Doubting Thomas on Darwin's Tautology

=== Doubting thomas source ===
http://wikisend.com/download/212204/doubtingthomas.rar Folder with tdtone's html files as to why natural selection is meaningless  ( to be fixed later) 
http://groups.google.com/group/tautology-notes/msg/5fb14c6fb7e29e36?
=== Notes ===
There are a few places below where Tdtone missed tautological passages in OoS, will get back to this as time allows. See
Physics equations aren't tautologies.
=== TDtone article on Darwin's tautology with natural selection ===
http://www.tdtone.org/darwin/Darwin1.htm 
DARWIN'S GREAT TAUTOLOGY 
DISCUSSION OF TWO FATAL DEFECTS IN HIS THEORY OF EVOLUTION 
Trader100 16:01, September 3, 2011 (UTC) THE DOUBTING THOMAS LOOKS AT DARWINIAN EVOLUTION Trader100 16:01, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
 
Pub. May, 1997 
rev. November 19, 2001 
Tech.rev. Dec. 12, 2005 
Note to readers: The refinement and completion of the arguments begun 
on this page in 1997 has now been published, and is to be found at 
another location. It is a more detailed refutation of Darwin's theory 
than is found here. The terms "natural selection" and "survival of the 
fittest" are further analyzed and shown to be erroneous as an 
explanation for evolution. You may go there at any time by clicking on 
the following link: CLICK HERE 
For the latest and most illuminating look at the term "Natural 
Selection", see how it works when applied to an economy ("Economic 
Darwinism"):CLICK HERE 
To get back here, click on the "Back" button of your browser.) 
 Note that this page uses the "down/back" reference system: to get 
to the reference simply "click" on the superscript ( ); to get back to 
the original place, click "back". 
PREFACE 
As noted on the Index page, for the last 150 years, the most popular 
explanation for the diversity of living things in the universe (except 
for Biblical creation) was Darwin's theory of evolution, often 
explained as "survival of the fittest". Darwin's theory has been 
taught beginning with grade school, so that a 6 year old knows, or 
should, that the giraffe neck is long allowing it to feed above the 
other animals and thus survive when others cannot get food (in reality 
an idea of Lamarck's). Evidence has been accumulating for years that 
problems exist not only in this claim, but in other aspects of 
Darwin's theory including the growing belief that it is only a clever 
tautology, which explains nothing that we do not already know. This 
page examines that aspect of Darwin's theory, and finding it lacking 
in scientific basis, suggests that belief in Darwin's theory of 
evolution must be largely a matter of faith. 
ANALYSIS OF DARWIN'S THEORY 
In all fairness to Darwin, he did not use the phrase "survival of the 
fittest" (really Herbert Spencer's term, but adopted in later editions 
of "Origins" due to objections from his contemporaries). The mechanism 
he referred to was "natural selection". Darwin states: 
 "----I have called this principle, by which each slight 
variation 
(a), if useful, is preserved, by the term of natural selection-----". 
(emphasis added) 
Thus, selection by nature of one of a (varied) species (for survival) 
is the explanation for evolution of that species. This statement is 
equivalent to the conclusion reached by using the more popular term 
"survival of the fittest". This latter description of the principle of 
evolution must be considered a more straightforward term, and it is 
not hard to understand why the term was not by used originally by 
Darwin. Only two questions must be asked about the term "survival of 
the fittest" to uncover it's true meaning. One question is "what are 
the "fittest" and the other, how are the "fittest" chosen?" 
The answer is much too simple and also much too revealing: the fittest 
are those who survive (Period). Why are they the fittest? Because they 
survived. But why did they survive? Because they are the fittest. 
That's all we know about them. The same answer applies to the more 
obscure phrase, (survival or "preservation") by "natural selection": 
the types that have been selected by nature are those who have 
survived. Both arguments are tautological. Nothing is learned about 
the real scientific cause of evolution or the origin of species by 
learning that the population consists of survivors. 
It also explains nothing that we don't already know about the world 
around us. Yes, elephants have "survived". Yes, so have fleas, oak 
trees, bacteria, etc.. In Darwin's terms, these species have been 
selected. Quite obvious. They are here. What is the cause of their 
differences? It is certainly not the fact that they have survived. 
