Nice reference, JillGat! Do you feel, as I do, that piebald skin is something we shouldn’t have missed out on? Boy, I’d never even entertained that thought. Piebald horses, calico cats, no stripes, no spots, we was gyped.
Are you driving with your eyes open or are you using The Force? - A. Foley
Hi Harkenbane, welcome to the SDMB! I think you are going to fit right in here.
The whole and only point of the “survival of the fittest” discussion is a couple of us saying it is incorrect and offensive. And one or two saying they don’t get it.
Pick a side if you wish.
Check out Great Debates, I’ll bet you love it there, too.
Are you driving with your eyes open or are you using The Force? - A. Foley
Agreed. I wish we’d stuck with information, instead of textbooks. (BTW, I saw the Dummy’s Guide to Einstein’s Theory of Relativity the other day.) Texts can make mistakes, plenty.
Your anthropology text makes a common mistake–it talks about individuals when discussing (or deriving conclusions about) natural selection. That may be what Harkenbane was talking about.
I haven’t forgotten the talk.origins faq. Part of the criticism that the faq has of ‘survival of the fittest’ is that ‘fitness’ is often misunderstood. (see your posting of the paragraph from the faq on posted 02-14-2000 04:11 PM) It seems that ‘natural selection’ is also often misunderstood (and so are differential equations and the krebs cycle) but that doesn’t invalidate the use. In fact, the first half of that same faq paragraph misapplies the concept–treating ability to attract mates as if that weren’t part of fitness, in the evolutionary sense.
Jois
I’m surprised to hear that you think the phrase ‘survival of the fittest’ is offensive. I don’t think that has come up in the discussion before. Isn’t it because of its association with social darwinism, though? Natural selection was just as (erroneously) associated with social darwinism. Darwin and his theory were wrenched away from the Neo-Darwinists long ago–I don’t think that only the phrase ‘survival of the fittest’ stayed with them. The quotes from modern intro biology books and the encyclopedia britannica (and Haviland’s Anthropology) bears this out. It is often used synonymously with ‘natural selection’, and justified by explanations of exactly what fitness is, in the evolutionary sense.
rocks
[[Nice reference, JillGat! Do you feel, as I do, that piebald skin is something we shouldn’t have missed out on? Boy, I’d never even entertained that thought. Piebald horses, calico cats, no stripes, no spots, we was gyped.]]
I think those of us who are white got cheated anyway. Brown skin looks better, in my opinion, and they don’t have to worry as much about being exposed to the sun a lot. But yeah, calico, now you’re talking.
Jill
RM Mentock:
Well, how about giving up quotes to your two college texts and whatever else you have that makes you think it is accurate and acceptable?
Jois
Are you driving with your eyes open or are you using The Force? - A. Foley
Jois!
Maybe it’s the time of night, or maybe it’s because I read Jill’s ‘calico’ and thought ‘hey, paisley’, but I’m a little nonplussed here at the keyboard. When you talked about ‘giving up’ the quotes, did you mean 'quoting ’ them, or did you mean ‘forsaking’ them?
My first reaction was…nevermind, it’s brain lock anyway.
rocks
Time of night at 9:44! What? You call that late?
Well, at 12:41 am I can say (easily) please quote. I’d like to see how they read.
Thanks,
Jois
Are you driving with your eyes open or are you using The Force? - A. Foley
OK, I can think better now.
Jois
That’s what I thought you meant–but I’ve already listed both texts, and quoted them. (Well, the second one, Biological Science by William T. Keeton and James L. Gould, I listed 02-16-2000 09:39 PM, and there was no quote per se, as it doesn’t seem to mention the phrase “survival of the fittest” at all. Of course, it does not debunk it.)
The first one (my post 02-11-2000 11:17 PM) was A View of Life, by Salvador Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, and Sam Singer. I quoted it as (p.582), “This is the principle of natural selection, or the survival of the fittest.” The boldface was theirs. That’s not only not debunking, it appears to be strong support for the equivalence of the two principles.
Here is the full text of the paragraph (which was the fourth, and last, paragraph, of a synopsis of Darwin’s theory–the four numbered paragraphs were preceded by “The argument itself is very simple. Darwin reasoned:”) “4. If organisms vary and not all can survive, then, on the average, survivors will possess those heritable variations that increase their adaptation to local environments. This is the principle of natural selection, or the survival of the fittest.”
