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

[Sunstone]

Is the notion of natural selection, as expressed in the theory of evolution, a tautology?

Some creationists have claimed that it is. For instance: It has been asserted by some creationists that the reasoning for natural selection goes something like this:

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."

Is this a tautology?

Is this actually what scientists are saying, or is it a strawman?

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?

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Is the notion of natural selection, as expressed in the theory of evolution, a tautology?

Some creationists have claimed that it is. For instance: It has been asserted by some creationists that the reasoning for natural selection goes something like this:

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."

Is this a tautology?

Is this actually what scientists are saying, or is it a strawman?

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?

After looking up what the heck a a tautology is, i'd have to give a resounding "dunno".

See, i've never known anyone do that. If someone had asked me that question it would have gone like this;

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, due to its physiology, has a better chance of surviving within its environment and thus reproducing than other members of its population.

I don't see it as a repetition or a tautoise. But in its original form i guess it was. Maybe scientists do do this, i just haven't met them yet. Maybe its only American scientists?

[standing_alone]

The way I see it (your example, that is), it does sort of look like a tautology.

Originally Posted by Sunstone

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?

No, it does not. Natural selection can be tested and is falsifiable by looking at its predictive power. Predictions can be made based on natural selection and then be tested. (This is paraphrased from a book I own titled Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer - to give credit to the source).

[fantôme profane]

I don’t know if it is a straw man, or if it is an honest misunderstanding.

Natural Selection is a process; an organism being adapted to their environment is the result of that process. They are interrelated concepts, but it is not just two ways of saying the same thing. From observations made of the way a species is adapted to it’s environment, predictions can be made to describe the process of Natural Selection that species has gone through. Likewise from observations of the environment predictions can be made concerning the process of natural selection that a population will go through, and what adaptations they may develop. Once these predictions are made, then evidence is sought to support, or refute these predictions (fossils, morphology, genetics, observed behaviour etc).

[Comet]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

After looking up what the heck a a tautology is, i'd have to give a resounding "dunno".

See, i've never known anyone do that. If someone had asked me that question it would have gone like this;

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, due to its physiology, has a better chance of surviving within its environment and thus reproducing than other members of its population.

That sounds a bit more like the conversation would go.

[stemann]

The fact that some Creationists think that the concept of 'Natural Selection' being a tautology invalidates it makes me laugh until I fall off the chair. 2+2=4 is a tautology. So this is apparently invalid. The whole point of science is to discover truth. A tautology is truth; it verifies itself. So how can it be invalid?

Something that is better able to survive, survives- because it is better able to. This is a tautology. Anything added to that, such as the reason why something is better able to survive, is extra to the concept of 'Natural Selection' and so is not part of the tautology.

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by stemann

Something that is better able to survive, survives- because it is better able to. This is a tautology. Anything added to that, such as the reason why something is better able to survive, is extra to the concept of 'Natural Selection' and so is not part of the tautology.

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.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Is the notion of natural selection, as expressed in the theory of evolution, a tautology?

Some creationists have claimed that it is. For instance: It has been asserted by some creationists that the reasoning for natural selection goes something like this:

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."

Is this a tautology?

Is this actually what scientists are saying, or is it a strawman?

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?

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."

To me, that sounds like circular logic. The 'better adaptation' is evolution.