Popper says natural selection is testable, not theory of evolution(?)*

[yrreg]

Read this text of Popper which is being cited as Popper's recantation of his earlier statement that the theory of evolution is a tautology, that it cannot be tested.

http://www.geocities.com/criticalrationalist/popperevolution.htm


It seems that Popper is making a distinction between the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection which is Darwin's contribution to the theory of evolution.



[...]

Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution,
his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test.

[...]


I still believe that natural selection works this way as a research
programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability
and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad
to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I
hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of
natural selection.




Paging experts of Popper's writings published and unpublished, and experts of the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection:


Please get more excerpts to show chronologically the mind of Popper in regard to the testability of the theory of evolution and the testability of Darwin's contribution to the theory of evolution with his theory of natural selection.






Yrreg

*Posted by author in a Karl Popper forum, and posted here again because I got disgusted when I read the notice that my post will be approved first before publication -- so it's not out yet since five minutes from posting.

[Kotatsu]

In the great scheme of things, however, it doesn't matter who said what, as the theory of evolution does not rest on the authority of its founders.

[yrreg]

In the great scheme of things, however, it doesn't matter who said what, as the theory of evolution does not rest on the authority of its founders.


Having said that, will you please if you be knowledgeable in regard to the writings of Popper and knowledgeable about the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection, tell us what you think:


1. Does Karl Popper make a distinction between the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection.

2. You being your own authority, what is the distinction if any in your brain between the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection.

3. Suppose you just tell me in your own words and in not more than 50 words what is the theory of evolution?




Otherwise I will consider you to be not even an authority to yourself.





Yrreg

[D'rok]

Evolution is a fact like "things fall down" is a fact. Natural Selection is a theory that explains the fact of evolution. Gravity is a theory that explains the fact that things fall down.

[JJM]

Popper was a philosopher, not a scientist. If you don't play the game, you don't make the rules ...

[Gate2501]

Having said that, will you please if you be knowledgeable in regard to the writings of Popper and knowledgeable about the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection, tell us what you think:


1. Does Karl Popper make a distinction between the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection.

2. You being your own authority, what is the distinction if any in your brain between the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection.

3. Suppose you just tell me in your own words and in not more than 50 words what is the theory of evolution?




Otherwise I will consider you to be not even an authority to yourself.





Yrreg

I will now retroactively apply your 50 word limit to your own post.

Thus, you are not even an authority to yourself (whatever that means).

[sol invictus]

Read this text of Popper which is being cited as Popper's recantation of his earlier statement that the theory of evolution is a tautology, that it cannot be tested.

In order for evolution to be a "tautology", one first has to turn it into a statement in logic.

For example: the current complexity and diversity of life on earth is a result of evolution by natural selection.

That is obviously not a tautology, and it is certainly both testable and falsifiable.

Another example: when subject to selection pressure, a population of living beings eventually either goes extinct or adapts genetically to the pressure.

Again, plainly non-tautological and testable.

[yrreg]

[...]


1. Does Karl Popper make a distinction between the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection?

2. You being your own authority, what is the distinction if any in your brain between the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection?

3. Suppose you just tell me in your own words and in not more than 50 words what is the theory of evolution?



[...]




Keep to No. 1 for the present.

Let us all ascertain whether in the following text from Popper (assuming that it is genuinely from him and not tampered either), does he clearly make a distinction between the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection?

http://www.geocities.com/criticalrat...revolution.htm


When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory--that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.

However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenom known as "industrial melanism", we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.

The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like "All tables are tables" is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave the most offspring leave the most offspring. And C.H. Waddington even says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that "Natural selection ... turns out ... to be a tautology". However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an "enormous power ... of explanation". Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here.

Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others.

I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as "almost tautological", and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems.

I still believe that natural selection works this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355




For myself I cannot otherwise than being a careful and critical reader conclude that Popper does, in that excerpt above of the cited article, make a distinction between the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection.



What about you guys here who read that excerpt carefully and critically?





Yrreg

[Third Eye Open]

I'm sorry, and I know this is bias of me, but whenever I see something at 'geocities.com' it is very hard for me to take it serious enough to even bother reading.

[Mashuna]

Evolution is the process, natural selection is one of the mechanisms by which it works.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Evolution is a fact like "things fall down" is a fact. Natural Selection is a theory that explains the fact of evolution. Gravity is a theory that explains the fact that things fall down.

I'd go with the natural selection is the factual observation, and the theory of evolution explains how that fact happens.

6/half-dozen though.

[Kotatsu]

Having said that, will you please if you be knowledgeable in regard to the writings of Popper and knowledgeable about the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection, tell us what you think:


1. Does Karl Popper make a distinction between the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection.

2. You being your own authority, what is the distinction if any in your brain between the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection.

3. Suppose you just tell me in your own words and in not more than 50 words what is the theory of evolution?




Otherwise I will consider you to be not even an authority to yourself.

Considering that you pointedly ignored everything I said in the last thread you started here, I am reluctant to spend any further time conversing with you. Nevertheless, in the hope that you will actually read what I write this time, I will answer your questions, based on the two quotes you have provided (I have no time to follow your link at the moment).

1. He declares one to be a subset of the other, the theory of evolution being the more general one. This is natural and logical, as "the theory of evolution" contains more ideas than just "the theory of natural selection".

2. The theory of natural selection is a subset of the theory of evolution. Thus, everything in the former is part of the latter, but not vice versa.

3. The theory of evolution is "the description, delimitation and formulation of the rules, mechanisms, pathways, and general trends by which entities which can inherit traits from their precursors come to change over time" = 28 words. It can be applied, for instance, on living organisms, but also on all other entities which fulfil the criterion "can inherit traits from their precursors". Terminology in the above statement is not necessarily used in standard ways.

[blutoski]

I'd go with the natural selection is the factual observation, and the theory of evolution explains how that fact happens.

6/half-dozen though.

Er... I think it's the other way around.

See: [History of Evolutionary Thought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought)]

[blutoski]

Having said that, will you please if you be knowledgeable in regard to the writings of Popper and knowledgeable about the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection, tell us what you think:


1. Does Karl Popper make a distinction between the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection.

2. You being your own authority, what is the distinction if any in your brain between the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection.

3. Suppose you just tell me in your own words and in not more than 50 words what is the theory of evolution?




Otherwise I will consider you to be not even an authority to yourself.



I'm going to address the main point of the opening post, rather than quibble over these.

Evolution denialists omit Popper's reasoning was based on assumptions that are not true, and also importantly, they omit his change to a new position on this subject when he realized his error.

It's important to note that Popper, firstly, was not a scientist and has no natural science experience and no biology education. Because of this, unfortunately, he didn't understand the science involved and made his original statement based on what he thought was going on. When he was informed that his assumptions were incorrect, he changed his mind.

The original reasoning was that he felt a tautology was formed by circular reasoning thus: that fit is defined as a surviving species, but no matter what happens in an experiment, the survivor will be defined as fit. A disconfirmation would be if we observed an unfit organism surviving, which is impossible by the definition above.

The error was that he was just unaware that scientists use different measures of fitness.

Thus: I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. (1)

citations:
Dialectica 32:344-346.

[kerikiwi]

It seems that Popper is making a distinction between the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection which is Darwin's contribution to the theory of evolution.





The theory of evolution (that living things change) is distinct from the theory of natural selection (the process by which living things change).

Your point?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Heck, we don't even need evidence for evolution. All we need is to agree on some premises. From Marvin Minsky:

The Process of Evolution is the following abstract idea:

There is a population of things that reproduce, at different rates in different environments. Those rates depend, statistically, on a collection of inheritable traits. Those traits are subject to occasional mutations, some of which are then inherited.

Then one can deduce, from logic alone, without any need for evidence, that:

THEOREM: Each population will tend to increase the proportion of traits that have higher reproduction rates in its current environment.


~~ Paul

[UnrepentantSinner]

Er... I think it's the other way around.

D'oh. I meant diversity of species is the observation and natural selection is the theory.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why would natural selection be hard to test? We see it everyday in antibiotic resistant microorganisms.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Why would natural selection be hard to test? We see it everyday in antibiotic resistant microorganisms.

That's an example of mutation and artificial selection, not natural selection.

[JJM]

Why would natural selection be hard to test? We see it everyday in antibiotic resistant microorganisms.

That's an example of mutation and artificial selection, not natural selection.When one is treating an infection, resistance is not the objective (artificially selected) of the treatment. Rather, it is a new trait that allows the microbe to survive in a new environment (i.e., in the presence of the drug).

[Dancing David]

Hi Yrreg, is this an actutal aper by Popper or is it someone talking about what someone else said about Popper:

However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenom known as "industrial melanism", we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.



There are many other observations that can be made which support the theory of natural selection through reproductive success:
1. The observed fact that traits which are harmful to the individual get passed on if they lead to reproductive success.
2. The observed fact that traits that are harmful to a community of individuals gets passed on if they lead to reproductive success.


The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like "All tables are tables" is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave the most offspring leave the most offspring. And C.H. Waddington even says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that "Natural selection ... turns out ... to be a tautology". However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an "enormous power ... of explanation". Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here.


The tautology lies in this mis-statement of the theory of natural selection, if we restate it as the people who use the theory state it , is it still a tautology?

1. Variation exists between members of a set.
2. Variation exists between successive generations of a set.
3. Members of the set will reproduce successfully at rates that vary.


So the correct statement (IMNSHO) is:
A. Traits that lead to reproductive success will tend to be passed on at higher rates to the successive generation than traits that do not lead or are detrimental to reproductive success.

Now this is the tautology as was stated in your citation
“those organisms that leave the most offspring leave the most offspring”

This leaves out an important the in the construction of the theory of natural selection through reproductive success.

