Thank you for your observation. No, an antibiotic is not an organism, however if I am not mistaken the chemistry of antibiotics is closely related to the chemistry of life.
What I was referring to was the concept of “sym” which is working with as opposed to the concept of survival of the fittest which is “struggling against.” If you are going to build a theory, you need more than one example and you need a common principle. The reason why some bacteria survived in this example is because they were better adapted to the new environment, not because they won some struggle with the other bacteria for limited resources.
The usual example in this area is the well known E.coli experiment where a strain of E.coli which has previously been unable to use citrine in an oxygenated atmosphere changed so that it was able to do so. This does show that “natural selection” does happen, but not because of a struggle against other bacteria for scarce resources, but adaptation to the environment to better use the resources available.
The favorite example of Dawkins & others which shows that they do not understand the real character of Natural Selection is: The predator vs the prey, because this is not even a struggle for scarce resources, but the way that nature or ecology makes the best use of all resources for all of God’s creatures.
If pain and death are a problem, which they seem to be for some people, then evolution and God Who created evolution are responsible. However ecology demonstrates the wise and good economy of God which allows the most good to the most of God’s creatures, and gives humans the ability to be free rational and loving beings, created in God own Image.
They survived because they were able to live in an environment other bacteria could not. This would make them more fit for survival. In this case it was not a struggle for resources but a struggle to survive the environment.
Survival of the fittest doesn’t always mean a struggle against. That may be the popular impression of what it means but that doesn’t make that impression correct.
Some examples of survival of the fittest that I can think of would include:
Living longer than other members of the population
Living better than other members of the population
Producing more surviving off spring
Living a shorter life if that means your off spring have more resources available (my idea)
Not producing more off spring if that enables you to assist in the survival of the off springs of your kin
Some of these might include a struggle. Living longer might include prey that is better able to avoid a predator or a predator that is better able to catch prey.
Your E. coli example would fit under living better. The better you live the more off spring you have.
To me the common principle of evolution is out reproducing other members of your population. That is how your genes get passed down to future generations.
It appears that you and others do not understand my position and are wrongly stereotyping me as an ID person, which is absolutely wrong. Yes, I believe that the universe is rationally designed, and so does BioLogos.
Howeve4r I also believe that God did not directly intervene to create humanity. God created humanity and the rest of God’s creatures through evolutionary processes that God conceived and implemented. ID says that this is impossible and God had to intervene in evolution.
No one has said what is the role in the beginning of life, because we just don’t know enough to say what happened… The ID position may be right in this situation, but I would not bet the house on it.
The question I have been asking is the question of Natural Selection. That makes it s scientific question, not a theological or philosophical question, even though it has serious theological and philosophical ramifications, which is why it is a difficult question for BioLogos to answer.
My position is that neither science nor theology nor philosophy is above question. That is the most difficult position to take, but it is the right one for me.
YEC and ID folk use it as a pejorative term as it invokes the image of atheistic evolution. Sometimes people arguing against evolution like to use it as if Darwin’s original ideas are still the current state of the theory.
One of my pet peeves, using the same term in multiple ways.
Thank you, Matthew for going into the archives to check out some of my criticisms of BioLogos.
I hope that it is clear that I do not consider BioLogos to be an enemy. In fact I consider myself to be a member of the BioLogos Community which are those who share a search for truth and come together on a regular basis to share their ideas and view points.
I understand that at times my presence can be overwhelming because I have been at this for a good while and I have spent a good deal of time and effort to research my views. I do have some strong views about evolution and ecology and I am glad to share them with you if you are willing to consider and learn.
I know that my perspective is unique, but I consider this a strength and not a weakness. Diversity is good.
Hah! That was just a search for ‘@relates natural selection.’ It seems to be a favorite word of Roger’s where he likes to correct all those silly Darwinists and Evolutionists since they obviously don’t understand their own discipline very well. I think I might struggle to make a ‘best of’ for certain users.
But aren’t you saying ‘natural’ selection is based upon a God ordained ecology. My only point is that neither believers nor nonbelievers are in any position to know whether there is or is not any guidance involved. I personally assume there is not but that is not a position that can be argued for any more than yours can.
What you are talking about, circular thinking has been the problem. Those who are fittest will survive. How so we know they are fit? Because they survive.
Those who out produce their peers in providing offspring are the fittest. How do we know they are fittest? Because they produce more offspring.
What we need is an objective criterion or set of criteria to explain why some alleles survive and flourish, while others do not. The best criteria I have found and verified is the ability to adapt. This takes many forms so it can be truly universal.
We can see this very clearly in the development of our own species and how each level of hominid developed the abilities that enable us to better adapt and control our environment. This includes not only a better brain/mind, but also opposable thumbs, bipedal upright stance, cooking, social structure, et al.