A TAUTOLOGY IS A TAUTOLOGY: THE TAUTOLOGY OF DARWIN 
A tautology is defined as a series of statements that comprise an 
argument, which statements are constructed in such a way that the 
truth of the proposition is guaranteed. Consequently the statement 
conveys no useful information regardless of it's length or complexity. 
Thus, for a simple example, the statement "if you can't find something 
(that you lost), you are not looking in the right place" is 
tautological. It is also true, but conveys no useful information. 
As a physical example, to play a game of darts where the dart board 
was full of bullseyes, could be called a "tautological" game. You 
can't lose. Any argument containing a tautological statement is thus 
flawed logically and must be considered erroneous. 
A tautological argument is not an argument; a tautological game is not 
a game. (As an aside, a great many of the later, "more advanced" books 
on evolution attempt to explain away this tautology by some beautiful, 
highly complex, arguments; e.g. Mayr and or, Gould. Upon close 
examination of these arguments it will be found that the conclusion is 
usually obtained by a metaphysical "division by zero", like the well 
known mathematical proof that 1 = 0. You will note that the bottom 
line of all of these complex arguments is always the same, namely that 
"natural selection is the cause of evolution".) 
It should also be noted that some apologists for Darwinian logic claim 
that mathematical equations such as f = ma, or e = mc2 could also be 
termed tautologies. This is a faulted attempt to vindicate Darwinism 
which could be termed "innocence by association"; in either case, [and 
in every case of a mathematical expression] the terms on both sides of 
the equation are defined elsewhere independently, and thus the equal 
sign does not mean "is defined by" but rather {hate to say it} but is 
equal to, thus establishing an equivalence. This equivalence may 
establish a new "law", hitherto unknown. "Survival = fittest" defines 
one term by the other: a tautology pure and simple. It must be kept in 
mind that the requirement for evolution to occur, by definition, is 
not a single function, rather two functions: (1.) is development of a 
novel genome (phenotype), and (2.) is survival of the phenotype. For 
evolution to occur, BOTH must happen. Strange as it may seem, a six 
legged "horse", which might be an excellent animal, does not represent 
evolution unless it can reproduce its lineage. This would be similar 
to the production of a mule, which is considered a "cross", not 
evolution. So survival, being an integral part of evolution, is 
necessary for existence; what is new about this? How does this factor 
become the "cause" of evolution? 
But the greatest fallacy in the term "survival of the fittest" is the 
fact that the word "fittest" has no precise meaning whatsoever. The 
"survival" of an organism is dependent upon a vast permutation and 
combination of conditions not understood by anyone; thus the word 
cannot be defined and leaves the entire term devoid of the ability of 
meaning and thus prediction. 
"Survival" in nature starts with a different genome (phenotype) each 
time and thus "survival" itself is different every time. No two 
phenotypes have ever developed under exactly identical circumstances; 
even eggs in the same nest have different positions, have been laid at 
different times, are exposed to different amounts of heat, light and 
other conditions. While it is true that the "new" genome would have 
new characteristics, the conditions that it is subjected to may differ 
substantially from the survival conditions of the first genome. It 
either survives or doesn't, under a different, continually varying, 
set of conditions. As is stated elsewhere on this site, the outcome of 
the survival of an organism is unknown until the event occurs. (See, 
e.g., the page referenced by "click here" at the top of this page.) 
Again, how is this fact the "cause" of evolution? 
A CLOSER LOOK AT NATURAL SELECTION 
But let us assume, as a further test of the logic in Darwin's theory, 
those who believe in creation are right. God created all the species, 
perhaps all at once, or by some other method, "Theistic evolution" 
perhaps. (Or, equally as effective for the purpose of argument, the 
species came here as seeds from another planet = Panspermia works). 
Now, virtually all scientists agree that about 1% of the total species 
that have ever existed on the planet currently remain in existence. 
Let us accept this figure for the purpose of argument. The question 
then comes up, "why are only one percent of the species in existence 
today"? A proper evolutionist answer is that those species that exist 
today were picked by "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest", 
using Darwin's own definition. 
Therefore, Darwin's process of "natural selection" is not unique to 
his theory, but operates under any and all circumstances that involve 
an "origin" of a species, whether it be creation, Panspermia, or some 
other process. Thus "survival by natural selection" or by selection of 
the "fittest" once again has no effect on the "origin" of species, and 
adds nothing by way of explanation to Darwin's theory. This objection 
is valid whether it is applied to Darwin's original work (1859) or any 
one of the myriad of variations of his theory, right up to the present 
day. 