1. Variation between members of the set
2. Variation between successive generations
3. Variable rates of reproduction

So if we take

“Those organisms that leave the most offspring leave the most offspring”

And we add

Those organisms that leave the most offspring through passage of variation in traits leave the most offspring

Then we can add

Those organisms that leave the most offspring through passage of variation in traits leave the most offspring who will also have offspring that leave more offspring through variation is traitscompared to other members of the set that do not have those traits.

Do we still have a tautology?

[Dancing David]

That's an example of mutation and artificial selection, not natural selection.

It is still passage of traits through reproductive success?

[sol invictus]

That's an example of mutation and artificial selection, not natural selection.

So what?

You might as well say the laws of physics are hard to test because they are natural laws - but when we test them in labs, we're doing artificial experiments. It's a meaningless distinction.

(It reminds me of the one between "natural" and "artificial" flavorings, which can be exactly the same substance, but must be called artificial if they weren't isolated and purified starting from something like plant material.)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Those organisms that leave the most offspring through passage of variation in traits leave the most offspring who will also have offspring that leave more offspring through variation is traitscompared to other members of the set that do not have those traits.

Do we still have a tautology?
I hate to play the definition game, but what exactly do we mean by a tautology when we are talking about empirical science? Do we mean that the definition of some concept is linguistically tautological? Or do we mean that some statement of an example of the concept is tautological?

Check out Minsky's Theorem of Evolution in post #16. Since it is a logical theorem, its proof would be a tautology. That is a good thing.

~~ Paul

[H'ethetheth]

Popper was a philosopher, not a scientist. If you don't play the game, you don't make the rules ...Though I see what you're getting at, I disagree. First of all, soccer players don't make the rules of soccer anymore, and people who make traffic regulations don't necessarily drive a car.
Secondly, Popper was a philosopher, yes, but a philosopher of science; he definitely had good ideas about what is good science and what isn't. Ideas that still play a vital role in science, and ideas that had not occurred to scientists at the time.
Thirdly, his falsifiability criterion has proven to be impractically strict. Without knowing the context of this quote I can imagine that natural selection does not meet the criterion of falsifiability as he envisioned it.
In short, he may well be talking out of his arse here, but whether or not he is a scientist shouldn't necessarily matter.

[JJM]

Though I see what you're getting at, I disagree. First of all, soccer players don't make the rules of soccer anymore, ...Yes, mine was a flip comment.

Secondly, Popper was a philosopher, yes, but a philosopher of science; he definitely had good ideas about what is good science and what isn't. Ideas that still play a vital role in science, and ideas that had not occurred to scientists at the time.As a practical matter, I only had someone cite Popper in the lab when I was in my 40s. I have no idea what Popper (or Kuhn) has contributed to what we do.

Thirdly, his falsifiability criterion has proven to be impractically strict. {snip} In short, he may well be talking out of his arse here, but whether or not he is a scientist shouldn't necessarily matter.Again, it was a light-hearted comment on my part. Philosophers can suggest ideas to be tested (e.g., is matter infinitely divisible, or are there atoms). I take your point.

[H'ethetheth]

Yes, mine was a flip comment.

As a practical matter, I only had someone cite Popper in the lab when I was in my 40s. I have no idea what Popper (or Kuhn) has contributed to what we do.

Again, it was a light-hearted comment on my part. Philosophers can suggest ideas to be tested (e.g., is matter infinitely divisible, or are there atoms). I take your point.Oh... never mind then. :D

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Thirdly, his falsifiability criterion has proven to be impractically strict. Without knowing the context of this quote I can imagine that natural selection does not meet the criterion of falsifiability as he envisioned it.
I'm still confused. Natural selection is a process. What does it mean for a process to be falsifiable?

Or are we talking strictly about some definition of natural selection?

~~ Paul

[Z]

Let me just jump to the obvious conclusion of this, or any other Yrreg thread:

The answer is 'penis'.

Can we move on?

[H'ethetheth]

I'm still confused. Natural selection is a process. What does it mean for a process to be falsifiable?

Or are we talking strictly about some definition of natural selection?

~~ PaulI don't know. I don't know the context of the quote, so I have no idea what exactly Popper is recanting and why; and why are you asking me this? Who are you people? Where am I? Where's my coat?

In other words, I'll try to find the context of the quote, because it's weekend and I have nothing better to do.

Also, penis.

[H'ethetheth]

Having read up a little on this quote, I'm pretty sure I have no idea what Popper's problem was, but I'm happy he solved it for himself in the end.

[Macoy]

I was trying to repair my wardrobe, and I suddenly found myself here.

Gloriana!

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Having read up a little on this quote, I'm pretty sure I have no idea what Popper's problem was, but I'm happy he solved it for himself in the end.
Now that's the funniest thing I've read all day.

~~ Paul

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's an example of mutation and artificial selection, not natural selection.I'm not sure what your point is. There is evidence of natural selection all around us.

Here's a link to the e-coli citrate metabolism which spontaneously evolved that I believe someone was referring to earlier.

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html)a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.

Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."

[Skeptic Ginger]

When one is treating an infection, resistance is not the objective (artificially selected) of the treatment. Rather, it is a new trait that allows the microbe to survive in a new environment (i.e., in the presence of the drug).Good point.

[UnrepentantSinner]

First off... penis.

When one is treating an infection, resistance is not the objective (artificially selected) of the treatment. Rather, it is a new trait that allows the microbe to survive in a new environment (i.e., in the presence of the drug).
It is still passage of traits through reproductive success?
So what?{snip}

You're all correct. I was conflating human activity as artificial (as in, say, breeding animals or cultivating flowers or beer yeasts) with natural selction with... despite our hubris, includes the activities of man. My problem is that I sometimes forget that humans are a natural part of the environment so when we do things like drive gorillas to near extinction or domesticate and breed galliforms as we do, that is part of the selective process.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm not sure what your point is. There is evidence of natural selection all around us.

Here's a link to the e-coli citrate metabolism which spontaneously evolved that I believe someone was referring to earlier.

And you wonder why I take umbrage with your genetics thread, yet assume I've never heard of Lenski's decades long experiment. What's next, are you going to link me to nylonase?

Taking back for a moment my concession above, Lenski's experiment isn't "natural selection" per se since it was conducted in the lab. It is a fantastic example of random mutation however and has ID advocates scrambling to cover their asses since they've latched on to the "front loaded" B.S. they currently are tauting. Actually I should say "another" fanstistic example since they've been floundering since the discovery of nylonase.

And yes, there are many wonderful examples of natural selection occuring all around us as well as many that make me sad like the loss of Arctic ice and the potential decline of polar bears. The development of resistant mircrobes are more an example of mutation than "natural" selection if we are to exclude human activity (such as I suppose I did with the polar bears and Arctic ice loss. :)).

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm putting you on ignore for a while, USin, until you get over your uncalled for attitude. You've taken affront to an example of a case of natural selection as if it was intended as more than just an example.

Who the hell said you did or didn't know about it? Are you the only one in the discussion here?

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'll take that as an admission that it was an example of mutation and not natural selection per se.

[blutoski]

I hate to play the definition game, but what exactly do we mean by a tautology when we are talking about empirical science? Do we mean that the definition of some concept is linguistically tautological? Or do we mean that some statement of an example of the concept is tautological?

Check out Minsky's Theorem of Evolution in post #16. Since it is a logical theorem, its proof would be a tautology. That is a good thing.

~~ Paul

Popper's complaint was that testing to see if the fittest really survive wasn't a proper test, since the survivor is decreed to be the fittest.

eg:

P1: if ~<survivor = fittest> then ~<evolution>
P2: survivor == fittest
HP3: <survivor = fittest>
HP4: ~~<evolution>
C: <evolution>

(in plainspeak)
P1: if the survivor is not the fittest then evolution is not true
P2: survivors are always the fittest, by definition
HP3: therefore for all survivors, the survivor is fittest
HP4: evolution is not false
C: therefore, evolution true

Popper correctly determined that because P2 was definitional, there was no situation where ~<evolution> (falsification) could take place, so it was question-begging.

He's correct, as written, but this is not what biologists are testing, so it is not a real critique. Popper modified his thoughts on the subject when educated about this error.

[blutoski]

I'll take that as an admission that it was an example of mutation and not natural selection per se.

You interpret being put on an ignore list any way you want, of course, but if you want to persuade an audience that you're right, you actually have to come up with a better argument than your opponent, rather than declare victory in abstentia. You will go to bed tonight as the one and only person who takes Skeptigirl's response as 'an admission'. The rest of us will consider how this impacts your reputation on this forum.

I once played online chess with a person whose strategy was to use abusive language in the messaging tool so that his opponents abandoned games. Everybody knew he couldn't play chess, but he kept starting new games. I have no idea why he did that, since it made him look so incredibly incompetent. Perhaps he thought everybody was stupid? I don't know, but I wonder if he went to bed reliving these games as some sort of 'victory', rather than the juvenile display that it was.

[UnrepentantSinner]

...You will go to bed tonight as the one and only person who takes Skeptigirl's response as 'an admission'. The rest of us will consider how this impacts your reputation on this forum.

Correction! This morning. ;)

I don't think I've used any abusive language or any attitude other than my own opinion which I have tried to derive from facts as I know or understand them, and have admitted my errors in this thread without any attempt at prevarication or spin.

[Skeptic Ginger]

You interpret being put on an ignore list any way you want, of course, but if you want to persuade an audience that you're right, you actually have to come up with a better argument than your opponent, rather than declare victory in abstentia. You will go to bed tonight as the one and only person who takes Skeptigirl's response as 'an admission'. The rest of us will consider how this impacts your reputation on this forum.

I once played online chess with a person whose strategy was to use abusive language in the messaging tool so that his opponents abandoned games. Everybody knew he couldn't play chess, but he kept starting new games. I have no idea why he did that, since it made him look so incredibly incompetent. Perhaps he thought everybody was stupid? I don't know, but I wonder if he went to bed reliving these games as some sort of 'victory', rather than the juvenile display that it was.I've been looking all over for the post where someone commented about the bacteria that developed citrus metabolism. They worded it vaguely and I couldn't tell what the person meant. Then I came across the article and understood. That's why I posted it. It was unrelated to any other discussion.