When we look at evolutionary change this way it is clear that for humans it has changed from the physical realm to the rational and even the spiritual realms.
The question for me is whether the universe is programed or not. Before computers humans were not aware that machines could be built and programed that would carry out certain instructions. We thought that only people could do this.
Now that we know that God could program the universe to act in certain ways, we can say that even though the universe cannot think on its own, because it has no brain, it can act rationally since that is what it has been programed to do by a rational Creator God.
The question then is not the ceaseless arguing about whether God programed God’s universe, but how did God program the universe. This does not really require any one to believe in God, but only be able to discern what God has done and why.
Sure if we just ignore other people’s objections then one can more efficiently arrive at a conclusion. But then you will likely be the only one there when you arrive.
Don’t blame me. Blame the late Karl Popper, the very distinguished philosopher, who clearly pointed out that Natural Selection as used by Darwin and his followers was not falsifiable and based on circular thinking.
Those are both the definition of what it means to be fit. It isn’t circular.
fit: adapted or suited
Would you prefer survival of the most adapted or survival of the most suited? Would that be circular?
What is your criteria for survive or flourish? It would be the same criteria for fittness.
And we already have the criteria. It is simply more copies of the genes get passed down than other versions.
Adapting, using a strict definition of the word, is not always what happens. When you introduce antibiotic into an E. coli culture the individuals that have no resistance die. Those that already have resistance live. There is no “adapting.”
The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. . . . I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as “almost tautological,” and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. . . . [Popper, 1978, p. 344]
I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. . . . The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be not strictly universally true. There seem to be exceptions, as with so many biological theories; and considering the random character of the variations on which natural selection operates, the occurrence of exceptions is not surprising. [p. 346]
You have mentioned Popper multiple times on these forums here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and many more. You are clearly aware of his recanting yet seem to just ignore the fact that he recanted and claim he was ‘forced to changed his mind’ in one of your posts. Roger, please stop posting this nonsense about Popper.
And at the end of the day… it doesn’t even matter really what Popper did or didn’t think. He wasn’t an evolutionary Biologist.
The question is not adapting, but adapting to what. Ecology as we know is a new scientific discipline. My point is that Darwin and the neoDarwinians did not connect Natural Selection with the environment. That is not what the textbooks say. That is not what Dawkins says. Maybe ESS does but BioLogos seems to treat ESS as the plague.
As you indicate I am not really asking for much. I am just asking for a clarification that fitness or adaption refers to the ecology or environment, which I do not see that you can deny. So why are you reacting as if I am asking for the world for no reason?
Matt,
You did not read Popper’s statement carefully. What he said was that it may be testable and falsifiable. He did not say that it was tested and found to be true. That is exactly what I am saying. Yes, Natural Selection is testable and falsifiable, but not using the old definition of Survival of the Fittest.
If you think that there was not much pressure on Popper to join ranks with the majority of the world’s scientists and say that he was wrong and everything was hunky dory with Natural Selection, you are seriously mistaken. He did give in in a sense, but his statement does not give up the principle of falsifiability that he stood for and all scientists should stand for and he is clear that this test has not been met and it still has not been met.
I took your comment to heart, so I decided to Google Natural Selection to see if for some reason my understanding of Natural Selection was as far out of bounds as you seem to indicate. Of course this is something that we can all so and perhaps should have done in the first place.
The first thing I saw was the dictionary definition quoted above, which follows my ecological understanding of Natural Selection. Of the 12 definitions for Natural Selection on this page, 8 follow the definition above including Merriam Webster.
The other 4, including Wiki follow the traditional Darwinian view. were more technically and “scientifically” oriented.
Observations:
I am not responsible for the view that that the ecology powers Natural Selection. That view has been dominant among the educated public and most likely young people for some time. I can only claim to be one of those who says that Darwinian Natural Selection is circular following Karl Popper. For those who want to explore all the reasons why Survival of the Fittest is false, I invite you to read my book, Darwin’s Myth.
BioLogos tends to side with conservative science because it seeks the support of conservative scientists. That is understandable, but is not always good.
As I said informed public opinion, which is the audience that BioLogos is seeking disagrees with Survival Of the Fittest. It would be a serious mistake to try teach Survival of the Fittest to people who know that this is not true.
Survival of the Fittest is not only false, but is a understanding of life which encourage Elitism, that is counter to the teaching of Jesus Christ. The Logos and Survival of the Fittest are incompatible.
@Relates Roger… if it really followed YOUR definition… then you wouldn’t have anything to complain about!
Secondly, Scientists have QUANTIFIED “survival of the fittest” long ago… For any given period of time, the number of offspring for a given gene configuration, measures fitness.
It’s not that hard …and yet you frequently come back to allegations of tautology.
Maybe if you wrote some of your discoveries by hand, on paper, you would be able to remember it better.