Darwin's theory of natural selection has been a perennial candidate for burial.
Does the theory have a logical error in its formulation?
Natural selection was defined by Herbert Spencer as "survival of the fittest".
Is fitness just "differential reproductive success"?
If fitness is defined in terms of survival, Spencer's phrase becomes a tautology - "survival of those who survive".
Darwin did propose an independent criterion but relied upon an analogy - artificial selection of the fittest by animal breeders. But nature is no animal breeder. How is the analogy valid?
The breeder's priorities represent a "change in environment" for the animals. Superior design in changed environments is an independent criterion of fitness. Thus, survival is a result of fitness, not a definition of it.
Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History by Stephen Jay Gould
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment