<<First, the theory of natural selection is a component of the evolution
model
and as such, is important in supporting the theory.>>
Jim: This, itself, is tautalogical!
It's a fact .
<<This is no more of a tautological problem for evolution than Christ's
death
on the cross is a tautological problem for Christianity.>>
Jim: Not the same. Evolution predicts that the fittest organisms will
produce the most offspring. What are the fittest organisms? The ones that
produce the most offspring! That's classic tautology.
But this classical tautology is not the original definition of natural
selection.
"Natural selection is tautological: the fittest survive, and those who
survive
are the fittest."Survival of the fittest" is certainly a tautology, but
natural selection is not mere "survival of the fittest." One can predict
in advance what characteristics will be beneficial for an organism
living in certain environments (Kitcher, 1982). For instance, it is quite
apparent before selection occurs that the melanic peppered moth will have
better chances of survival than its mottled grey counterpart when they
compete in polluted areas, where the white lichens normally on the trees
have been killed, leaving a black bark surface. This is readily apparent,
but not tautological. Mere survival does not define fitness - alleles
that increase in frequency in a population do not necessarily do so because
they confer greater fitness upon their hosts; some alleles increase in
frequency because of genetic drift and bottleneck effects. Organisms
that outlive their peers due to sheer luck and happenstance are not
automatically fitter, even though they are the survivors."
Mark I. Vuletic: Frequently encountered criticisms in evolution vs
creationism
(FAQ).
CHeck out Darwin's definition for instance.
Jim: Christ's death on the cross? That is a historical fact (for
Christians), an
event that has eternal significance, sure, but how is this coupled with
any
tautology? What is being proved by being stated twice? Perhaps you meant
presupposition, but even then the cross does not fit, since it is
data-based.
A fact limited to christians ? Hmmm
<<I see no philosophical problem with the feasibility of the evolution
model,
and those of you who want to dismiss it outright on the feasibility point
are not doing a good job.>>
Jim: "Feasibility" on a theoretical level is one thing; on the empirical
level it is quite another.
It is a requirement that the theory is feasible on a theoretical level.
That test has been passed. The next step is empirical evidence.