Re: CHAT: Religion, Philosophy & Politics

bjm10@CORNELL.EDU wrote:

> While "fitness" was used,
> the only measure of "fitness" is OBVIOUSLY _post hoc_.  That is, the
> ONLY way to tell if something is "fit" is to count its offspring (or
> grand-offspring).
Well, yes, this is true of all dispositional predicates.  The only way,
obviously, to tell if something is soluble in water is to try to dissolve
it.  But there is no need to go around trying each and every salt crystal,
either.  We can say that in a malarial environment, the sickle-cell
trait counts as "fitness" even though it makes one's offspring prone
to sickle-cell anaemia, which is Very Bad Indeed.

> Can an organism that is "fit" fail to survive?  That is, is it possible
> for organisms to fail to reproduce due to circumstances that have nothing
> at all to do with a "design"?
Certainly, as when an asteroid falls on them.

--

Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@...>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,           || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)