Is Natural Selection A Tautology? (evolution, creation, America, science)

[stemann]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Not when you're teaching someone, when you are trying to convey the principles of natural selection to someone uninformed on the subject you need to expand and explain, simply stating the theories as tautologies is pointless and belies a certain air of arrogance on the behalf of the speaker.

What, then, are 'the theories'? All I was talking about was this notion:

Originally Posted by yours truly

Something that is better able to survive, survives- because it is better able to.

....which is a tautology. If your definition of Natural Selection includes more than this, then the whole thing will probably not be a tautology.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by stemann

If your definition of Natural Selection includes more than this, then the whole thing will probably not be a tautology.

Natural selection is not a theory. It is a fact. The theory of evolution seeks to explain biodiversity as the result of random variations passed through the sieve of natural selection.

[standing_on_one_foot]

Well, sure, I suppose it is a bit tautological. Which makes it a pretty hard mechanism to refute, if the best arguement against it is that it's too inherently logical...a tautology is, rather by definition, true, after all. And it's a useful one, and not one that's instantly apparent as a mechanism but which serves to explain very well, so I really don't see what the problem with it is.

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by stemann

What, then, are 'the theories'? All I was talking about was this notion:

The theories that make up evolution, generally you don't explain natural selection to someone outside of a greater discussion on evolutionary theory.

Originally Posted by stemann

....which is a tautology. If your definition of Natural Selection includes more than this, then the whole thing will probably not be a tautology.

Well, my definition of natural selection would include more than that, because the above definition is that which an 8 year old child might come up with.

This from answers.com seems a nice simple definition of natural selection without the need to resort to tautology.

The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Natural selection is not a theory. It is a fact. The theory of evolution seeks to explain biodiversity as the result of random variations passed through the sieve of natural selection.

To add, it is a collection of a set of forces that can be explained in any way that brings forth a functional structure. Whether it be random variations, recombination, or natural selection.

[stemann]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Natural selection is not a theory. It is a fact. The theory of evolution seeks to explain biodiversity as the result of random variations passed through the sieve of natural selection.

I don't disagree with you; I don't think I ever claimed to, but let me know if I inadvertantly did.

Originally Posted by Halcyon

The theories that make up evolution, generally you don't explain natural selection to someone outside of a greater discussion on evolutionary theory.

Good for you; I was talking about Natural Selection, not evolution. Generally they are not separated, but I was talking about Natural Selection separately.

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Well, my definition of natural selection would include more than that, because the above definition is that which an 8 year old child might come up with.

I apologise profusely for bringing such puerile minutiae into this debate. My definition of Natural Selection, it seems, is the same as that of an 8 year old child. I don't mind. My definition of a spoon, or 2+2=4, or God would probably be the same as that of an 8 year old child as well. What is your point? That Natural Selection is more complicated than this? If the answer is yes, then your definition of Natural Selection is different to mine.

Hold it!! No it isn't! Look at this!

Originally Posted by Halcyon

This from answers.com seems a nice simple definition of natural selection without the need to resort to tautology.

Originally Posted by answers.com, apparently

The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.

Yes, without the need to resort to tautology.... except the tautology that that definition just happens to be. I'm going to use bullet points; I consider them divine:

(Bullet #1) Organism is best adapted
(Bullet #2) Organism survives and reproduces
(Bullet #3) Something that is best adapted survives and reproduces

Conversely,

(Bullet #1(sub-bullet [A]) Organism is less adapted
(Bullet #2(sub-bullet [b]) Organism neither survives nor reproduces
(Bullet #3(sub-bullet [C]) Something that is less adapted neither survives nor reproduces.

Each Bullet #3 is a definition. So the whole thing is a..... well, I don't want to give the game away. I'll give you a clue: it begins with a "T". And it isn't "Toaster".

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by stemann

I apologise profusely for bringing such puerile minutiae into this debate. My definition of Natural Selection, it seems, is the same as that of an 8 year old child. I don't mind. My definition of a spoon, or 2+2=4, or God would probably be the same as that of an 8 year old child as well. What is your point? That Natural Selection is more complicated than this? If the answer is yes, then your definition of Natural Selection is different to mine.

No need to apologise, but if you're going explain natural selection to someone unversed in the process at any point in the future, you might want to add a fair amount to that definition, otherwise they will give you an odd look and walk away.

Originally Posted by stemann

Yes, without the need to resort to tautology.... except the tautology that that definition just happens to be. I'm going to use bullet points; I consider them divine:

(Bullet #1) Organism is best adapted
(Bullet #2) Organism survives and reproduces
(Bullet #3) Something that is best adapted survives and reproduces

Conversely,

(Bullet #1(sub-bullet [A]) Organism is less adapted
(Bullet #2(sub-bullet [b]) Organism neither survives nor reproduces
(Bullet #3(sub-bullet [C]) Something that is less adapted neither survives nor reproduces.

Each Bullet #3 is a definition. So the whole thing is a..... well, I don't want to give the game away. I'll give you a clue: it begins with a "T". And it isn't "Toaster".

I don't think it is really.