But the earlier comment wasn't in this thread after all. And a search for citrus or citrate doesn't find it in this forum. I looked on the BAUT forum as well. So it must have been in a blog reply. I will find it. Maybe then US will take the chip off his shoulder.

In the mean time, thanks for your comments.

[Roboramma]

I'll take that as an admission that it was an example of mutation and not natural selection per se.

Saltationist! :P

If it's just mutation, why did that (those) particular mutation thrive in that particular environment?

Regarding antibiotic resistance, for instance, why is it that the specific traits that allow for it only came about after antibiotics were introduced? The potential for the mutations to occur was as present before the introduction as after. The only ingredient missing was a selective pressure. When one presented itself, when the environment changed, those specific mutations (which had likely been occurring before) were selected for.

I think you'll agree with all of that, actually, but if you don't, please let me know which part you find to be false, because I think it's pretty clear that this is an example of natural selection.

[CapelDodger]

That's an example of mutation and artificial selection, not natural selection.

In the microorganism's frame of reference the antibiotic is an element of its natural environment. That makes the selection natural.

There are plenty of organisms that have evolved to produce antibiotics, and plenty of microorganisms that have evolved to circumvent them. All by natural selection.

Artifical selection requires human control of reproduction and deliberate promotion of desired traits. It's not enough that humans be somehow involved in selection pressures.

[MRC_Hans]

Keep to No. 1 for the present.

Let us all ascertain whether in the following text from Popper (assuming that it is genuinely from him and not tampered either), does he clearly make a distinction between the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection?




For myself I cannot otherwise than being a careful and critical reader conclude that Popper does, in that excerpt above of the cited article, make a distinction between the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection.



What about you guys here who read that excerpt carefully and critically?





YrregI disagree. If anything, he defines natural selection as a subset of the theory of evolution. I nowhere see him asserting that it is a separate theory.

And your point is?

Hans

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

He's correct, as written, but this is not what biologists are testing, so it is not a real critique. Popper modified his thoughts on the subject when educated about this error.
Okay, so it was a case of an oversimplified definition.

~~ Paul

[yrreg]

Posted by yrreg


Keep to No. 1 for the present.

Let us all ascertain whether in the following text from Popper (assuming that it is genuinely from him and not tampered either), does he clearly make a distinction between the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection?


http://www.geocities.com/criticalrationalist/popperevolution.htm

For myself I cannot otherwise than being a careful and critical reader conclude that Popper does, in that excerpt above of the cited article, make a distinction between the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection.



What about you guys here who read that excerpt carefully and critically?




I disagree. If anything, he defines natural selection as a subset of the theory of evolution. I nowhere see him asserting that it is a separate theory.

And your point is?

Hans



Can you now just bring forth the lines in that excerpt from Popper indicating that he does not distinguish between the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection?

Here I will reproduce that excerpt for you again:


When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory--that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.

However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenom known as "industrial melanism", we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.

The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like "All tables are tables" is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave the most offspring leave the most offspring. And C.H. Waddington even says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that "Natural selection ... turns out ... to be a tautology". However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an "enormous power ... of explanation". Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here.

Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others.

I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as "almost tautological", and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems.

I still believe that natural selection works this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355




Please keep to a neat and tidy discussion, okay?

Don't say anything about what a text says unless you can point to the lines where the text says what you say it says.


One thing is distinct from another thing when they are not identical.

So, as far as I can see in that excerpt from Popper, he does make a distinction between the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection, so that the theory of evolution is not the theory of natural selection.


For the present we are trying to determine the answer to my question from the text itself, so please don't bring in anything else.

Afterwards we will go to more contents in that excerpt from Popper.




Yrreg

[CapelDodger]

Secondly, Popper was a philosopher, yes, but a philosopher of science; he definitely had good ideas about what is good science and what isn't. Ideas that still play a vital role in science, and ideas that had not occurred to scientists at the time.

If this were true there'd be a change in scientific practice after Popper's work, but I see no evidence of it. Popper's importance to science is, frankly, a conceit of philosophers.

[kerikiwi]

he does not distinguish between the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection

Yrreg

The 'theory of evolution' is about what happens, the 'theory of natural selection' is about the mechanism by which it happens.

As i asked earlier, what is your point?
Please keep to a neat and tidy discussion, okay?

[Skeptiquette]

However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenom known as "industrial melanism", we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.


Unfortunately, I don't remember all the details, but a rigorous experiment testing "natural selection" has been conducted. I am embarrassed that I can't remember the names of the scientists, but I do remember it was a couple, who for an extended period (I think 20+ years) studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

During this study they recorded and monitored climate conditions and the selective pressure imparted by climate change on the finch populations.

As you can imagine the varying finch populations had different phenotypes, one example being beak size. When the climate became more dry the food source changed phenotypically (i.e. thicker shells on the seeds, which in and of itself is an example of natural selection in plants), the birds with bigger beaks had an advantage. The advantage was that they were able to break the thicker shells apart and cosume the nutrient rich seed inside, and therefore surviving the pressure imparted by climate change. On the other hand, the population of finches exhibiting smaller beaks, were unable to access this food source, therefore dying off. The result being an adaptable trait (beak size) being passed on to offspring, resulting in the continued existence of the larger beaked birds and the extinction of the smaller beaked birds.

My synopsis is not doing justice to the experiment or the scientists, but at least gives a good example of "natural selection" being experimentally tested.

skeptiquette:)

[JJM]

Unfortunately, I don't remember all the details, {snip}You are referring to Peter and Rosemary Grant and they wrote a book. You are right, it was an experiment that tested, and verified, natural selection.

[CapelDodger]

Unfortunately, I don't remember all the details, but a rigorous experiment testing "natural selection" has been conducted. I am embarrassed that I can't remember the names of the scientists, but I do remember it was a couple, who for an extended period (I think 20+ years) studied finches on the Galapagos Islands.

See The Beak of the Finch : Evolution in Real Time by Jonathon Weiner.

[arthwollipot]

Not enough people are named "Gaylord" any more.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Please keep to a neat and tidy discussion, okay?
{snip}

O.K...

So, as far as I can see in that excerpt from Popper, he does make a distinction between the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection, so that the theory of evolution is not the theory of natural selection.

Popper was off base. You, on the other hand, don't know what you're talking about.

That neat and tidy enough for ya?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Saltationist! :P{truncate}.

In the microorganism's frame of reference {truncate}

Yep. I was off base. I blame exaustion, and that I forgot an exellent example of natural selction that was due to human activity - the Peppered Moth.

My apologies sg.

[Dancing David]

Hh, Yrreg, do not talk about Popper, talk about a summary of what someone else wrote about what Popper siad.

Is this a thesis Yrreg? that you are too lazy to research yourself?

1. No direct quotes that make your claim apparent.
2. No sources that make your claim apparent.
3. Ask others to stay on topic when they have.

[yrreg]

In a lifetime of people who write a lot and get them published, a good writer should take it as a service to his future readers after his death to reserve some years before his death to do a final review as final as possible of his ideas published, in order to correct, to retract, to explain more exactly, as a last will and testament of his ideas.

In this respect Popper was not as also with many writers possessed of any sense of concern to draw up a final last will and testament of his ideas, so that future readers can have an easy and quick way to determine from his writings by consulting his last will and testament of corrections, retractions, further explanations of his published ideas as a last publication.

I know one author from the fourth century, Augustine (354-430), who took the care to publish his retractions of ideas earlier espoused by him, but on more mature thinking he decided to retract them, so that posterities will know that those ideas he retracted if they be in the future also embraced and advocated by thinkers, people who know about Augustine's retractions will bring the attention of these latter writers to the fact, that those ideas were retracted by Augustine before he departed from this world.



We are dealing with an excerpt of Popper's published works that is set forth by people who call themselves rationalists and proclaim themselves admirers of Popper, as a piece of evidence that Popper recanted his statement earlier that -- and here is what I want to find out -- the theory of evolution is a tautology or the theory of natural selection.

I notice that people do not want to search the excerpted text to find out if Popper in the text reproduced was recanting the theory of evolution or the theory of natural selection as being a tautology, or he recanted both as tautologies so that they are no longer tautologies for him -- and but he saw them as identical.


I will myself show that he in fact in that excerpted text he recanted only the theory of natural selection as a tautololy but not the theory of evolution, which both theories are to him distinct separate assemblies of thinking from him -- and this fact surfaces clearly as I can see from the excerpted text, viz., he certainly made a distinction between the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection.


To posters here who are asking what is my point, my point at this point in time is to determine exactly what is Popper's mind in regard to the identification of the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection or the distinction between these two theories.

And I must tell you people that you are not being systematic in studying a text, you keep on talking about so many things but you do not bring up the lines in the excerpted text from Popper which is right before your eyes, to show that for the man there is a distinction between the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection, or they are the same piece of an assembly of thinking from the man, Popper.

But that is a common failing with people here of a certain brain-frame, lack of systematic approach to the study of anything that so much as just might disturb their most cherished attachments in the world of ideas, should they study systematically that anything.





Yrreg

[Hokulele]

... a good writer should take it as a service to his future readers after his death to reserve some years before his death to do a final review as final as possible of his ideas published ...


How exactly does he know when to start?

[kerikiwi]

In a lifetime of people who write a lot and get them published, a good writer should take it as a service to his future readers after his death to reserve some years before his death to do a final review as final as possible of his ideas published, in order to correct, to retract, to explain more exactly, as a last will and testament of his ideas.

In this respect Popper was not as also with many writers possessed of any sense of concern to draw up a final last will and testament of his ideas, so that future readers can have an easy and quick way to determine from his writings by consulting his last will and testament of corrections, retractions, further explanations of his published ideas as a last publication.

