A Thought on Everyday Speech
Posted by HermieneFeb 18
This is nothing revolutionary and probably nothing new, but I’ve noticed that a lot of words and phrases we use “give homage to” evolution and our evolutionary heritage. We grasp ideas. Ideologies branch. Some things are the root of other things. We have family trees.
This is not meant as even subtle evidence for evolution. I just thinks it’s a neat thing. Think about it.
PDF 
7 comments
Comment by Ryft on 18 Feb 2009 at 19:42
So I thought about it, and I have to disagree. These expressions could only seem to give homage, because in reality these expressions and the concepts they convey predate evolutionary theories and Charles Darwin too, who used these sort of expressions to describe his ideas—i.e., the expressions and the concepts they convey already existed for him to employ. These concepts and terms originate in philosophy, centuries before Darwin and evolutionary theories.
Comment by Hermiene on 19 Feb 2009 at 06:24
Oh, I didn’t mean to imply that these terms are the result of evolutionary theory, only that I find it fascinating that we have these kinds of expressions. Also, the way we instinctively find trees fascinating is fascinating, I think. Have you ever lain under a huge tree, resting against the trunk? It’s wonderful.
Comment by Rufford on 19 Feb 2009 at 23:41
Some I wish would fall out of usage, like “survival of the fittest”. I can’t think of anything that has done more damage for public understanding of evolution.
Comment by Hermiene on 20 Feb 2009 at 11:56
Well, it’s a useful phrase, if only more people understood its meaning. “Fit,” as you know, means something pretty specific: “has what it takes to survive.” That can mean a variety of things, like sharper claws, keener sight, faster legs. But it might as well mean being altrustic, caring of your young, and being philanthropic. This is crucial to understand.
A friend of mine and I came up with a variation of the phrase: “Survival of what fits best.” This is the idea that, when clothes are run through a washing machine, only what fits you best afterwards survives. This usually applies selection pressure for clothes which resist shrinking well. :-)
Comment by Rufford on 20 Feb 2009 at 23:31
That’s half of the reason it’s done so much damage: it’s ambiguous enough to have defenders. On the one hand, you’re defending the honest version of it. On the other, laymen just go “Oh, so it’s just about who’s strongest?” I agree it’s important to talk science, but it is a hard problem that should have all the usual warnings against suggesting solutions before fully discussing it.
For instance, “survival of what fits best” also causes misunderstanding. The use of “best” suggests that what’s left over fits perfectly. But evolution is not a fitness maximizer, it’s an adaptation executer. It doesn’t create perfection or have end points, it just results in solutions that work now. Worse than that, mistakes can happen: our blind spot was caused by an accident that cannot be reversed by gradual change. Laymen should not see design flaws and think them evidence against evolution.
Comment by Ryft on 20 Feb 2009 at 23:51
The expression is a terrible summary because “survival of the fittest” is not any kind of evolutionary mechanism. In the final analysis, it’s just an empty tautology: the survival of the fittest means nothing more than it’s the fit who survived.
Comment by Hermiene on 21 Feb 2009 at 04:25
Rufford:
My own “survival of what fits best” is, of course, only a joke between my friend and I, and is not (nor was it ever intended to be) an improvement on the original. Evolution may not be a fitness maximizer, but I am (I want my clothes to fit me). :-)
Ryft:
I’m not saying I like the phrase because it’s a nice summary. TalkOrigins sums it up pretty nicely (Google “Claim CA500″ and it should be the first hit).