Herbert Spencer

=== Leader magazine ===
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/22430/22430-h/22430-h.htm#I
We need not apologise for this long quotation, it is a tribute to Darwin's magnanimous colleague, the Nestor of the evolutionist camp,—and it probably indicates the line of thought which Darwin himself followed. It is interesting also to recall the fact that in 1852, when Herbert Spencer wrote his famous Leader article on "The Development Hypothesis" in which he argued powerfully for the thesis that the whole animate world is the result of an age-long process of natural transformation, he wrote for The Westminster Review another important essay, "A Theory of Population deduced from the General Law of Animal Fertility," towards the close of which he came within an ace of recognising that the struggle for existence was a factor in organic evolution. At a time when pressure of population was practically interesting men's minds, Darwin, Wallace, and Spencer were being independently led from a social problem to a biological theory. There could be no better illustration, as Prof. Patrick Geddes has pointed out, of the Comtian thesis that science is a "social phenomenon."
=== notes ===
age 444 Vol 1 contains:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SRkRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA444&ci=194,1037,704,290&source=bookclip
That is to say, it cannot but happen that those individuals whos functions are most out of equilibrium with the 
modified aggregate of external forces, will be those to die; and that those will survive whos functions happen to be most
nearly in equilibrium with the modified aggregate of external forces.
But this survival of the fittest, implies multiplication of the fittest. Out of the fittest thus multiplied, there will, as before be an overthrowing of the moving equilibrium wherever it presents the least opposing force to the new incident force. And by the continual destruction of the individuals that are the least capable of maintaining their equilibria in presence of this new incident force, there must eventuallv be arrived at an altered type completely in equilibrium with the altered conditions. The Principles of Biology By Herbert Spencer
=== rephrase ===
Spencer wrote: "....That is to say, it cannot but happen that those individuals whos functions are most out of equilibrium with the modified aggregate of external forces, will be those to die; and that those will survive whos functions happen to be most nearly in equilibrium with the modified aggregate of external forces...."
rephrase for tautology: "...those individuals out of equilibrium ..... will ... die; and that those will survive who are in equilibrium..."
rephrase: "...those out of equilibrium die, while those in equilibrium will survive..." which reduces to What happens, happens.
finally: "...those out of Fitness(equilibrium) die, while those in Fitness(equilibrium) will survive..." which reduces to What happens, happens. ....................''
-------------------------
Thus by Matthews(Darwin's) natural selection , Osborn, Spencer and others meant: 
* Natural equilibrium
* Natural Preservation
* Natural Survival
* Constituted Fitness
within the wider context of Aristotle's 'constituted internal spontaneity ' or 'spontaneous generation' as articulated by Robert Chambers VesTiges, which had an effect on Queen Victoria for her husband read it to her aloud. 
=== ads ===
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinist
Darwin's theory is concerned with populations, whereas Spencer's deals with the way an individual's motives influence humanity. Darwin's theory is probabilistic, i.e., based on changes in the environment that sooner or later influence the change of individuals in a collective sense, but do not have any single, specific goal. Spencer's is deterministic (the evolution of human society is the only logical consequence of its previous stage), fatalistic (it cannot be influenced by human actions), universalistic (social evolution follows a single path, it cannot skip or change any stages) and teleological (there is a final, perfect society that will be eventually reached). Darwin's theory does not equal progress, except in the sense that the new, evolved species will be better suited to their changing environment. Spencer's theory introduces the concept of social progress—the new, evolved society is always better than the past.
Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy addressed the question of artificial selection, but it was built against Darwinian theories of natural selection. His point of view on sickness and health, in particular, opposed him to the concept of biological "adaptation", forged by Spencer's "fitness". He criticized both Haeckel, Spencer, and Darwin, sometimes under the same banner. Nietzsche thought that, in specific cases, sickness was necessary and even helpful.[4] Thus, he wrote:
=== POsted to usenet ===
https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/05a5dcef6ae3de85/50b934e58c3f9d47#50b934e58c3f9d47
On May 2, 4:51 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I don't see how the author's name, or even an author's existence, is
> >> relevant here.  There is the fact of gravity, and there are theories
> >> of gravity.  Yes, Newton expressed a theory of gravity, which replaced
> >> Kepler's laws of planetary motion, and was in turn replaced by
> >> Einstein's General Relativity, which may in turn be replaced by
> >> something which unifies gravity and quantum theory.  Yet the fact of
> >> gravity remains.
> 
> >By rejecting the relevancy of author/founder/architect, Jillery's
> >thinking is shown to be defective, immersed in subjective thought.
> 
> Non sequitur.  An author's existence to a theory isn't relevant to the
> reality the theory describes.
> 
> >> In a similar way, there is the fact of natural selection, and there
> >> are theories of natural selection.  Ray conflates arguments against
> >> the fact of natural selection by referring to specific elements of
> >> Darwin's theory.  It is part and parcel of his word games.  Perhaps
> >> you and he think them clever, but apparently nobody else does.
> 
> >Perhaps you could provide an example so one can see what you're
> >talking about?