I know one author from the fourth century, Augustine (354-430), who took the care to publish his retractions of ideas earlier espoused by him, but on more mature thinking he decided to retract them, so that posterities will know that those ideas he retracted if they be in the future also embraced and advocated by thinkers, people who know about Augustine's retractions will bring the attention of these latter writers to the fact, that those ideas were retracted by Augustine before he departed from this world.



We are dealing with an excerpt of Popper's published works that is set forth by people who call themselves rationalists and proclaim themselves admirers of Popper, as a piece of evidence that Popper recanted his statement earlier that -- and here is what I want to find out -- the theory of evolution is a tautology or the theory of natural selection.

I notice that people do not want to search the excerpted text to find out if Popper in the text reproduced was recanting the theory of evolution or the theory of natural selection as being a tautology, or he recanted both as tautologies so that they are no longer tautologies for him -- and but he saw them as identical.


I will myself show that he in fact in that excerpted text he recanted only the theory of natural selection as a tautololy but not the theory of evolution, which both theories are to him distinct separate assemblies of thinking from him -- and this fact surfaces clearly as I can see from the excerpted text, viz., he certainly made a distinction between the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection.


To posters here who are asking what is my point, my point at this point in time is to determine exactly what is Popper's mind in regard to the identification of the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection or the distinction between these two theories.

And I must tell you people that you are not being systematic in studying a text, you keep on talking about so many things but you do not bring up the lines in the excerpted text from Popper which is right before your eyes, to show that for the man there is a distinction between the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection, or they are the same piece of an assembly of thinking from the man, Popper.

But that is a common failing with people here of a certain brain-frame, lack of systematic approach to the study of anything that so much as just might disturb their most cherished attachments in the world of ideas, should they study systematically that anything.





Yrreg

And you ask us to keep it neat and tidy! :boggled:

But as asked earlier, what is your point ? Neat and tidy now!

[yrreg]

I am reproducing the excerpt from Popper with all phrases of "theory of ___" in bold.


http://www.geocities.com/criticalrationalist/popperevolution.htm


Karl Popper on the scientific status of Darwin's theory of evolution
[ Title given to the excerpt by the Critical Rationalists ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ Text excerpt proper ]

When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory -- that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.

However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as "industrial melanism", we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.

The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like "All tables are tables" is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave the most offspring leave the most offspring. And C.H. Waddington even says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that "Natural selection ... turns out ... to be a tautology". However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an "enormous power ... of explanation". Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here.

Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others.

I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as "almost tautological", and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems.

I still believe that natural selection works this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355




How many theories are mentioned by Popper in this excerpt?

Can you see that the theory of evolution mentioned by Popper is not identical to the theory of natural selection as also mentioned by Popper?

If you were to take a reading comprehension test and one of the questions asked after you have read the text is:

Does Popper in the excerpt make a distinction between the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection? Yes No

What answer, Yes No, will you check?





Yrreg

[yrreg]

Suppose you tell me what are my points, if you anyone are so interested.


I do have points but I am reserving them for the present until I have already established whether for Popper there is a distinction between the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection.


And on that distinction or none, I will revise my points accordingly.


This is always my purpose in the exchange of ideas in a web forum, to find out if other people here have something worth thinking about so that I can learn from them, or they have nothing worth thinking about but a waste of readers' time and the forum's bandwidth.


Just the same, you anyone interested to see points I want to make here in this thread, you tell the readers here what they are, and they will appreciate your keen acumen in the art of critical thinking.





Yrreg

[CapelDodger]

How exactly does he know when to start?

Damn' fine question. Deserves an answer.

[GeeMack]

I am reproducing the excerpt from Popper with all phrases of "theory of ___" in bold.


Spammer.

[kerikiwi]

Suppose you tell me what are my points, if you anyone are so interested.


I do have points but I am reserving them for the present until I have already established whether for Popper there is a distinction between the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection.


And on that distinction or none, I will revise my points accordingly.


This is always my purpose in the exchange of ideas in a web forum, to find out if other people here have something worth thinking about so that I can learn from them, or they have nothing worth thinking about but a waste of readers' time and the forum's bandwidth.


Just the same, you anyone interested to see points I want to make here in this thread, you tell the readers here what they are, and they will appreciate your keen acumen in the art of critical thinking.





Yrreg

I cannot tell the readers what your points are because you haven't made any!

I have explained that evolution is not synonymous with natural selection.
The former is what happens the latter is how it happens.

Again, what is your point?

[Shalamar]

Yrreg is just using big words, and long flowery phrases to once again prove how much smarter he is than the rest of us.

He will use posts with dozens of words, but force people to respond to him with 10 words or less.

In other words, Yrreg has NO idea what he is talking about. All he seems to think is that evolution is wrong, because he thinks its wrong, and he knows he's right because he's the smartest person in the universe.

Ignore the troll.

[kerikiwi]

Ignore the troll.

There is a certain fascination that is hard to fight...

[sol invictus]

Can you see that the theory of evolution mentioned by Popper is not identical to the theory of natural selection as also mentioned by Popper?


He obviously draws a distinction, yes. And?

By the way, the title you gave this thread is totally wrong. "The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution".

[yrreg]

Posted by yrreg
Can you see that the theory of evolution mentioned by Popper is not identical to the theory of natural selection as also mentioned by Popper?



He obviously draws a distinction, yes. And?

By the way, the title you gave this thread is totally wrong. "The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution".


And?

And don't you see something quite wrong in this excerpt with Popper's thinking?


Read it again, and see whether you will give him a passing mark for coherency and consistency.

Quote:
http://www.geocities.com/criticalrat...revolution.htm


Karl Popper on the scientific status of Darwin's theory of evolution
[ Title given to the excerpt by the Critical Rationalists ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ Text excerpt proper ]

When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory -- that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.

However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as "industrial melanism", we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.

The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like "All tables are tables" is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave the most offspring leave the most offspring. And C.H. Waddington even says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that "Natural selection ... turns out ... to be a tautology". However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an "enormous power ... of explanation". Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here.

Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others.

I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as "almost tautological", and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems.

I still believe that natural selection works this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355




It is full of hesitancy or uncertainty or indetermination but suddenly out of the blue without any hint Popper comes forth at the end with a recantation, contrary to what he conspicuously has been drumming in the opposite direction all the while.





Yrreg

[Mashuna]

And?

And don't you see something quite wrong in this excerpt with Popper's thinking?


Read it again, and see whether you will give him a passing mark for coherency and consistency.



It is full of hesitancy or uncertainty or indetermination but suddenly out of the blue without any hint Popper comes forth at the end with a recantation, contrary to what he conspicuously has been drumming in the opposite direction all the while.





Yrreg

Yrreg, we know you can't write coherently, and you've shown that you can't comprehend either. Maybe it's just time for you to accept that you're not up to this whole debate thing.

I bet you'd be good at gardening. Why don't you give that a try?

[Cuddles]

And don't you see something quite wrong in this excerpt with Popper's thinking?

Of course there was something wrong with his thinking. That's why he changed his thinking when the mistake was realised:

I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation.
Dialectica 32:344-346.

That was around 30 years ago. Do try to keep up.

[sol invictus]

And?

And?

And don't you see something quite wrong in this excerpt with Popper's thinking?

No.


Read it again, and see whether you will give him a passing mark for coherency and consistency.

OK. Done.

B+.

[yrreg]

Originally Posted by yrreg
And don't you see something quite wrong in this excerpt with Popper's thinking?

Of course there was something wrong with his thinking. That's why he changed his thinking when the mistake was realised:



Originally Posted by Popper
I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation.
Dialectica 32:344-346.


That was around 30 years ago. Do try to keep up.


You adduce a reference to the source of Popper's text as Dialectica 32:344-346.

My source for the long quotation from Popper is given by the Critical Rationalists and stands as From "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355.

Cuddles, you as a moderator seems to have access to the issue of Dialectica, vol. 32, no. 3-4, covering pp. 344-346.

That is very good news!

The Critical Rationalists have access to pp. 339-355, that is 16 pages of the Dialectica volume and number cited.

You seem to have read only from p. 344 to 346, two pages, but you have access to the whole Dialectica volume and number cited, so you can extend me the favor of reading pp. 339-355 as referred to by the Critical Rationalists.

And tell me what are the reasons for Popper making a recantation, because the text from Popper reproduced by the Critical Rationalists does not include any passages in the piece of writing concerned from Popper, where he might have expounded on his reasons for making a recantation, refuting that "Darwin's own theory of natural selection... is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established."

Take these passages indicating Popper's mind negating the testability of Darwin’s theory of natural selection, consigning it to the category of a tautological statement:



[ Bolding from Yrreg ]

...Darwin's own theory of natural selection... The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. [...]

However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as "industrial melanism", we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.

The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like "All tables are tables" is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave the most offspring leave the most offspring. And C.H. Waddington even says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that "Natural selection ... turns out ... to be a tautology". However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an "enormous power ... of explanation". Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here.

Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others.

I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as "almost tautological", and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems.

I still believe that natural selection works this way as a research programme. [ Here is the bomb. ] Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.




If you ask me, the man is playing the game of political correctness, just to be in the good humor of rabid fanatical proponents of the theory [ sic ] of natural selection from Darwin.

But his true heart and mind is that Darwin’s theory of natural selection is untestable, for being a tautological statement.

The man must be laughing loudly in his funny bone while writing that excerpt reproduced by the Critical Rationalists, playing a joke on them which they did not even get: for being rabid fanatical advocates of the theory [ sic ] of natural selection.




Yrreg

[kerikiwi]

the theory [ sic ] of natural selection from Darwin.


Yrreg

Your use of the [sic] shows either that you don't know what a theory is, or that you don't know what sic means ,or both.

What is your point? That the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection are one and the same?
That you reject one or both?
That Popper thinks the theory of natural selection is a tautology and that you agree with him or disagree with him?

Please don't spam any more, just address the questions in 50 words or fewer.
Question #1 might take 50.
Question #2 takes only one.
Question #3 might take a few
Question #4 might take a few
Fifty to cover the lot is generous.