I don’t think the authors are ascribing authorship of the phrase to Darwin, but they certainly think it could be associated with “natural selection.” Do you really think it is offensive?
rocks
Quote1 :(Well, the second one, Biological Science by William T. Keeton and James L. Gould, … there was no quote per se, as it doesn’t seem to mention the phrase “survival of the fittest” at all. Of course, it does not debunk it.)
Rick, it is not the same thing. Not mentioning it is not the same as mentioning it. They probably did not mention it because they used correct terms and avoided “you know what” because it is not a Darvin “Thing” or an evolution “Thing.”
Quote2: “The first one (my post 02-11-2000 11:17 PM) was A View of Life, by Salvador Luria, Stephen Jay Gould, and Sam Singer. I quoted it as (p.582), “This is the principle of natural selection, or the survival of the fittest.” The boldface was theirs. That’s not
only not debunking, it appears to be strong support for the equivalence of the two
principles.”
Now I’ll admit that I have to look up Luria and Singer, but you already know that Gould is, well, sloppy. Saying one or the other is not really strong support. I wonder if even Gould would use “Survival of the Fittest” in peer review material or at symposium of fellow scientists?
Anyone can do bad research. But why continue to pass it on? What’s so wrong about using Darwin’s words correctly? Why keep this phrase of social Darwinism - misread by so many to excuse rasism and deny the human status of others in use?
We used to say, “Once you know, you know”…that meant once you figure out something you don’t have to start from the beginning all over again.
There was an experiment we’d do on the little kids… You put out a saucer and a glass cup. While the little kid watched you’d put a marble in the saucer and the cup, and then another, and then another, and so on for about 12 marbles each. Then we’d ask the kid, “Which one has more marbles?”
And they’d pick one, might be a fast choise or some great thought, but until they were five years old or so, they’d pick one. Even if you did the same thing over and over and explained they were equal.
Once they turned 5 or 6 years old and hit some point of brain development or understanding, they’d say, “The same!” And you couldn’t fool them. One smart little twirp said, “Once you know, you know.”
So, there it is, the entire **“Unified Field of Know Theory” ** the data, history and title. Don’t tell anybody, it’s not published yet. I have to check on Pearson and then…
Are you driving with your eyes open or are you using The Force? - A. Foley
Jois
Yeah, I understand about the Keeton and Gould book. It was one of only two intro college biology texts that I had, so I looked into it. But I can still say that the texts I’ve seen do not debunk it (Healym said virtually all did), and the anthropology text that Healym quoted does seem to criticize it–but only misinterprets natural selection in doing so! Where are the texts that debunk it? (Salvador Luria won a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine)
I’m not convinced that Stephen Jay Gould is sloppy, either. Calling him sloppy is like calling Einstein poor at math (Einstein was, relative to Hilbert, say, but still better than 99.999% of the population). Criticisms of Gould come mainly from scientific opponents who have been stung by his criticism–well, that’s natural, I suppose. I’m still wading through that evidence, so I’ll say I’m just not convinced, yet. I need a bit more time.
“Survival of the fittest” doesn’t seem to have been more misused than “natural selection.” Personally, I seldom, if ever, use the phrase, and don’t feel any need to from now on. But I’m willing to listen to counterarguments.
rocks
Rick-
I’m sorry I brought up the textbook thing too, so far as the point I was trying to make is concerened. I have to admit though, that I’ve learned a lot from the debate that ensued (although not necessarily about evolution).
Anthro textbooks have a problem in that they are usually biased by the subfield of the author. Nevertheless, I don’t think he’s wrong in saying that the individual is the unit of selection. In fact, that is the prevailing theory. Sure, Dawkins claims that the unit of selection is the gene, but while his work is taken seriously (everyone I talk to finds it intriguing, although they don’t believe it), the prevailing viewpoint is that nature has no way of knowing the genotype of trait, and a phenotype is only as good as the individual that carries it. Other than that, what else can be the unit of selection? The population? No, the population is the unit of evolution (Individuals, after all, do not evolve) but poupulations are not what natural selection selects against. It is indeed the individual. If you objected to that because you are a follower of Dawkins, then we simply disagree on a point where rational experts disagree, but it’s more of a common disagreement than a common mistake.