But if the question is "what is responsible for the differences 
between the separate species", we must discover what caused a viable 
(as opposed to random) change to the cell or group of cells (genotype) 
which gave rise to these new species, as well as why these changes 
persisted. High school mathematics can prove that the time from the 
assumed beginning of the universe (currently estimated at ~ 12 billion 
years) is insufficient to produce even one viable new gene because of 
the complexity of the process. Yet this process appears to have 
occurred, and cannot be explained by science, using either "natural 
selection" or "survival of the fittest" as a mechanism.(e) The only 
current explanation of this process is a teleological one, and thus 
outside the realm of science. 
[To backup for a moment, it is instructive to compare the Creationist 
explanation regarding "evolution". It is very simple and 
straightforward: God created all the species. He is the cause of the 
ordered variation which exists in the universe. "Natural selection", 
or "survival of the fittest" can be considered to have determined 
which of these species have survived to this day. There is no question 
as to their origin. While no scientific proof is contained in this 
statement, (or in Darwin's theory either) it is not a tautology.] 
On the other hand, Darwin's theory offers as the "complete 
explanation" for the order so apparent in evolution, the mechanism of 
"natural selection" which is only an effect:< (b) 
(they have survived!)(or they are the "fittest", or, they have been 
chosen by "natural selection"). 
Natural selection (or survival of the fittest) must be recognized for 
the true character of its mechanism: it is a completely random, 
infinitely changing, "filtering/culture media" process where the end 
result is the genome that survives (or prospers). Just as a filter/ 
culture media in a laboratory does not create anything, so it is with 
Darwin's filter/culture, natural selection. Thus it is incapable of 
being the cause of anything. The characteristics of organisms which 
have existed on this planet are of course shaped by the "conditions of 
life" (gravity, heat, etc.) that are found here; but to interpret this 
obvious fact so as to consider it to be the "cause" of the "origin" of 
that organism is erroneous; it is a classic example of "circular 
reasoning". Thus it is a tautology. 
{But the thread of logic used to arrive at this conclusion should not 
be foreign to anyone associated in any way with Academia. Many 
historians for example, treat history as, or at least imply, that 
history is, a force. Just for the record, History is not a Force. 
History is an explanation of a result or effect of some past 
occurrence, but not a cause or force of anything. Alfred Russel 
Wallace explains this all-too-common logic error in the quotation 
below.} 
CAUSE AND EFFECT - A BRIEF DISCUSSION 
"We are like children [who are] looking at a complicated machine 
of the reasons of whose construction they are ignorant, and like them 
we constantly impute as causes what is really effect in our vain 
attempts to explain what we will not confess that we cannot 
understand." (em., [brackets], added). Alfred Russel Wallace, Species Notebook, circa 1855. 
Note that this entry was made prior to Wallace's earthshaking 
"Ternate Paper" sent to Darwin in 1858. Wallace, racked by malarial 
fever, concluded, in a state of delirium, that the process of "natural 
selection" (not using this term) was the cause of evolution. After 
emerging from it, he hastily wrote the paper and thus violated his own 
admonition, above, having "found" the key explanation he had been 
looking for, for so long . After reaching this decision, he never 
looked back. Nothing, however, disputes the crystal clear thinking 
which produced the above explanation which was made about 3 years 
prior to writing the paper. Wallace is describing an all-to-common 
human ability to engage in a logic error termed "logical reversal" 
which will inevitably produce a cause/effect "reversal". As mentioned 
elsewhere on this site, this is the basis for Darwinian error. 
Natural selection is simply survival. - Tdtone notes 1 In spite of the considerable 
aura created by Darwin in his description of natural selection, 
survival is the only essential ingredient in order to have any 
organisms, in existence, anywhere, at all. No special characteristic 
of the genome is required, other than the ability to adapt to the 
extant conditions. On the Moon (d), no genome is capable of surviving 
the effects of the environment, consequently there are no organisms on 
the Moon. Likewise in a blast furnace, no genome can survive the 
conditions. Deer can not live in urban conditions because of the 
predation by dogs, etc., etc. If the genome has the ability to survive 
the myriad of effects encountered by it, there will of course be an 
organism which survives. 