[sol invictus]

But his true heart and mind is that Darwin’s theory of natural selection is untestable, for being a tautological statement.

Yes, of course! He didn't mean what he wrote, oh no - the whole thing was a hidden message, a cypher carefully disguised for you, yrreg, to decipher while the rest of us fools go thinking he actually meant what he said!

[Mashuna]

If you ask me, the man is playing the game of political correctness, just to be in the good humor of rabid fanatical proponents of the theory [ sic ] of natural selection from Darwin.


Yrreg

Why would we ask you Yrreg? My dog would be more likely to give a sensible answer on Popper's thoughts on evolution and natural selection.

And I don't even have a dog.

[Fiona]

At the risk of annoying both sides I would like to learn what Popper learned. It is true that the steps to his conclusion are not contained in the excerpt Yrreg quoted: that is probably because it is an excerpt, since he is nothing if not a logical and careful thinker. And this is supported by statements from Blutoski and Kitatsu upthread. So I assume they can elaborate for me, if they are willing.

I have exactly the same problem as Popper had originally. I will try to lay out my understanding clearly because I would like those who truly understand this to help me to get a better handle on this. So bear with me, please: my problems will not be the same as other people's but I can only explore from my own current grasp and I am not a scientist

I start from the observable fact that there are many species in the world. I have been offered two possible explanations for this: one involves a purposive entity and the other does not. And there are subsets within that.

The idea of a purposive entity in its purest form hypothesises that all species were created at the same time. This was a popular and understandable view in time past. This theory predicts that any fossil record will show that every species was always there and there will be no variation over time. So we will find dinosaurs coexisting with kittens and people and everything else. This quite specific prediction is false, as I understand the evidence. It is of course possible that this is due to the fact that the fossil record is incomplete, but I believe that is so far at odds with what we can prove that it requires a willful refusal to reach a conclusion based on the evidence we do have. So I reject that, though of course future discoveries may re-establish that idea. That is always possible.

People who believe in a purposive creator are just like the rest of us. Most recognise the importance of facts and accept that the single act of creation is no longer tenable: and thus they have moved on. One thing they have suggested is that the purposive entity set in motion a process of evolution and then withdrew from active intervention. I cannot see anything illogical in that (though I cannot see any necessity for the entity itself) and indeed I see no reason to take issue with it. It accepts that evolution happens and so it is in keeping with what I understand the evidence to be

For those who do not introduce a purposive entity there is frank admission that the start of the process is currently obscure, and research is ongoing. It does not really matter: we will get to the entity or to a process which explains the phenomena we see in another way: or we won't. It fascinates some I know: it does not interest me in the slightest, however.

The theory of evolution is that species arise from modifications to things that already exist: and this is at odds with the idea that they arise independently and with no relationship to what is already there. Most people accept this theory. This is because such a theory makes more predictions than the other one:and many of those predictions have been explored and have turned out to be in keeping with the facts. So there is a fossil record which shows that species appear at different times: there is genetic evidence which shows that different species have much in common, and that differences are smaller than the external appearance of species would lead one to conclude without that genetic knowledge (that is why I think the idea it all came to be at one time was perfectly understandable in earlier times); and a lot of other stuff which those who know about this can elaborate if required.

Thus there is much support for the theory of evolution and I have no problem with it at all.

Then we come to the proposed mechanism whereby such changes arise. And this is where I come unstuck in just the way that Popper did. What I have been told is that Darwin proposed that evolution works through two mechanisms: random mutation and natural selection. It is important not to conflate these two things and I think this is part of my confusion: because they are often run together and this does not help me.

Random mutation is the idea that as genes are replicated they make mistakes: this is reasonable because all the mechanisms we know about are fallible and there is no reason I can conceive why this one should be different. Those mistakes are usually fatal but on occasion they result in a change which does not kill the entity and it joins the living examples of the species. As I understand it random mutation can be shown to happen, and there are many instances, from the black moths up to quite recent experiments on the changes in bacteria under lab conditions (referred to above). Random mutation is not a prediction of the theory of evolution: if it had not been found it would not have falsified the theory but it would have falsified a hypothesis about how evolution happens. In the event it was found and it is both plausible and demonstrable.

Natural selection is the idea that limited resources leads to competition between individuals and species. In this competition some things have an advantage and they reproduce more than those without those advantages. In the normal course this would quickly arrive at an equilibrium. Then everything which exists is fit to exist: and everything is as fit as everything else. Thus natural selection cannot account for evolution by itself.

It is observable that the conditions under which this competition takes place change - environmental change for example. This is what prevents the equilibrium from persisting as outlined above. The rules of the game change and once again the question of advantage arises. This by itself would account for evolution if neutral genes constituted a new advantage or disadvantage in the changed conditions: as in the case of the moths, as I understand it.

So we do not need random mutation: it is icing on our cake however, because it mitigates the possibility that no existing genes or sequences would be sufficient to meet the fresh environmental conditions which arise from time to time. It is will not do away with that possibility but it makes it less likely I think.

All well and good. But my problem with natural selection is that we cannot predict what is fit to survive. That is, as was mentioned above, a matter of definition. I do not understand how it can be otherwise: for the rest we look backwards and make up stories about what is relevant to account for this survival. Well we are a story telling species and it is helpful to us in many ways: that does not take away from the fact that they are stories, however: it does not give predictive force but only retrospective narrative.

So I would like to know what is wrong with my understanding if folk can be bothered. I know there is something wrong with it cos people here and Popper have realised there is and I trust them. But I cannot see it for myself

[paximperium]

Then we come to the proposed mechanism whereby such changes arise. And this is where I come unstuck in just the way that Popper did. What I have been told is that Darwin proposed that evolution works through two mechanisms: random mutation and natural selection. It is important not to conflate these two things and I think this is part of my confusion: because they are often run together and this does not help me.
A simple correction, Darwin did not propose mutation, he did not know about DNA at that time. He proposed minute variation of inheritance, selection through natural selection and common descent.

The idea of inheritable traits was there prior to Darwin.

Random mutation is the idea that as genes are replicated they make mistakes: this is reasonable because all the mechanisms we know about are fallible and there is no reason I can conceive why this one should be different. Those mistakes are usually fatal but on occasion they result in a change which does not kill the entity and it joins the living examples of the species.
Correction, the majority of mutations are most often neutral, confering neither pros or cons to the organism...at that specific time and environment.

Natural selection is the idea that limited resources leads to competition between individuals and species. In this competition some things have an advantage and they reproduce more than those without those advantages. In the normal course this would quickly arrive at an equilibrium. Then everything which exists is fit to exist: and everything is as fit as everything else. Thus natural selection cannot account for evolution by itself.
Small caveate. This only applies to stable environments with a population that intermixes and since the entire world is composed of small niches with isolated populations, the genetic variations can be wide even within species.

So we do not need random mutation: it is icing on our cake however, because it mitigates the possibility that no existing genes or sequences would be sufficient to meet the fresh environmental conditions which arise from time to time. It is will not do away with that possibility but it makes it less likely I think.
I do not understand what you mean by "we do not need random mutation." Without random mutation, the preexisting genome will not change significantly and variation even within neutral genes will not have developed.

All well and good. But my problem with natural selection is that we cannot predict what is fit to survive. That is, as was mentioned above, a matter of definition. I do not understand how it can be otherwise: for the rest we look backwards and make up stories about what is relevant to account for this survival. Well we are a story telling species and it is helpful to us in many ways: that does not take away from the fact that they are stories, however: it does not give predictive force but only retrospective narrative.
That is actually false. Since one of the underlying facets of evolution is common descent, the evidence needs to be an unbroken chain of events. Gaps do not count but huge variations could falsify evolution.

Retrospective analysis of prior data via fossils or genetics allows us to get information concerning prior life and build hypotheses based on this information. This is testable by every single fossil we find and can even be tested prospectively.

For instance, if we find the fossil of a fish at X million years and a fossil of a reptile at X+Y million years, we would hypothesized that between X and X+Y million years, an intermediate ancestor would be found. This has continued to be proven true. This can be falsified by find a fossil of

The same could be said for genetic information. If we find out that protein X which causes blood clotting in fish developed 100million years ago and we find protein X+Y which protect artic fish freezing into icecubes, we need to date the gene involved AFTER the 100million mark. If it dates before, there is a major problem with the theory.

Prospective studies are also testable especially in controlled environments. Take an organism with specific traits, place it in a specific environment. Hypothesized the changes that are expected and see what happens. As have been done, completely new genes have been created in the lab by placing bacteria under specific environmental circumstances. As we have seen with multiple cell cultures, fruit fly studies and the occasional large scale isolated island populations, evolution continues to be true.

Here is one example of the development of a new gene in the lab by placing e.coli in a high citrate and low food environment. The e.coli developed the genes to metabolize citrate and the chain of events that finally led to the new gene is well describes.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

Hope that helps.

[sol invictus]

All well and good. But my problem with natural selection is that we cannot predict what is fit to survive. That is, as was mentioned above, a matter of definition. I do not understand how it can be otherwise: for the rest we look backwards and make up stories about what is relevant to account for this survival. Well we are a story telling species and it is helpful to us in many ways: that does not take away from the fact that they are stories, however: it does not give predictive force but only retrospective narrative.

It might help to think of a specific example.

Suppose you know of a gene that makes bacteria more resistant to an antibiotic. You know it's present in a small fraction of the individual bacteria in wild populations.

Make two cultures using the wild population. Put one in a dish with food and no antibiotic, one with food plus antibiotic. You are now in a position to try to use "natural" selection to make a prediction - namely, that the fraction of bacteria with resistance will remain constant in the dish with no antibiotic, but will grow in the dish with antibiotic.

That's a specific, falsifiable prediction about the future behavior of the system. It does not involve looking backwards. It does not involve defining fitness by survival after the fact - it defines fitness in a very specific way and as a function of the environment. If the theory were tautological, it couldn't possibly make such predictions or run the risk of being falsified.

There are many similar examples in the "wild" (not that that's necessary for this particular issue).

