82,882
edits
Evolution by natural selection: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
Let’s see if this works. A scientific theory must tell us something about the world: it must make a prediction that does not follow as a matter of irrefutable logic, that could, in theory, be false — thereby cutting down the number of possible outcomes, and making those that remain more predictable. It must be, in {{author|Karl Popper}}’s argot, ''[[falsifiable]]''. Not false, but ''able to be false''. ''F= M*A'' is a “[[synthetic statement]]”. You need evidence to support it. It is “[[Falsification|falsifiable]]”, because an outcome where force does not equal mass * acceleration is possible. Indeed, Einstein found some examples. By contrast, 2 + 2 = 4 is not falsifiable: it is true ''by definition'' — it is an [[analytic statement]]. For 2 + 2 ''not'' to equal 4 would mean changing the meaning of “2”, “plus”, or “4”. Assuming we are using mathematical notation correctly, 2=2=4 is ''[[a priori]]'' true. In this way, mathematics may be the ''language'' of science, but it is not science ''itself''. | Let’s see if this works. A scientific theory must tell us something about the world: it must make a prediction that does not follow as a matter of irrefutable logic, that could, in theory, be false — thereby cutting down the number of possible outcomes, and making those that remain more predictable. It must be, in {{author|Karl Popper}}’s argot, ''[[falsifiable]]''. Not false, but ''able to be false''. ''F= M*A'' is a “[[synthetic statement]]”. You need evidence to support it. It is “[[Falsification|falsifiable]]”, because an outcome where force does not equal mass * acceleration is possible. Indeed, Einstein found some examples. By contrast, 2 + 2 = 4 is not falsifiable: it is true ''by definition'' — it is an [[analytic statement]]. For 2 + 2 ''not'' to equal 4 would mean changing the meaning of “2”, “plus”, or “4”. Assuming we are using mathematical notation correctly, 2=2=4 is ''[[a priori]]'' true. In this way, mathematics may be the ''language'' of science, but it is not science ''itself''. | ||
Now, in which camp does the theory of evolution by natural selection fall? If is falsifiable? | Now, in which camp does the theory of evolution by natural selection fall? If is falsifiable? Patrick Matthew who first discovered it, before Charles Darwin, thought not. Responding to Darwin’s gracious concession of his priority, Matthew said: | ||
{{quote|“To me the conception of this law of Nature came intuitively as a self-evident fact, almost without an effort of concentrated thought. Mr. Darwin here seems to have more merit in the discovery than I have had; to me it did not appear a discovery. He seems to have worked it out by inductive reason, slowly and with due caution to have made his way synthetically from fact to fact onwards; while with me it was by a general glance at the scheme of Nature that I estimated this select production of species as an [[a priori]] recognisable fact— an axiom requiring only to be pointed out to be admitted by unprejudiced minds of sufficient grasp.”<ref>PArtick Matthey, writing to the editor of the ''[http://darwin-online.org.uk/Variorum/1861/1861-xv-c-1866.html Gardeners’ Chronicle]'' — seriously — May 12, 1860.</ref>}} | {{quote|“To me the conception of this law of Nature came intuitively as a self-evident fact, almost without an effort of concentrated thought. Mr. Darwin here seems to have more merit in the discovery than I have had; to me it did not appear a discovery. He seems to have worked it out by inductive reason, slowly and with due caution to have made his way synthetically from fact to fact onwards; while with me it was by a general glance at the scheme of Nature that I estimated this select production of species as an [[a priori]] recognisable fact— an axiom requiring only to be pointed out to be admitted by unprejudiced minds of sufficient grasp.”<ref>PArtick Matthey, writing to the editor of the ''[http://darwin-online.org.uk/Variorum/1861/1861-xv-c-1866.html Gardeners’ Chronicle]'' — seriously — May 12, 1860.</ref>}} | ||
If there is any kind of ongoing competition for resources, and participants in that competition replicate themselves with minor variations, and those variations alter the succeeding replicant’s fitness at competing for the resources it needs, then those variations which increase the replicant’s fitness will survive more frequently than those with variations which do not, over time the community will change in the direction of that “fitness”. | |||
This seems to be just as analytic as the mathematical statement: the hidden tricksiness is in the notion of fitness. That’s where the hard work is done; that is where all the synthetic work sits. ''What'' counts as “fitter”? How do we predict ''that''? On this, evolutionary theory has nothing to say. It doesn’t predict where organisms are going next; it merely gives an account of how they got to where they are now. Its only prediction is “it is highly unlikely that organisms won’t continue to evolve ''somehow''”. | |||