The "myriad of effects" faced by the genome, which must be adapted to 
in order for any of this to occur, is what Darwin calls "natural 
selection". Is it logical to say that natural selection (or anything) 
is acting in these situations? On the other hand, if several species 
(as defined by biologists) are capable of surviving on Earth, is it 
proper to say that anything is acting on these species? Does rain act 
on the corn to "cause" it to grow, or is the corn (the genome) merely 
responding to one of many effects such as abundant phosphorous, 
nitrogen, heat, light, or any other factor of the environment which is 
necessary for it to survive. Darwin and Darwinists would have you 
believe that the rain specifically occurs for the purpose of selecting 
the corn; if this is so, what of the vast majority of the water which 
runs away to the ocean? Under normal use of language and logic, we are 
speaking of cause and effect. What is the cause of the survival? 
The cause of survival is the fact that the genome, which is the only 
thing capable of acting, either does or does not have the potential, 
or capability to survive, under the conditions. (Please note no claim 
that this is an earth-shaking conclusion: it is self-evident). One of 
Darwin's fallacies is in giving natural selection a capability for 
acting and thus treating it as a cause(c), rather than an effect which 
is all that it can be. This is the most sophomoric of mistakes, a 
cause/effect reversal. Wallace's quote, above, is correct and to the 
point. Darwin has placed the cart before the horse. It must be 
concluded that "evolution" if it exists at all, is caused and directed 
by a biological characteristic of which we are currently ignorant. 
Mankind does not know a cause of evolution. The conclusion that 
evolution has occurred is an assumption. 
Of course it follows from this understanding of the logic involved in 
the process, as above, that natural selection can not be the cause of 
evolution, as even eminent Darwinists such as Professor Ernst Mayr, 
believe. In like manner, natural selection cannot be the cause of the 
origin of species. Just as those who are interested in the cause of 
the existence of the universe should be studying Physics/Astronomy, 
those who wish to study the scientific cause (the origin) of species 
would do well to spend their time studying microbiology/genes rather 
than natural selection. A further reading of Alfred Russel Wallace 
(Darwin's compatriot in his theory of evolution) would be also useful, 
as Wallace believed the true "cause" of evolution was unknown and was, 
in effect, created.(1) 
It must be concluded that the real "cause" of evolution, would be the 
mechanism which provides the change in the genome from which the 
"selection" is made. Darwin's theory assumes that infinite variability 
is present in the genome, and further that an "effect" (natural 
selection, or survival of the fittest) can somehow enhance and develop 
a wholly new characteristic. And while great strides have been made in 
biological science since "Origins" was published there is still no 
theory which explains, much less proves, the phenomenon of what is 
called evolution. 
CONCLUSION 
Darwin's theory of Evolution contains 2 defects, either of which is 
fatal to the theme: 
* A claim that the "origin of species" is caused by "natural selection" is a tautology. 
* The cause of variation in a species cannot be determined, or initiated, by an effect. 
As might be expected, a fatally flawed theory does not work.(4) 
16:01, September 3, 2011 (UTC)16:01, September 3, 2011 (UTC)16:01, September 3, 2011 (UTC)16:01, September 3, 2011 (UTC)16:01, September 3, 2011 (UTC)16:01, September 3, 2011 (UTC)Trader100 16:01, September 3, 2011 (UTC) 
Numbers ( ) refer to items on the Index Page 
(a)Darwin's consideration of variation, in chapter 4 of his book 
"Origins" as quoted above, is glossed over as a premise or a 
"given" (an unstated assumption), and while the term "variation" is 
used elsewhere in his "Origins" book, his heavy-handed emphasis on the 
power of "natural selection" (which term is used some 350 times) 
throughout the book is really what he uses in an attempt to prove the 
theory. This technique is successful in that the inference of the 
power of natural selection is so strong that the majority of books and 
discussions which have been written on the subject of evolution term 
his theory as "evolution by Natural Selection" or some equivalent 
description. 