Does that help?

[Fiona]

A simple correction, Darwin did not propose mutation, he did not know about DNA at that time. He proposed minute variation of inheritance, selection through natural selection and common descent.

Sorry. I was aware that he did not know about DNA, and my attempt to be clear about my current understanding has failed.

Am I correct in thinking that the minute variation in inheritance, while without a mechanism in his own time, is similar to mutation in that it allows for changes in the inheritance which themselves are essential in order for natural selection to act?

I suppose I am asking if this is a qualitative difference in the description of the process; or is mutation only a more complete account of a process he considered to be necessary to the idea of natural selection? As I said, if he did not adopt random mutation it does not seem to matter very much, if I am correct in seeing it as non-essential. But I did think that such changes were included in his hypothesis, though without the mechanism we now know about.

The idea of inheritable traits was there prior to Darwin.

Yes of course: we could not breed animals to suit our purpose if this was not the case. I mentioned those in my first draft but I see I left it out of what I posted: I am rubbish at being concise and even worse when I try to precis. :)

Correction, the majority of mutations are most often neutral, confering neither pros or cons to the organism...at that specific time and environment.

Now that is news to me. I had believed that the vast majority of mutations cause spontaneous abortion or early death. Clearly I am wrong about that so that is good to know

Small caveate. This only applies to stable environments with a population that intermixes and since the entire world is composed of small niches with isolated populations, the genetic variations can be wide even within species.

Yes. This relates to the neutralist position I think? Or maybe not. But however that may be, isolated populations are the world in practical terms: there is no need to posit genetic homogeneity because I have already said that many variations are neutral in a given environment and so diversity would be expected to exist either way.

I do not understand what you mean by "we do not need random mutation." Without random mutation, the preexisting genome will not change significantly and variation even within neutral genes will not have developed.

And I am afraid I do not understand what you mean either :(. As I understand it, it is possible that Darwin did not need the concept to support the idea of natural selection:that is one reading of your first paragraph. As I have said I think it was perhaps implicit when he posited minute variation, and that is another reading of what you said. I do not yet know what you meant

But whichever way that goes I do not see random mutation is essential. There are neutral genes and there is redundancy. Should the circumstances change, those genes might be enough to allow a species to meet the new challenge: or they might not. As I understand what you are saying variation within the genome will not exist if there is selection pressure but no random mutation. Why is that true? I will try to make a very simplistic example to show where my confusion lies.

I imagine a species with 10 genes. 4 of those genes are essential background; 4 are neutral; In some members of the species both of the remaining genes are also neutral: in other members of the species one of the remaining genes confers a disadvantage and is actively selected against because the remaining one is also neutral. In a third group the 9th gene also confers a disadvantage, but the 10th mitigates that by conferring a balancing advantage which is closely associated with the bad 9th. Over time the 9th gene will reduce in incidence in the population but it will not disappear because the third group will reproduce successfully enough to pass it on. So we will end up with a population comprising two groups: those with the bad 9th gene and the balancing advantage: and those without either of those. Will we not? That variation is a product of natural selection. It may be that the existence of the 9th and 10th gene need random mutation to arise in the first place. But I do not see that is necessary, though it helps.

Actually this is moot because random mutation does happen so I will not dwell on this any longer. I am just trying to think it through :)

That is actually false. Since one of the underlying facets of evolution is common descent, the evidence needs to be an unbroken chain of events. Gaps do not count but huge variations could falsify evolution.

Retrospective analysis of prior data via fossils or genetics allows us to get information concerning prior life and build hypotheses based on this information. This is testable by every single fossil we find and can even be tested prospectively.

For instance, if we find the fossil of a fish at X million years and a fossil of a reptile at X+Y million years, we would hypothesized that between X and X+Y million years, an intermediate ancestor would be found. This has continued to be proven true. This can be falsified by find a fossil of

The same could be said for genetic information. If we find out that protein X which causes blood clotting in fish developed 100million years ago and we find protein X+Y which protect artic fish freezing into icecubes, we need to date the gene involved AFTER the 100million mark. If it dates before, there is a major problem with the theory.

I do not understand why you say this is false. Clearly the common descent is essential and that is part of the evidence we have for evolution. I have already said this. It does not speak to the question of natural selection or "fitness" at all, and so I do not get your point. Sorry

Prospective studies are also testable especially in controlled environments. Take an organism with specific traits, place it in a specific environment. Hypothesized the changes that are expected and see what happens. As have been done, completely new genes have been created in the lab by placing bacteria under specific environmental circumstances. As we have seen with multiple cell cultures, fruit fly studies and the occasional large scale isolated island populations, evolution continues to be true.

:confused: I really don't get this. First, I have already said that evolution is not part of my problem: I accept it. But if completely new genes arise then this seems to me to falsify the theory of evolution. I can only think that this is not what you mean. If you mean that certain genes appear less frequently over time where those genes constitute a disadvantage compared to others in the start up population then yes: of course. If you mean that existing genes mutate randomly and some become established in the population because the modified form is more advantageous, then again, yes. But new genes arising? Do you have something I can read about that? It means my whole understanding of evolution is false.

Here is one example of the development of a new gene in the lab by placing e.coli in a high citrate and low food environment. The e.coli developed the genes to metabolize citrate and the chain of events that finally led to the new gene is well describes.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

Hope that helps.

Yes I have read this before. I do not see how it is relevant. It demonstrates evolution but, as I said, that is not my problem. It demonstrates random mutation perhaps: but that is not my problem either. It does not seem to me to speak to natural selection, however. Where was the selection pressure which led to this outcome? Now it is perfectly possible to say that only a few of the members of this population developed the capacity and those then outbred the others: but the articles do not say this. Is it true?

[drkitten]

As I understand what you are saying variation within the genome will not exist if there is selection pressure but no random mutation. Why is that true? I will try to make a very simplistic example to show where my confusion lies.

I imagine a species with 10 genes. 4 of those genes are essential background; 4 are neutral; In some members of the species both of the remaining genes are also neutral: in other members of the species one of the remaining genes confers a disadvantage and is actively selected against because the remaining one is also neutral. In a third group the 9th gene also confers a disadvantage, but the 10th mitigates that by conferring a balancing advantage which is closely associated with the bad 9th. Over time the 9th gene will reduce in incidence in the population but it will not disappear because the third group will reproduce successfully enough to pass it on.

No, we will not. Over time, any gene can and will eventually disappear [or become fixed] simply through "genetic drift" (which is also something that Darwin didn't know about, not knowing about genes).

The mechanism is simple. Any gene can disappear through random chance, just like you might be dealt a bridge hand devoid of spades. Mating is random and sometimes odd hands get dealt. But once a gene disappears, it cannot reappear, because we've eliminated mutation.

[drkitten]

But if completely new genes arise then this seems to me to falsify the theory of evolution. I can only think that this is not what you mean. If you mean that certain genes appear less frequently over time where those genes constitute a disadvantage compared to others in the start up population then yes: of course. If you mean that existing genes mutate randomly and some become established in the population because the modified form is more advantageous, then again, yes. But new genes arising? Do you have something I can read about that? It means my whole understanding of evolution is false.

Look up "nylonase." Yes, we've seen completely new genes appear by modification of old ones.

We've also seen new genes appear by duplication and then modification of one of the duplicates (that's how we appear to have gotten good color vision in humans).

[Fiona]

It might help to think of a specific example.

Suppose you know of a gene that makes bacteria more resistant to an antibiotic. You know it's present in a small fraction of the individual bacteria in wild populations.

Make two cultures using the wild population. Put one in a dish with food and no antibiotic, one with food plus antibiotic. You are now in a position to try to use "natural" selection to make a prediction - namely, that the fraction of bacteria with resistance will remain constant in the dish with no antibiotic, but will grow in the dish with antibiotic.

That's a specific, falsifiable prediction about the future behavior of the system. It does not involve looking backwards. It does not involve defining fitness by survival after the fact - it defines fitness in a very specific way and as a function of the environment. If the theory were tautological, it couldn't possibly make such predictions or run the risk of being falsified.

There are many similar examples in the "wild" (not that that's necessary for this particular issue).

Does that help?

It does and it doesn't :)

On one hand it is an experiment which can be done and it does generate a prediction which turns out to be true when we try it.

On the other hand what have we found? Well it seems to me that we have found that if we poison things to death they do not breed.

I think it is true that we have defined "fitness" in a very specific way. Is it a useful way? Not sure

[Fiona]

No, we will not.

Will not what?

Over time, any gene can and will eventually disappear [or become fixed] simply through "genetic drift" (which is also something that Darwin didn't know about, not knowing about genes).

The mechanism is simple. Any gene can disappear through random chance, just like you might be dealt a bridge hand devoid of spades. Mating is random and sometimes odd hands get dealt. But once a gene disappears, it cannot reappear, because we've eliminated mutation.

I am sorry but once again I do not understand your point. Do we need random mutation or not? As I said it is not important because we do have random mutation: but I think genetic drift is not the same as mutation maybe? and if it is not then natural selection without random mutation would produce variance would it not?

I do not understand your point about genes disappearing either I am afraid. I did not think I said anything which suggested that once gone they would reappear, so I am not really sure what you are addressing. My own position was that evolution happens and this means that new variants arise from existing material: it follows that if the gene is gone it cannot give rise to anything.

[Fiona]

Look up "nylonase." Yes, we've seen completely new genes appear by modification of old ones.

We've also seen new genes appear by duplication and then modification of one of the duplicates (that's how we appear to have gotten good color vision in humans).

Yes: I have read about nylonase. I think this may be a semantic problem. I took the mention of a completely new gene to mean one without antecedents, and recognised that could not be what Paximperium meant because if it were so then evolution is falsified. Genes which are modified from existing ones are the essence of evolution and so long as that is what we are talking about we have no difference of opinion so far as I can see

[yrreg]

I am now dealing with the text from Popper, if you want me to react to your post even though it is not on the text of Popper, just pm me.

