[Quotes] [Philosophy, #2]
"Biochemists and biologists who adhere blindly to the Darwinism theory search for results that will be in agreement with their theories and consequently orient their research in a given direction, whether it be in the field of ecology, ethology, sociology, demography (dynamics of populations), genetics (so-called evolutionary genetics), or paleontology. This intrusion of theories has unfortunate results: it deprives observations and experiments of their objectivity, makes them biased, and, moreover, creates false problems." (Grasse, Pierre-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.7).
[top]"IN SHORT, three concepts, evolution, in the minimal sense of "descent with modification" (no "emergence," no "higher and lower" allowed), variation, in the sense of Mendelian micromutation, tiny changes in the structure or arrangement of the genes, the ultimate material of heredity (no sweeping or sudden alterations allowed), and natural selection, the decrease in frequency of those variants that happen in each successive generation to be less well adapted than others to their particular environment: these three form a tight circle within which, in happy self-confirmation, neo-Darwinian thinking moves. To those who believe in it, this circle is an ample intellectual dwelling place, roomy enough in fact to house all the immense achievements of modern biological research. To those not so convinced, however, the circle seems a strangely constricted one. They may even agree with the Professor Emeritus of Zoology at Cambridge that `no amount of argument, or clever epigram, can disguise the inherent improbability of orthodox (Darwinian) theory.'" (Grene M., "The Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, Vol. 74, November 1959, p.50. Emphasis in original).
[top]"Putting the matter bluntly, those of our possible ancestors who had the sorts of features that have been passed down to us-bipedalism, large brains, manual dexterity, sociality, and so forth-tended to survive and reproduce. And those of our possible ancestors who did not have these sorts of features did not." (Ruse M., "Homosexuality: A Philosophical Inquiry," Basil Blackwell: Oxford UK, 1988, p.131).
[top]"Natural selection is simply about genes replicating themselves down the generations. Genes that build bodies that do what's needed-seeing, running, digesting, mating-get replicated; and those that don't, don't" (Cronin H., "The Evolution of Evolution," TIME, Summer 1997/98, p.80)
[top]"Another philosophical question regards the very definition of the word 'selection'. One of the original formulations of selection was 'the survival of the fittest'. If you open a standard textbook of genetics 'fitness' will probably be defined as 'the ability to survive' or something similar. But if the 'fittest' are defined as 'the best survivors' then the idea of natural selection becomes 'the survival of those best at surviving'. So what else is new? If there is no more to Darwinism than a truism then the whole theory rests on very shaky ground." (Leith B., "The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism," Collins: London, 1982, p.21)
[top]"I have quoted some voices of dissent coming from biologists in eminent academic positions. There have been many others, just as critical of the orthodox doctrine, though not always as outspoken - and their number is steadily growing. Although these criticisms have made numerous breaches in the walls, the citadel still stands - mainly, as said before, because nobody has a satisfactory alternative to offer. The history of science shows that a well-established theory can take a lot of battering and get itself into a tangle of contradictions - the fourth phase of 'Crisis and Doubt' in the historic cycle and yet still be upheld by the establishment until a breakthrough occurs, initiating a new departure, and the start of a new cycle. But that event is not yet in sight. In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutation plus natural selection - quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology." (Koestler A., "Janus: A Summing Up," Picador: London, 1983, pp.184-185)
[top]"The trouble was that in reading widely during my early teens I ran into the Darwinian theory, for a little while with illusions and then with less respect than adults with bated breath were wont to show. The theory seemed to me to run like this: `If among the varieties of a species there is one that survives better in the environment than the others, then the variety that survives best is the one that best survives.' If I had known the word tautology I would have called this a tautology. People with still more bated breath, called it natural selection. I made them angry, just as I do today, by saying that it did nothing at all. You could select potatoes as much as you pleased but you would never make them into a rabbit. Nor by selecting oak trees could you make them into colonies of bats, and those who thought they could in my opinion were bats in the belfry." (Hoyle F., "Mathematics of Evolution," [1987], Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, p.2).
