is darwinism bascially saying that which survives, survives. or is there a level of non-circularity involved?

Question

RE: please don't explain the basics of Darwins writting to me as i am very well versed in it. Also i am an atheist just in case you are wondering. saying some thing has adated is that = to saying something has survived?

RE kirin: well it isnit so much a case of having fallen more of exploring an idea.

RE kirun I appreciate that also thanks everyone for you intressting intrpretations.

Answer 1

You've fallen for a debating trick. For one, it's not "Darwinism", there have been many contributions to the understanding of evolution. Secondly, just because an invalid argument is made for something, that does not mean the proposition is not true. I could as easily state "That which created, created", and its circularity would not be a useful contribution to the debate either.

Evolution is much more complex than just saying "Some things survive"... Try "Genes with a phenotypic effect that increase the chance of successful reproduction of an individual in a given environment are statistically more likely to appear in the next generation, compared to the current one. Over time, this will naturally cause an accumulation of genes adapted to the environment." . And then, we must take into account neutral mutations ( which will be neutral for the current environment only, they may provide a survival advantage later, or when combined with a different mutation ), and then the large body of work that have been done on the fine details of evolution.

Read a book like Climbing Mount Improbable, and you will see there's vast beauty in the detail of nature, and how it evolved.

Edit: I saw your update last night about why you asked, but it was time for bed so I didn't change my post. I'll leave it as-is now so your comment still makes sense.

Answer 2

Darwin was expounding a theory that organisms evolve to survive in changing environments. He had a problem with reconciling that with his Christian faith and was profoundly disturbed by the implications of his theory, but he was a good enough scientist to let the evidence speak for itself. Darwinism is what others say he was saying, which is broader than the theory and in essence can be interpreted as a position which holds that there is no significance in survival other than the fact that organisms survive - it is not 'the survival of the fittest' as it is often misinterpreted.

Answer 3

You have been presented with many good responses to your question. Darwin wrote volumes on his theories. And even though I am not a die hard Darwin fan, I believe he did the best he could with what tools and data he had available to him at that time. Being human, there is no way he could be 100% correct, but my how his studied have caused others to further study and come up with answers, and different ways to look at the same thing. Some, have unfortunately misinterpreted his quotes to use in promoting their beliefs of superior ism among races. The poor fella was trying to do some common good, not aid those to spread evil.

Answer 4

No, it says that certain organism's genome gives them the best (inductive) tendency to survive and reproduce within the context of a given environment. The actual engagement between organism and environement decides what will survive, so the circularity appears when looking at nature after the fact. Evolutoinary science allows us to dispositionally point toward previous states that would allow this survival (prediction of transitional form).

Answer 5

Adaptation alone does not equate to survival. Look at the Burgess Shale. Cambrian evolution included massive levels of adaptation but only a tiny number of those adaptations survived to lead to the next evolutionary step.

Adaptation + environmental suitability = survival

Answer 6

There is no survival state here in sub-life which is non circularity for there is no way that circulation is cut from the cycle. If it stays out the cycle stops;

Answer 7

it to to do with survival of the fittest! Those who adapted well to the change in clmiate and sourroundings etc, survived!

Its also about evoultion (supposedly we evolved from apes)

Answer 8

It's more like "that which adapts, survives."

Answer 9

i like the patronising fool who has no clue what your asking and your position on this topic.

Answer 10

..survival of the fittest........