I personally don’t find anything insulting or demeaning about the phrase “Survival of the fittest.” I simply find it imprecise and misleading. Again, this isn’t about being “PC.” I think that in the interest of giving people a greater understanding of Darwinian theory, we should not simply avoid using the term as synomymous with “natural selection” but discuss why and how it is not really a good term to use if you want to understand Darwinian thoery and its historical context.
Well, anyway, they’re surely not relenting
Well, in any case, they’re surely not relenting. It has been said that humans are the most unrelenting…
And who said any of us are human?
Geez.
The nerve.
Are you driving with your eyes open or are you using The Force? - A. Foley
That “Survival of the Fitest” has been missused doesn’t mean the term is all that innacurate.
Actually, it’s perfectly correct. The strongest organism, survives. This supposes that ‘fit’ means more capable of doing what it needs to do. In some cases this might be simple physical strength. In other cases this might be the ability to smell truffles.
Given two populations of animals, one less capable, and another more capable, the more capable ones will survive, luck aside.
The two things people don’t always think of are that 1) this is only survival, not reproducing and 2) fitest is defined as that which makes survival more likely.
These are important traits.
The nazis and other social darwinists (a term showing a misunderstanding of the issues) didn’t understand #2… They wanted to define fitest based on their tests, but all that got them was a group of people more able to take their tests. Fitest, in the context of human survival, is something too complex for us to currently define, or we’d all live perfectly succesful lives. 
And a lot of survival traits aren’t necessarily the nice ones, and a lot of the nice, civilized traits, might not be effective for survival.
And #1 is important too. I could survive wonderfully, live to 130, in great health, be wealthy, etc, but not father any children. That would make me a great success from the survival view, but a great failure from the reproductive view.
Of course, these two are never completely seperate. An organism capable of survival usually has more time to reproduce than one which might be more reproductively able, but lacks basic survival skills.
Anyways, “Survival of the fitest*” “fitest defined as the most able to survive” is the perfect truth. You may not like the phrase, and it may not mean what everyone thinks, but it is true. Just because it’s not PC doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
If you were specifically talking about passing on genetic material, then a more appropriate phrase would be “Reproduction of the more reproductively able.”
Thank you WhiteNight! You’ve done half of what is incorrect about “survival of the fittest” and demonstrated why it is better to use the terms correctly.
See if you can figure it out, Mentock.
Are you driving with your eyes open or are you using The Force? - A. Foley
I don’t follow, what half of that which is incorrect, have I done?
Can you be a bit more clear?
Hi WhiteNight! Three or maybe four of us have been taking about the term “Survival of the Fittest” for days now. I’ll tell you how you have mis-used it but first give Mentock a chance. If he doesn’t respond in a while, I will. Thanks,
Jois
WhiteNight, I dash off a lot of things off the top of my head and they don’t always come out quite right, but you really need to rethink your assertion that the term “Survival of the fittest” is accurate because, indeed, it’s the strong that survive. You go on to say that survival isn’t all there is to it, so I wonder why you begin with a statement like that.
The fact is, strength is often a good thing, but it is very rarely an issue in evolution. For one thing, plants, insects and bacteria are each by far more prominent in the evolutionary landscape than mammals, birds and reptiles, (put them together and you’ve got by far the majority of species that ever evolved) and among them, strength is often not even an issue. Among mammals, where competition for mates can be more an issue of strength, even then it’s not nearly as big an advantage as is popularly thought. In primates, strength is indeed often a determining factor, but humans are special among primates for many reasons, one of them being that cooperation, food sharing, and a high reliance upon experience and specialized knowledge mean that brawn is not the most important factor in a person’s desireability as a mate. Ever heard of Homo Neandertalensis? Hardly the big dopes that they are made out to be, but nevertheless, they were much stronger, on average, than modern Homo sapiens, but we live to tell the tale. Also, look at the gracile australopithecines as opposed to the robust types. The graciles did a lot better in the evolutionary record than the robust species, despite superior strength.
Even if it were true that among humans survival and reproduction were predicated upon strength (which it isn’t), The theory of evolution is much wider than our species, family, or even our phyllum. The notion natural selectiion as “Survival of the strongest” may be compelling from the standpoint of popular media, late night movies, pandering textbooks and nineteenth century social philosphy, but you won’t find that notion seriously espoused by most legitimate evolutionary scholars these days.
I cheated. I read Ever Since Darwin, by Gould, before his halo slipped.
rocks