[top]"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 is a tautology. A tautology like "All tables are tables" is not, of course, testable; nor has it any explanatory power. It is therefore most surprising to hear that some of the greatest contemporary Darwinists themselves formulate the theory in such a way that it amounts to the tautology that those organisms that leave most offspring leave most offspring. And C. H. Waddington even says somewhere (and he defends this view in other places) that "Natural selection...turns out...to be a tautology". However, he attributes at the same place to the theory an "enormous power...of explanation". Since the explanatory power of a tautology is obviously zero, something must be wrong here." (Popper K.R., "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind," Dialectica, Vol. 32, Nos. 3-4, 1978, pp.339-355, p.344. Ellipses in original.).
[top]"The problem of tautology in Darwinism is a subtle one. It hinges on the definitions of a few crucial words: 'the survival of the fittest.' This is the central claim that Darwin make that only the 'fittest' succeed in a struggle for 'survival'. If this basic statement does not tell us anything new about the outside world then the whole of Darwinism is in deep trouble. Unfortunately the senses in which these words are often used by biologists do turn the statement into a nonsense. If you turn to a textbook of genetics in search of a definition of 'fitness' you will find something like this: `The genotype with the largest survival rate is defined as the fittest ... ' Goodenough and Levine, 1975 So the central statement of Darwinism, 'the survival of the fittest', becomes: 'the survival of those creatures having the largest survival rate'! Immediately the problem is clear; if you define fitness as 'the ability to survive' then the 'survival of the fittest' becomes a tautology, a self-evident bit of trivia. In this form the statement doesn't tell us anything about the outside world that we didn't know already. It doesn't, for example, enable us to predict which members of a population will survive and reproduce, since we cannot measure survival until afterwards. In this sense the neoDarwinists must avoid a sloppy attitude to their theory or it will turn out to say nothing." (Leith B., "The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism," Collins: London, 1982, p.30. Emphasis in original).
[top]"The concept of relative adaptation removes the apparent tautology in the theory of natural selection. Without it the theory of natural selection states that fitter individuals have more offspring and then defines the fitter as being those that leave more offspring; since some individuals will always have more offspring than others by sheer chance, nothing is explained. ... Unfortunately the concept of relative adaptation also requires the ceteris paribus assumption, so that in practice it is not easy to predict which of two forms will leave more offspring." (Lewontin, Richard C., "Adaptation," Scientific American, Vol. 239, No. 3, pp.157-169, September 1978, pp.166-167).
[top]"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. " (Popper K.R., "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind," Dialectica, Vol. 32, Nos. 3-4, 1978, pp.339-355, p.346).
[top]"Courtroom experience during my career at the bar taught me to attach great weight to something that may seem trivial to persons not skilled in argumentation-the burden of proof. The proponents of a theory, in science or elsewhere, are obligated to support every link in the chain of reasoning, whereas a critic or skeptic may peck at any aspect of the theory, testing it for flaws. He is not obligated to set up any theory of his own or to offer any alternative explanations. He can be purely negative if he so desires. William Jennings Bryan forgot this in Tennessee, and was jockeyed into trying to defend fundamentalism, although this was not necessary to the matter in hand. The results were disastrous. They would have been equally disastrous for Clarence Darrow if he had tried to discharge the burden of proof for the other side. The winner in these matters is the skeptic who has no case to prove." (Macbeth N., "Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason", Gambit: Boston MA, 1971, p.5).
[top]* Authors with an asterisk against their name are believed not to be evolutionists.
Copyright © 2000-2003, by Stephen E. Jones. All rights reserved. This page and its
contents may be used for non-commercial purposes only.
If used on the Internet, a link back to my home page at
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones would be appreciated.
Created: 9 January, 2000. Updated: 3 August, 2003.