead does not solve the problem at all!
BTW: The exlusive reference to genes is a bit dangerous too. Pizarro onces killed 5000 Indians and put Atahualpa into prison - with just 150 men. Those men survived (if they had children later on), but the indians did not. If you explain this by genes, you end up in racism. The difference here was a technological (cultural) one. This cultural advantage will also be "heritated" to the children, because they grow up within the same culture. Therefore: Evolution can happen without genes being involved at all.--79.220.169.175 (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I added a link that is more detailed about Evolution as a tautology. There is a lot of consusion here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.86.44 (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Origin And Nature Of Natural Selection

Longevity Schmongevity Genes

It's Not The Procedure, But The Concept That Is Absurd

Longevity Genes Search Reflects Science Decadence http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/320/122.page#6368

A. For most centenarians, longevity is written in the DNA. A study of people who live past 100 reveals many genetic paths to a long life. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/60772/title/For_most_centenarians%2C_longevity_is_written_in_the_DNA


B. Longevity, survival, natural selection, evolution

- Merriam-Webster OnLine Longevity = a : a long duration of individual life b : length of life <a study of longevity>

- Longevity is about survival, which is about "natural selection", which is about energy constrainment, which is about life evolution, which is about cosmic evolution. Every mass is destined to become energy to fuel the ongoing cosmic expansion. This is why organisms and black holes etc., eat, digest energy in mass forms, to avoid-postpone conversion to energy. This is evolution, which is natural selection, which is survival, which is longevity.

- All mass formats age. Life is a mass format. Searching for longevity genes is searching for evolution genes...


C. The search for longevity genes is a reflection of the 20th-21st centuries science decadence

Its concepts and terminology reflect the abandonment of basic science for adoption of the pretentious cancerous capitalist 20th-21st century technology culture.


Dov Henis (Comments From The 22nd Century) 03.2010 Updated Life Manifest http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/54.page#5065 Cosmic Evolution Simplified http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/240/122.page#4427 Gravity Is The Monotheism Of The Cosmos http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/260/122.page#4887 EOTOE, Embarrassingly obvious TOE, expanding the horizon beyond Darwin And Einstein http://www.molecularfossils.com/2010/05/formal-test-of-theory-of-universal.html 93.172.175.72 (talk) 07:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion

There is some confusion. The argument of tautology is not about Evolution as a whole, just natural selection as possibly being incomplete or needing to be refined. It is even admitted by scientists that they do not understand what drives natural selection. It would be an arguement in formal logic whether or not natural selection even has a drive, or if the theory is complete but this does not mean that creationism is by default an accurate theory and it seems that whoever has taken charge of this page is convinced that this is the case and is not giving the arguement any credit at all. This is what makes it a paradox is that no one can come to a real conclusion except by consensus which in formal logic is not good enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.86.44 (talk) 06:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for your statement that "scientists [admit] that they do not understand what drives natural selection"? Gabbe (talk) 07:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot yet find what I'm looking for on the internet but I did find one that says scientists are looking to other possibilities to find a different "driving force" behind evolution and that, in different words, natural selection may not be enough. What Drives Evolution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.86.44 (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a hallmark of the modern evolutionary synthesis since at least the 1940s that natural selection is not the only process driving evolution, and that there are other processes at work (such as genetic drift). Natural selection is not synonymous with evolution, rather, it is one of the processes explaining how (and why) evolution occurs. Gabbe (talk) 11:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's true but natural selection is still the most important drive and that's why it's the center of the tautology debate. There are still some tautologies in the definition of natural selection. For example, on this article:
"...natural selection does not simply state that "survivors survive" or "reproducers reproduce"; rather, it states that "survivors survive, reproduce and therefore propagate any heritable characters which have affected their survival and reproductive success"..."
1. Survivors survive
2. Reproduce and therefor propagate
These are things that bring the explanation into question and because a tautology ultimately means a paradox, in logical studies, explanatory power is limited and would mean that at some things have to be reconsidered. That's it. No victory for creationism or intelligent design there. It's really just a debate and hasn't changed anything yet so there's no harm that can really be done by making this subject more clear. If this debate were to change anything, it would only help better understand what is admittedly still somewhat of a puzzle. It would not contradict all things evolution like the pseudoscientist claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.86.44 (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

71.237.141.241

I so don't want to get involved in this discussion. I would however like to bring to someone's attention that 71.237.141.241 seems to have snuck in an edit that reverses the previous meaning of a paragraph. They appear to have done this on a number of related websites as well as the odd bit of section blanking to remove criticisms of religious concepts. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 03:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biological validity

The new section had an opening paragraph which misrepresented Darwin, so I've removed it:

Survival of the fittest was observed at the level of species by Darwin himself, the most famous example being the finches of the Galapogos Islands, which competed and diversified in response to biological pressure. Another common example is the change in colour frequency of moths during England's industrial revolution are the moths. Since Darwin's observations the effects of biotic pressures have been observed on the scale of individuals, populations and species, however, the influence of competition has not been proven on a larger evolutionary scale.

For a start, Darwin didn't observe the finches competing and diversifying, the famous Galapagos finches were shown to have speciated by Gould who only studied them after Darwin's return to England. The example of peppered moth evolution didn't show competition between moths, it showed differential bird predation depending on how well the moths were camouflaged. Darwin himself meant the "struggle for existence" in a wide sense, including struggle against the environment as well as against other organisms. As for whether there's a larger evolutionary scale, that seems to be in some dispute: speciation is the main focus of evolutionary biology.
I've left the Sahney et al. argument in, but have made it clear that this is one paper: more would be needed to overturn the evolutionary understanding of natural selection, whether phrased as survival of the fittest or not. . dave souza, talk 20:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editions of Darwin's Book

Could someone add a short timetable when the first four editions were published, before his fifth book was published? I need to find out for how long Drawin did NOT use the term "survival of the fittest", as this was a term coined by Spencer. 84.112.136.52 (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Labeling Shermer

Is it necessary to introduce Shermer in this article as, "Skeptic Society founder and Skeptic magazine publisher Dr. Michael Shermer". Wikipedia isn't a master of ceremonies, introducing a keynote speaker. - Checking the checkers (talk) 12:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did Darwin regret adopting the phrase "Survival of the fittest"?

Current searches bring up no reference to this issue, but in the past I have read that later in life, Darwin expressed regret that he had adopted the phrase. I remember one such comment cited a letter written by Darwin, perhaps to a son. Can anyone throw any light on this? It would be an informative addition to the page if true.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Survival_of_the_fittest&oldid=673222585"