I guess it could technically be seen as a logical tautology in its broadest sense, since its saying those better adapted survive and those which are not are eliminated, however it does give certain qualifying statements like "better adapted to the environment" and implies the logical connection between this survival and greater fitness. If you do view it as a tautology, at least it supplies enough information to satisfy the layman.
"Something that is better able to survive, survives- because it is better able to" while true, will not satisfy.

In the context of this thread, this isn't actually the form of tautology we are even referring to, see the OP;

SCIENTIST: "Those organisms that are better adapted to their environment than other organisms produce more offspring who themselves reproduce."

CREATIONIST: "Well, what does 'better adapted' mean?"

SCIENTIST: "Oh, 'better adapted' means an organism that produces more offspring who themselves reproduce."

The form of tautology we have here is one involving rhetoric, we see a simple repeating of a phrase which supplies no further information and thus is useless to the uninformed.
The creationist asked a question which in this case was not answered by the scientist, a tautology is not an answer in itself as it is simply a repeat of already known information. In this case the scientist needed to elucidate on what s/he meant by "better adapted" to clarify for the creationist the processes involved. In this case giving an example organism, explaining its adaptations to the environment and then suggesting how some individuals have better adaptations than others, thus giving them a suvival and therefore reproductive advantage.

Simply stating that the organism who is most reproductive because is better adapted, is better adapted because it is most reproductive - 1. is not true as that is fitness not adaptation and 2. does not supply the necessary information to the creationist in order for them to better understand natural selection.

To answer the OP question;

And even if it is both a tautology and what scientists are actually saying, does it's being a tautology invalidate the notion of natural selection?

The answer is no, it does not invalidate it, however it is a crap way of offering an explanation, and any scientist worth his salt will not resort to such crud.

[standing_on_one_foot]

Hmm. I don't think "better adapted" only means "produces more offspring, which then reproduce." That's more a consequence of being better adapted. If I had to define better adapted, I'd say it meant "is more genetically suited for competition over limited resources and is able to pass this on the subsequent generations." Or something like that. It just seems a more useful definition.

[stemann]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

No need to apologise, but if you're going explain natural selection to someone unversed in the process at any point in the future, you might want to add a fair amount to that definition, otherwise they will give you an odd look and walk away.

Good for them. Chances are I won't be trying to explain just the concept of 'Natural Selection' on its own, but if I am, then that is what I would say. If they 'give [me] an odd look and walk away,' well, then, it wouldn't be the first time (and sure won't be the last).

Originally Posted by Halcyon

I guess it could technically be seen as a logical tautology in its broadest sense, since its saying those better adapted survive and those which are not are eliminated, however it does give certain qualifying statements like "better adapted to the environment" and implies the logical connection between this survival and greater fitness.

Nothing else is required to define 'Natural Selection' in the manner that I personally am defining it. Like I said before, if you define it in a different way then we will probably not agree.

Originally Posted by Halcyon

If you do view it as a tautology, at least it supplies enough information to satisfy the layman.
"Something that is better able to survive, survives- because it is better able to" while true, will not satisfy.

I'm not bothered if it satisfies them particularly; if they ask me to define it and I do, then their satisfaction is immaterial.

Originally Posted by Halcyon

In the context of this thread, this isn't actually the form of tautology we are even referring to, see the OP;

Originally Posted by OP

SCIENTIST: "Those organisms that are better adapted to their environment than other organisms produce more offspring who themselves reproduce."

CREATIONIST: "Well, what does 'better adapted' mean?"

SCIENTIST: "Oh, 'better adapted' means an organism that produces more offspring who themselves reproduce."

Yes.... this is a tautology. It is exactly the same as what I said here:

Originally Posted by myself

(Bullet #1) Organism is best adapted
(Bullet #2) Organism survives and reproduces
(Bullet #3) Something that is best adapted survives and reproduces

Conversely,

(Bullet #1(sub-bullet [A]) Organism is less adapted
(Bullet #2(sub-bullet [b]) Organism neither survives nor reproduces
(Bullet #3(sub-bullet [C]) Something that is less adapted neither survives nor reproduces.

Originally Posted by Halcyon

The form of tautology we have here is one involving rhetoric, we see a simple repeating of a phrase which supplies no further information and thus is useless to the uninformed.

Yes.... a tautology.

Originally Posted by Halcyon

The creationist asked a question which in this case was not answered by the scientist, a tautology is not an answer in itself as it is simply a repeat of already known information.

How am I supposed to explain to someone why 2+2=4 further than saying, "Well, if you have 2 things, and put another 2 things there, you have 4 things." This is an answer in itself. You can't explain why something that is better adapted survives and reproduces, further than saying that that is the definition of "Better Adapted."

Originally Posted by Halcyon

In this case the scientist needed to elucidate on what s/he meant by "better adapted" to clarify for the creationist the processes involved.

No they don't, because what s/he means by "better adapted" is "more able to survive and reproduce."

Originally Posted by Halcyon

In this case giving an example organism, explaining its adaptations to the environment and then suggesting how some individuals have better adaptations than others, thus giving them a suvival and therefore reproductive advantage.

You can do this in general terms! Thus making the tautology! You don't need to specify every s