quote:
I would say natural selection is non-random reproductive success of organisms. Since it is non-random, then one should be able to determine, in theory, which organisms will have reproductive success before the fact. Right?
In a perfect world, we could get very close. We'd have to have perfect knowledge of every relevant variable-- weather patterns, etc. Needless to say, we have nowhere near that level of knowledge. Then, we'd have to restrict the prediction to the few generations only. If we reach too far into the future the system will change and what was adaptive ceases to be so. An animal adapted to ice, wouldn't do well where I live.
quote:
But if fitness is defined by the post hoc analysis, then I think that only strengthens the claim of tautology, i.e survivors survive.
hmmmm.... survivors DO survive. It is a tautology. Not all tautology is fallacious. Here is a tautology for you. 1 = 1. Tautology? Yup. Fallacious? You tell me.
A fallacious tautology is a form of argument where one draws a conclusion which is assumed in the premises. The key is that it must be an ARGUMENT. Axioms-- such as that of identity ( 1 = 1 )-- and observations-- that critter died, that one didn't-- don't count. They AREN'T arguments.
Back to the topic. It is hard to argue with the idea that the survivors did in fact survive. By definition, if you survive you are a survivor. It isn't an argument, but an observation. The question then becomes, "Why did these survivors survive, and the other animals did not?" The answer is that each individual animal is slightly different than any other, and these slight differences give some animals an edge.
quote:
But it seems like it should logically be possible to determine what traits are more fit.
With perfect knowledge and in relation to a particular environment, perhaps so. Notice this is relative fitness, not absolute. In your fish/gila monster example, you drop both into a desert. The gila monster wins. But a hundred thousand years later, the desert floods. Suddenly the gila monster's 'good' adaptations are no longer all that good.
quote:
I don't know if I can agree with that. The optimal optical(Poet and didn't even know it) system would be made in reference to the interactions with the environment and within the organism. How would comparing two different systems to each other determine which is best unless there is a reference to how they function in the environment.
It doesn't matter how well one can see, if everything else is blind. You can have 1% of 20/20 vision and be king of the hill if everything else has no eyes.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
™ Version 4.2