Since you people are not in the habit of examining texts, but you go on and on about other things except the one at hand, I do not read your posts now except the ones from Cuddles.

So if you have anything about your examination of the text in question, just pm me.


Paging Cuddles, will you please come back and we can discuss further about this text from Popper, which the Critical Rationalists have gladly put forward in the web as proof that the man recanted his view whatever, about the theory of evolution, or is it the theory of natural selection.


http://www.geocities.com/criticalrat...revolution.htm


Karl Popper on the scientific status of Darwin's theory of evolution
[ Title given to the excerpt by the Critical Rationalists ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ Text excerpt proper ]

When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory -- that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established. All scientific theories are conjectures, even those that have successfully passed many and varied tests. The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested, and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly even from one single organism.

However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as "industrial melanism", we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry.

The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. A tautology like "All tables are tables" is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave the most offspring leave the most offspring. And C.H. Waddington even says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that "Natural selection ... turns out ... to be a tautology". However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an "enormous power ... of explanation". Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here.

Yet similar passages can be found in the works of such great Darwinists as Ronald Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and George Gaylord Simpson; and others.

I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as "almost tautological", and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. It raises detailed problems in many fields, and it tells us what we would expect of an acceptable solution of these problems.

I still believe that natural selection works this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind", Dialectica, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355




This is an example of a piece of serious writing from a most prominent philosopher of science, on a matter that is most important to atheist scientists, and scientists who are just into science without any atheist premises.


So, paging, Cuddles, what do you say, is this text an example of Popper playing the game of political correctness? or what.





Yrreg

[JJM]

{snip} This is an example of a piece of serious writing from a most prominent philosopher of science, on a matter that is most important to atheist scientists, and scientists who are just into science without any atheist premises. {snip}Popper, no matter how "serious" in philosophy, is irrelevant to the practice of science.

[sol invictus]

It does and it doesn't :)

On one hand it is an experiment which can be done and it does generate a prediction which turns out to be true when we try it.

If you agree with that, you have already solved your problem. A tautology cannot be predictive or falsifiable, because it is true by definition. The claim that given those conditions the percentage of bacteria carrying a certain trait will increase is obviously both predictive and falsifiable.


On the other hand what have we found? Well it seems to me that we have found that if we poison things to death they do not breed.

That is true, and also not tautological. But the prediction in my example went farther than that, though - it says that the percentage of resistant bacteria will increase under one set of conditions but not the other. That only follows from your statement if one includes quite a few extra ingredients (that there was already a range of diversity in resistance, that not all the bacteria in either colony die, that enugh generations pass, etc.).

I think it is true that we have defined "fitness" in a very specific way. Is it a useful way? Not sure

Are you joking? It's incredibly useful. It's used every day in medicine - to treat antibiotic resistant infections, to formulate a flu vaccine for next winter, to understand the spread and virulence of new diseases. It's used in archaeology and paleontology to understand fossils. It's used in automotive design, where genetic algorithms improve aerodynamic performance. In physics, where one can understand when chain reactions take place, or maybe even why the laws of physics are what they are.

It's a fundamental truth about the world, and like all such is thus both deep and profound and extraordinarily simple... in hindsight.

[drkitten]

I am sorry but once again I do not understand your point. Do we need random mutation or not?

We need random mutation to create and preserve variation in the gene pool.

Without mutation, every organism would be a clone of every other organism.

[Macoy]

"The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test..."

This excerpt is interesting. I thought evidence of natural selection was popping out of the woodwork all over the place. One example quoted above.

I think this is argument from non-existent authority.

[paximperium]

Am I correct in thinking that the minute variation in inheritance, while without a mechanism in his own time, is similar to mutation in that it allows for changes in the inheritance which themselves are essential in order for natural selection to act?
Kind of. When proposed, there was no mechanism for this variation but we now know of mutations of one mechanism involved.

I suppose I am asking if this is a qualitative difference in the description of the process; or is mutation only a more complete account of a process he considered to be necessary to the idea of natural selection?
It is a more accurate description of the process but it is not the only process involved. There are many ways that genetic variation can occur.

As I said, if he did not adopt random mutation it does not seem to matter very much, if I am correct in seeing it as non-essential. But I did think that such changes were included in his hypothesis, though without the mechanism we now know about. That is correct. I read Origin of Species a long time ago but when Darwin proposed this variation, he did not know of the mechanism and only hypothesized that it was a very slow process.



Now that is news to me. I had believed that the vast majority of mutations cause spontaneous abortion or early death. Clearly I am wrong about that so that is good to know
No, the vast majority of point mutations are neutral and in locations of the genome that are not expressed or not significant to the survival of the organism. We know the rate of point mutations.


And I am afraid I do not understand what you mean either :(. As I understand it, it is possible that Darwin did not need the concept to support the idea of natural selection:that is one reading of your first paragraph. As I have said I think it was perhaps implicit when he posited minute variation, and that is another reading of what you said. I do not yet know what you meant
The concept of mutation may not be "necessary" for evolution per say but it is the explanation and mechanism for what was originally described by Darwin.

It would be similar to stating that "Germ theory" is not necessary for Public Health and Hygiene. It might not have changed the conceptt of hygiene but it gave the concept part of its foundation.

But whichever way that goes I do not see random mutation is essential. There are neutral genes and there is redundancy. Should the circumstances change, those genes might be enough to allow a species to meet the new challenge: or they might not. As I understand what you are saying variation within the genome will not exist if there is selection pressure but no random mutation. Why is that true? I will try to make a very simplistic example to show where my confusion lies.
I think your problem is not seeing the simple fact. Where did this variation come from to begin with?

Mutation is not "essential" to Natural Selection but it is essential to Evolution. Without it, the variation in the genome will never occur in the first place.

If there is no mutation, all organisms of that species are essentially clones or nothing more swapping a very limited number of similar genes.

I imagine a species with 10 genes. 4 of those genes are essential background; 4 are neutral; In some members of the species both of the remaining genes are also neutral: in other members of the species one of the remaining genes confers a disadvantage and is actively selected against because the remaining one is also neutral. In a third group the 9th gene also confers a disadvantage, but the 10th mitigates that by conferring a balancing advantage which is closely associated with the bad 9th. Over time the 9th gene will reduce in incidence in the population but it will not disappear because the third group will reproduce successfully enough to pass it on. So we will end up with a population comprising two groups: those with the bad 9th gene and the balancing advantage: and those without either of those. Will we not? That variation is a product of natural selection. It may be that the existence of the 9th and 10th gene need random mutation to arise in the first place. But I do not see that is necessary, though it helps.
Assuming that we don't need mutation to explain how these genes came into existence in the first place, no gene is ever completely safe from dying out and using your scenario once a preexisting gene dies out it is gone for good.

Using your scenario what will happen is that the population will have stable genes for certain time periods until a change in environment selects for specific traits so these beneficial genes increase in the population while the neutral genes "drift" and the detrimental genes(lets say the gene for fur in a hot environment) die out. Now change the environment again. The once detrimental genes is now essential in this new environment(it has gotten very very cold)....so what happens to the population? With no variation and the lack of this old gene, they all die.


But if completely new genes arise then this seems to me to falsify the theory of evolution. I can only think that this is not what you mean. If you mean that certain genes appear less frequently over time where those genes constitute a disadvantage compared to others in the start up population then yes: of course. If you mean that existing genes mutate randomly and some become established in the population because the modified form is more advantageous, then again, yes. But new genes arising? Do you have something I can read about that? It means my whole understanding of evolution is false.
No, here is your problem. You seem to think that genes arise spontaneously with an underlying purpose or function already. As mentioned, most mutations are neutral and create minute changes in preexisting genes or change non-essential portions of the genome.

For instance, there is a point mutation(just one amino acid change) that leads to red blood cells self destructing when it is infected by malaria. This single point mutation is completely neutral if you are not in an area with malaria AND if you are heterozygous(have one mutated gene and one normal gene). However, this becomes extremely beneficial if you live in an area with malaria and so this gene which is composed of only 1 point mutation spreads. We now call this Sickle Cell Disease since if you are homozygous, it becomes detrimental. This point mutation never had a purpose against malaria, it just so happened to be beneficial in that environment but it is detrimental in areas without malaria.

As to something to read...I'd recommend some of Dawkin's books like the Ancestor's Tale, the Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable. Massimo Pigliucci's Making Sense of Evolution is highly recommended.

It does not seem to me to speak to natural selection, however. Where was the selection pressure which led to this outcome?
Very very low food is the selection pressure.


Now it is perfectly possible to say that only a few of the members of this population developed the capacity and those then outbred the others: but the articles do not say this. Is it true?
Oh yes that is what happened. There is no natural way that e.coli metabolize citrate. This paper is so important because it showed the causal chain leading to the development of a new gene.

The formation of a new gene is a slow progress. It starts out with a single mutation that gives the organism no benefit. This gene drifts but gets one more mutation that gives it a minimal benefit. The population slowly increase. This new gene finally gets a mutation that gives it a completely new function.

[Fiona]

ok thanks all

[paximperium]

I am sorry but once again I do not understand your point. Do we need random mutation or not? As I said it is not important because we do have random mutation: but I think genetic drift is not the same as mutation maybe?
Genetic Drift is the "drift" from mutations for a neutral gene. A neutral gene in a population will remain stable in that population but the gene will slowly drift with small changes from mutation. This drift rate can be calculated.


and if it is not then natural selection without random mutation would produce variance would it not?
To a very limited degree only. It would only select for preexisting genes and no new genes or traits can come into existence.

[CapelDodger]

Popper, no matter how "serious" in philosophy, is irrelevant to the practice of science.

Well said. Popper is important to Philosophers. Which means not important at all in any practical sense.

The Philosophers' Conceit is that when a Philosopher expounds on a subject (in however facile a manner) Philosophy takes possession of said subject. Whereas in truth nobody gives a toss; they just get on with things.

[CapelDodger]

"The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test..."

