What is the pro evolutionists rebuttal on the fact that "evolution" is infact a tautomology?

Question

If infact that "survival of the fittest" is true, then what does it mean to be fittest and why are they fittest? are they fittest because they survived or did the survive because they were fittest? and please do not cling to the darwinsm claim of natural selection which ultimately does continue to call into the category of tautomology. because he infact just changed his words with the same underkying belief.

hmmm....very many people are contradicting each other in the answer to my question, perhaps so called proven science experts here should confer together before making assumptious answers on heresay and i must admit my spelling of tautology is faulty i was intrigued earlier of the word epidemiology. SO....what your saying is that survival does not equal fittest. but your fellows here base their arguments by comparing survival of the fittest to e=mc squared. therefore "survival=fittest and e=mc squared, am i correct?

evolution is easily disproved by looking at the geology findings, i mean seriously humans are supposed to have evolved from monkeys but i dont see any archelogist or geologist digging up a half man half monkey, what geology and archeology has done is really disproven evolution. you might as well believe that a raptor gave birth to a beaver.

Answer 1

Sorry, but you've been duped by one of the silliest arguments against evolution.

It comes from a complete misunderstanding of what "survival of the fittest" means.

At the individual level, "fitness" and "survival" are NOT equivalent. Lots of survivors may not be the fittest, and many of the fittest may not survive. An individual can be *extremely* fit ... but a rock falls on its head and kills it, a tiger snags it as a baby, a flood wipes out all half the population, an accident disfigures it and reduces its chances for mating, whatever. The fact that "fit" and "survival" are not defined in terms of each other is why this is NOT a tautology.

But at the *population* level, those that are best adapted to their environment (fit), tend *on average* to survive better and reproduce more. That statistical *tendency* is precisely the engine that causes evolution *at the population* level. That *statistical tendency* is the insight ... the thing that so many creationists seem unable to "get." "Survival of the fittest" is not an abolute death sentence for the "unfit" ... it is an overall *statistical* statement about what happens ON AVERAGE in any population in nature.

The other thing to understand is that this is just a summary catchphrase of the theory. The entire theory of evolution does not succeed of fail on your particular understanding of those 4 words!

Specifically there are THREE easily verifiable observations that Darwin made in proposing his theory:

1. Variation: Not all creatures are identical.
2. Inheritance: Organisms pass on traits to offspring.
3. Survival of the fittest: Invidivuals with the most advantageous characteristics will *on average* survive better and produce more offspring.

#1 and #2 are so obvious that they barely need to be spelled out.

But it is #3, that makes the theory! That is the insight, which, together with #1 and #2 explains why species evolve (change) over time.

And that is why all of natural selection (the theory of natural selection) is generally asociated with #3.

----- P.S. ---------

answersingenesis.org lists this "tautology" argument as one of its "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use"
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

---- Response to 'Additional Details' -----

> "SO....what your saying is that survival does not equal fittest. but your fellows here base their arguments by comparing survival of the fittest to e=mc squared. therefore "survival=fittest and e=mc squared, am i correct?"

Not even close. The point they are making is that the *process* of evolution is a fact that is explained by the *theory* of evolution. On that I agree. Fact: Evolution occurs = Species change. Natural selection is just the explanation for that fact.

As for the comparison between Darwin and Einstein, (or evolution and gravity) this has to do with the nature of theories ... one scientist proposes a theory to explain a fact (evolution or gravity) ... it fails to explain something, so then somebody proposes a better theory. Darwin's theory is the best scientific explanation there is, based on the current evidence, for the *fact* that species evolve ... and it has withstood 150 years of tens of thousands of scientists (most of them pretty darn smart people) banging on it. Nobody has found a single piece of undisputed evidence to refute it. *Many* scientists have improved on it (e.g. with the understanding of genetics and DNA, which was not known in Darwin's time), but the basic premise of natural selection has held up powerfully. And it is not a tautology.

> "i mean seriously humans are supposed to have evolved from monkeys ..."

Nope. That's the CARTOON version of evolution.

I could get into this into more detail ... but you are changing the subject ... and my answer is long enough as it is. Can we stick to the 'tautology' question?

Answer 2

there are a number of questions on this website which dispute darwinian evolution not because of evidence to the contary but because of a book written 2000 years years ago

as a scientist i would love to see someone disprove evolution but they havent. the person that does find an alternative would win a nobel prize

science is predominantly white and male and these attitudes have spilled over into science (which should be value neutral) a classic case being "survival of the fittest". thats why words like survival and fittest are used and can be misleading what darwin was actually saying was survival of the most fit i.e. the organism best able to survive and propagate in a particular environment. as the environment changes so must a paricular organism failure to change fast enough results in extinction

contrast the tiger and the rat, we would all see the tiger as the superior animal we name military groups and sports teams named after it but in evolutionary terms the tiger is completely inferior as the rat can survive and propagate in new situations far more easily than the big cat can. as humanity has spread across the world so too has the rat adapting very well unlike the tiger now almost extinct (a clear example of survival of the fittest) there are countless other cases like this

the vast majority of anti-evolutionists have little understanding of the process or the evidence instead they simple shout " i am not a monkey" of course they are correct they are not monkeys but at some stage in our past humans branched off from apes to form a new species in the same way that the new species to be formed by evolution will come from rats not
tigers

Answer 3

"Tautomology" is one of the most inventive neologisms I've ever witnessed on this site!

To discuss your question, "survival of the fittest" is not a hypothesis--it is an empirically verifiable, tested-many-times-over, undeniable fact. The same thing applies to the concept of "descent with modification"; a concept that, strangely enough, I've never heard anti-evolutionists debate. They seem to prefer whacking at strawmen.

Life is in dynamic equilibrium--it is an open system in which each component affects all others to some degree. Some biologists model life as an "n-dimensional adaptive landscape" with constantly shifting peaks which represent optimal niches for life occur.

Imagine, for our purposes, a 3-D a map with peaks constantly changing. As time passes, life strives to reach these "adaptive peaks" through evolutionary modification. As a result, it is hypothesized that the most successful species are the ones with the ability to adapt to changes in the environment--thusly, reaching these peaks with greater ease than less adaptive species, who do not survive to reproduce.

Answer 4

Gravity is a fact, not a theory. Sir Isaac Newton had a theory about gravity but Albert Einstein had a better one.

Evolution is a fact, not a theory. M. Lamarck had a theory about evolution but Mr. Darwin had a better one.

A theory of evolution and evolution itself are separate issues. When you understand that, come back.

Answer 5

survival of the fittest can be identified in three ways:

1.Those who can change to adapt in changing environments
(Physical resilience)
2.Those who can endure a wide variety of environments
(through ingenuity)

3.Those who breed to make the above changes in successive generations. (clever ones)

#3 does lay some truth to Natural selection, it could be instinctive.

Answer 6

Kid, go learn English. The phrase "in fact" consists of two words.

Answer 7

My rebuttal is that you're retarded and it's just been proven by above posts.

Answer 8

yes. feel free to believe what you want to but please come down off your soapbox. Are you so insecure in your beliefs that you feel you must convince others?

Answer 9

I think you mean tautology.... anyways.....
Here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html