It should be noted that the knowledge of genes, or the laws of 
heredity, in his day were unknown and Darwin concluded, without any 
real proof, that the possible variability of species was essentially 
infinite. This is of course, simply a belief; thus, the conclusion 
drawn from this belief, Evolution, is itself only a belief. back (a) 
(b) This statement has been verified by a most unlikely source 
composed mostly of pro-evolutionists, no less than the Talk.Origins 
Archive. To my knowledge, this statement has been in the T. O. FAQ for 
at least 1 year, and perhaps much longer. It is in a way comforting to 
know that there is some agreement between those who are dedicated 
evolutionists, and those who like the DT, are unconvinced of the 
"fact" or methodology of evolution. 
 from the T. O. FAQ on Natural Selection: 
 "When selection is spoken of as a force, it often seems that it is 
has a mind of its own; or as if it was nature personified. This most 
often occurs when biologists are waxing poetic about selection. This 
has no place in scientific discussions of evolution. Selection is not 
a guided or cognizant entity; it is simply an effect." (all em. 
added. Agreement by the DT is whole-hearted.) 
 from: "http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to- 
biology.html#natsel", from the paragraph "Common Misconceptions about 
Selection" (copied 10/4/99) 
 Note that once this interpretation is made, the entire "power" of 
Natural Selection disappears in a cloud of smoke, and those who have 
depended on it as an explanation for the complexity and direction of 
development of all living organisms are left with the same explanation 
which has existed at least since 100 years prior to the Darwin/Wallace 
theory, none at all. 
 While we are at it, note that evolutionists are merely "waxing 
poetic" when skewing facts toward evolutionary theory; any 
contradictions of it however, are "creationist" and are not allowed. 
 back (b) 
(c)Another error Darwin makes is in giving natural selection the 
capability of selecting, by his metaphoric use of the term. Natural 
selection always makes the best (= wisest?) choice. Natural selection 
is of course inanimate, and the only choices made, if any, are made by 
the genome. Neither Darwin, nor any of the professors occupying 
prestigious chairs in some of the worlds most important Universities, 
Dogmatic Evolutionists(T) all, have been able to explain how, for but 
one example, Natural Selection selected a large ear as a means of 
cooling for the Elephant, while its contemporary in time, the Hippo, 
was chosen by the same Natural Selection to essentially live in the 
water to accomplish the same cooling requirement. Ditto for the 
thousands of other cooling mechanisms which exist. 
back (c) 
(d) As an insight into the supposed powers of natural selection, one 
might naturally ask at this point, is NS operating, right this very 
instant, on the Moon? How about Mars, Uranus, Pluto, planets of Alpha 
Centauri, and so forth. If the answer is "yes", why does not NS cause 
species to be in existence at these places, as it has supposedly done 
on this planet. Suppose your answer is "no", NS is not operating in 
these places, and subsequently some obscure bacteria is discovered 
(like ice, recently discovered on the Moon); does that mean that NS 
really is operating there and has caused the evolution of that 
species? 
What, then, is the real nature of NS? Those who are believers 
in the phenomenon are quick to point out the effects of NS, but are 
unable to explain exactly what NS is, or how it works or is the cause 
of anything. Perhaps someone will kindly email the DT an explanation. 
[Note to the reader]: this question was posed upon publication of this 
page in May, 1997; after some three years, and over 10,000 accesses to 
this site, not a single email has even suggested an explanation for 
the mechanism of Natural Selection. 
The DT is not the least bit surprised. There is no rational basis for 
an action such as Natural Selection. It might have been no less 
profitable to ask for the explanation of the existence of ghosts. back 
(d) 
(e) For example, during the relatively short time that humans (or 
primates) have existed on this planet, it appears that three (3) 
different types of Sickle Cell Anemia may have developed in the human 
genome. (Keep in mind that while the fact that these three types 
exist, there is no evidence that they have occurred during this brief 
period; note however, that if you are an Evolutionist, you have little 
choice but to believe otherwise.) The likelihood of this occurrence 
is, under current scientific knowledge, 1/infinity, i.e., for even 
theoretical purposes, impossible. back 
(e) 
T Dogmatic Evolutionist: one who is as devout a believer in, and 
defender of, the Theory of Evolution as is a Creationist with the 
Bible. This distinction is made to separate the bona fide scientist 
(who may believe in evolution in some form) from the dedicated 
proselytizer of Darwinism. It turns out after an analysis such as the 
above (and hundreds of similar arguments never refuted by the 
Darwinists), that they are both using the same basis for their 
beliefs: Faith. back (T
Category:TauTology
Category:Natural selection defined
Category:Doubting Thomas