> 
> Too easy:
> 
> <fcff8b79-62ef-4aa7-8883-6bdea9d52...@ua8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
> 
> Or perhaps you refer to something other than your word games.  If so,
> you should have been specific.
http://tautology.wikia.com/wiki/Bio-evolution_lacks_both_a_dynamic_and_an_object
https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/d0b4b15bdeb5ddde/d0dd2d76d4e5ab6?q=#0d0dd2d76d4e5ab6
https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/8c116c87fe4e497d?tvc=1
Poster Noshellswill who has a Phd in Biophysics insists that *every* single scientific theory has an author without exception. 
The oxymoronic term 'natural selection' can be no more a theory than the pleonasm and term "free gift" can be a tautology. The term ns was a contracted shorthand for the theories by Herbert Spencer
.....But this survival of the fittest, implies multiplication of the fittest. Out of the fittest thus multiplied, there will, as before be an overthrowing of the moving equilibrium wherever it presents the least opposing force to the new incident force. And by the continual destruction of the individuals that are the least capable of maintaining their equilibria in presence of this new incident force, there must eventuallv be arrived at an altered type completely in equilibrium with the altered conditions. The Principles of Biology By Herbert Spencer.....
Note how this paragraph is a claim of logic let me do my usual rephase dance: 
rephase1:
But this survival of the Multiplying fittest result in the overthrowing of the moving equilibrium wherever it presents the least opposing force to the new incident force.
And by the continual destruction of the individuals that are the least capable of maintaining their equilibria in presence of this new incident force, there must eventuallv be arrived at an altered type completely in equilibrium with the altered conditions. 
rephase2:
The fittest competing creatures overthrowing the weaker creatures in an ecological niche because they enact the least opposing force to the new incident force from the dominant creatures. These dominant creatures
destroy those individuals that are least capable of maintaining their lives in presence of this new incident force. From this logic , there must eventuallv arrive at an altered type gaining attributes in equilibrium with its ecological niche. 
rephrase3:
The fittest or strongest creature displace the weaker creature from the environment, destroying those less fit individuals that are least capable of maintaining their lives against the stronger creatures. From this logic , there must eventuallv arrive an altered type gaining attributes in equilibrium with its ecological niche. 
rephrase4:
The strongest creature displaces the weaker. From this logic , there must eventuallv arrive an altered type gaining attributes in equilibrium with its ecological niche. 
finally:
1. By logical necessity those that displaced the weaker were stronger in a generalized context.
2 .From this logic , those stronger creatures must gain attributes that their ancestors did not have in previous generations.
Note that because 1. is a claim of logic conclusion 2. by the precepts of falsificationsim does not derive logically.
=== Prince Kropotkin ===
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/directactionenv.html
The mutual inter-action between the agencies of the outer world and the organisms gives origin to fluctuating (schwankenden) new forms; they are inherited more or less, then they are sifted by Selection, and kept by it within definite lines of development.37
---------------------
VIII
The idea of Natural Selection apparently did not occur to Lamarck, although several passages in his works suggest that he had noticed the struggle for existence. As to the modern Lamarckians, while nearly all of them indicate the limitations of Natural Selection, they do not exclude its action form their schemes of Evolution. The only object to the exaggerated part attributed to it by those whose conceptions of descent are influenced by their sociological or super-natural considerations; and they understand that Natural Selection surely gives stability to the effects of the Direct Action of Environment. Most of them also recognize that by the side of these two main factors of Evolution one must take into consideration the two aspects --- individual and social --- of the struggle for life, the development of protective instincts in the higher animals, and the effects of use and disuse of organs, crossing, and the occasional appearance of more or less sudden variations --- all these having their part in the evolution of the unfathomable variety of organic forms.
-------------------------
A synthesis of the views of Darwin and Lamarck, or rather of Natural Selection and the Direct Action of Environment, described by Spencer as Direct and Indirect Adaptation, was thus the necessary outcome of the researches in biology which have been carried on for the last-thirty or forty years 
If considerations lying outside the true domain of biology, such as those which inspire the Neo-Lamarckians and inspired Weismann, cease to interfere, a synthetic view of Evolution (in which Natural Selection will be understood as a struggle for life carried on under both its individual and its still more important social aspect) will probably rally most biologists. And if this really takes place, then it will be easy to free ourselves from the reproach which has been addressed to nineteenth-century science: the reproach that while it has aided men to liberate themselves from superstitions, it has ignored those aspects of Nature which ought to have been, in a naturalistic conception of the universe, the very foundations of human Ethics, and of which Bacon and Darwin have already had a glimpse.46
Unfortunately the vulgarisers of the teachings of Darwin, speaking in the name of Science, have succeeded in eliminating this deeply philosophical idea from the naturalistic conception of the universe worked out in the nineteenth century. They have succeeded in persuading men that the last word of Science was a pitiless individual struggle for life. But the prominence which is now beginning to be given to the direct action of environment in the evolution of species, by eliminating the Malthusian idea about the necessity of a competition to the knife between all the individuals of a given species for evolving new species, opens the way for quite different comprehension of struggle for life, and of Nature altogether.
Category:TauTology