This excerpt is interesting. I thought evidence of natural selection was popping out of the woodwork all over the place. One example quoted above.

I think this is argument from non-existent authority.

I think the fallacy is in the idea that any test must be deliberately devised and then performed. In reality a theory can be tested against any new data; astrophysics would hardly be a science otherwise.

This is where the evidence pops up. Antibiotics weren't introduced to test the power of natural selection, but the observed outcome agrees with the predictions of the theory. And that is just one example.

[Taffer]

Yes: I have read about nylonase. I think this may be a semantic problem. I took the mention of a completely new gene to mean one without antecedents, and recognised that could not be what Paximperium meant because if it were so then evolution is falsified. Genes which are modified from existing ones are the essence of evolution and so long as that is what we are talking about we have no difference of opinion so far as I can see

This is actually not true. A novel gene appearing with no antecedents would not on its own falsify evolution. It could happen that, by pure chance, enough mutations happen in an noncoding region of a genome to suddenly create a new gene, with all surrounded required genetic material for it to function. This chance is vanishingly small, but it is possible, and so its existance wouldn't falsify evolution.

But then again, I suppose you could argue that the mutations were the antecedent of the gene, so this probably comes down to definition.

[yrreg]

I am now dealing with the text from Popper, if you want me to react to your post even though it is not on the text of Popper, just pm me.

Since you people are not in the habit of examining texts, but you go on and on about other things except the one at hand, I do not read your posts now except the ones from Cuddles.

So if you have anything about your examination of the text in question, just pm me.


Paging Cuddles, will you please come back and we can discuss further about this text from Popper, which the Critical Rationalists have gladly put forward in the web as proof that the man recanted his view whatever, about the theory of evolution, or is it the theory of natural selection.


http://www.geocities.com/criticalrat...revolution.htm


Karl Popper on the scientific status of Darwin's theory of evolution
[ Title given to the excerpt by the Critical Rationalists ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ Text excerpt proper ]

When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory -- that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by...


[...]





This is an example of a piece of serious writing from a most prominent philosopher of science, on a matter that is most important to atheist scientists, and scientists who are just into science without any atheist premises.


So, paging, Cuddles, what do you say, is this text an example of Popper playing the game of political correctness? or what.





Yrreg



Well, Cuddles has not reappeared so far.

I will just give him another 24 hours to react to my post reproduced here.

Afterwards if he does not return I will see if anyone here is seriously interested for the present in determining, from the text of Popper cited above, whether he was in fact making fun of his rabid fanatical admirers with his game of playing political correctness.

Because rabid fanatical admirers cannot see anything except what they want and are accustomed to see in their idol's writings, even though any child with reading comprehension can say right away that the man is being funny, at the expense of his worshipers.

When any of you guys have become worshipers of idolic personages, they can make you eat turd and you will still relish it.




Yrreg

[kerikiwi]

When any of you guys have become worshipers of idolic personages, they can make you eat turd and you will still relish it.




Yrreg

But not you, eh Gerry?
What is your point? That the theory of evolution and the theory of natural selection are one and the same?
That you reject one or both?
That Popper thinks the theory of natural selection is a tautology and that you agree with him or disagree with him?

Please don't spam any more, just address the questions in 50 words or fewer.
Question #1 might take 50.
Question #2 takes only one.
Question #3 might take a few
Question #4 might take a few
Fifty to cover the lot is generous.

[Cuddles]

Since you people are not in the habit of examining texts, but you go on and on about other things except the one at hand, I do not read your posts now except the ones from Cuddles.

Yay! I'm special!

So, paging, Cuddles, what do you say, is this text an example of Popper playing the game of political correctness? or what.

No, it's an example of a philosopher being corrected on the science by people who actually know what they are talking about, and said philosopher being reasonable enough to both realise and admit this. Unfortunately he still retained the delusion that scientists actually care what philosophers say, but I guess you can't win them all.

[yrreg]

Posted by yrreg
Since you people are not in the habit of examining texts, but you go on and on about other things except the one at hand, I do not read your posts now except the ones from Cuddles.
Yay! I'm special!

Quote:
So, paging, Cuddles, what do you say, is this text an example of Popper playing the game of political correctness? or what.

No, it's an example of a philosopher being corrected on the science by people who actually know what they are talking about, and said philosopher being reasonable enough to both realise and admit this. Unfortunately he still retained the delusion that scientists actually care what philosophers say, but I guess you can't win them all.



It's an impasse that you don't think the man is making monkeys of you guys with his piece of turdish writing.

But I do because I can see turdish writing on the part of great idols with absolutely turdish feet when they do write to make fun of you monkeys.

But the turd is not altogether useless, you guys can one day use it to fertilize your brain in the skill of critical reading.


Another idol of you guys, one R. Dawkins, with his spill about random mutation and natural selection, is also to me a turdish thinker [sic], and writer who is hoodwinking you guys and laughing all the way to the bank.

Just do some elementary work with your cerebral cells minus the blinders: how can random mutation stop operating for natural selection to take over and finish its job over billions and billions and billions and billions of years?!

It's either all random or all designed, but not random mutation and natural selection -- sneaking in designer by calling it natural.



I will stop with this thread for the present, because I am still with bruto and other atheists about their rational consistency in opting for being atheists: when I cannot and even a peasant cannot ever see what bonanza you atheists get for being atheists, and trying to convince people that being atheists is such a great deal.

All you have to do with the established religions making God a ethical policeman is just leave religions, no need to deny God's existence, and still maintain rational consistency in recognizing that there is order and a keeper of order -- who is a necessary being when everything else is contingent, God the maker of everything.



And for you guys who keep asking me what are my points, if you can't see my points, please leave my threads at your earliest convenience.





Yrreg

[Taffer]

We still don't care.

[Foster Zygote]

From "tergiversate" to "turds". Gerry seems to be loosing his enthusiasm.

[arthwollipot]

It's an impasse that you don't think the man is making monkeys of you guys with his piece of turdish writing.What's turdish about it? I thought it was very clear, accurate, and not in the least bit turdish. Can you outline exactly what you think is turdish about it?

[Fredrik]

Heck, we don't even need evidence for evolution. All we need is to agree on some premises. From Marvin Minsky:

The Process of Evolution is the following abstract idea:

There is a population of things that reproduce, at different rates in different environments. Those rates depend, statistically, on a collection of inheritable traits. Those traits are subject to occasional mutations, some of which are then inherited.

Then one can deduce, from logic alone, without any need for evidence, that:

THEOREM: Each population will tend to increase the proportion of traits that have higher reproduction rates in its current environment.

What you describe as an "abstract idea" is what I would call a "theory" (because it can be used to predict the results of experiments), and what you call a "theorem" is what I would call a "prediction". What your argument shows is that the theory of evolution (the version of it that you defined), makes testable predictions.

I find it strange that you're saying that evolution doesn't need evidence. To me that's like saying that the claim that the orbits of planets are approximately elliptical doesn't need evidence because it can be derived mathematically from the inverse square law. The inverse square law is the theory, and the claim about the shape of the orbits is a prediction. If experiments/observations show that the prediction isn't even close to correct, then the theory has been falsified.

Everything you said after "don't even need evidence" looks like a very strong argument for the theory of evolution being falsifiable, and therefore a valid scientific theory. My only objection against what you said is that your first sentence made the rest of the post look like an argument for something else (that evolution is obvious).

[Mashuna]

I

Just do some elementary work with your cerebral cells minus the blinders: how can random mutation stop operating for natural selection to take over and finish its job over billions and billions and billions and billions of years?!

It's either all random or all designed, but not random mutation and natural selection -- sneaking in designer by calling it natural.



Bless him. He's getting all worked up because he can't understand. I think it's probably nap time for Yrreg now.

[Aitch]

From "tergiversate" to "turds". Gerry seems to be loosing his enthusiasm.

Possible Freudian slip, I suppose, in that he meant turgid but wasn't concentrating hard enough? One handed typing, possibly. ;)

[kerikiwi]

how can random mutation stop operating for natural selection to take over and finish its job over billions and billions and billions and billions of years?!

It's either all random or all designed, but not random mutation and natural selection -- sneaking in designer by calling it natural.

...And for you guys who keep asking me what are my points, if you can't see my points, please leave my threads at your earliest convenience.



Yrreg

Gerry we can't see your points because they are nowhere to be found. Rather like Jehovah.

And you really, truly don't understand about random mutation and natural selection, do you? You're not faking your ignorance are you?

[CapelDodger]

Yay! I'm special!

Yes, dear. We all think you're special.

No, it's an example of a philosopher being corrected on the science by people who actually know what they are talking about, and said philosopher being reasonable enough to both realise and admit this. Unfortunately he still retained the delusion that scientists actually care what philosophers say, but I guess you can't win them all.

You can't win that one. Philosophers think they're special :rolleyes:.

[Skeptic Ginger]

It may have been mentioned here already but Karl Popper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Issue_of_Darwinism) did not have access to modern genetic science when he discussed falsifying evolution theory in the mid 70s. In fact, Popper had quite a primitive view of evolution science at that time.

Popper later changed his mind. (http://www.toarchive.org/indexcc/CA/CA211_1.html)

Using scientific opinions from decades ago to claim they cast doubt on current science is ludicrous.

[JJM]

It may have been mentioned here already but Karl Popper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Issue_of_Darwinism) did not have access to modern genetic science when he discussed falsifying evolution theory in the mid 70s. In fact, Popper had quite a primitive view of evolution science at that time.

Popper later changed his mind. (http://www.toarchive.org/indexcc/CA/CA211_1.html)

Using scientific opinions from decades ago to claim they cast doubt on current science is ludicrous.You highlight an important misunderstanding of Popper's claim that a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable. Often, hypotheses are put forward before the technology to test them exists. They are still good, scientific hypotheses; but they are a challenge to experimenters.

If Popper's idea has any practical use, it is to separate science from faith-based pronouncements. For example, if some group defines "life force" as something that is undetectable. Then, by definition that notion is unscientific.