If Newton was a Darwinist

Whatever.... What is the "correct" word then if not evolution?If you deny that this is evolution, then you deny that presentday organisms have much evolved from ancestral organisms. You are not an evolutionist, but a "fill in alternative word here".regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The discussion about racism went around in circles and that is why we (me and Peter) decided to call it quits. I did not finally admit anything, from the start on I said that the issue was about Darwinist language being conducive to racist thoughts, rather then Darwinism being racist.Actually at the end of the discussion Peter did bring in something new, (or more accurately he rephrased your argument to say something new). He said that maybe racism is grounded in a Darwinistic heritable quality of some kind of biological xenophobia. I did not feel compelled to opening that can of worms, you can discuss that amongst yourselves if you wish.This discussion about a general theory of reproduction vs Natural Selection is also finished, going around in circles. Useless arguments about definitions indicates that there is no substance to the discussion anymore.My guess is that all of you would accept a general theory of reproduction if you would have been taught it from a textbook in school or college.Peter's insistence on "survival to ultimately reproduce" in stead of plain reproduction, just makes no sense, as doesn't his insistence on focusing on a population. What I mean to say is that someone who has first learned a general theory of reproduction, will not then insist on adding ornaments like population or survival or competition to the fundaments of a general theory of reproduction. The focus would obviously lie with how organisms reproduce, and it would seem to me highly unlikely that anyone would come up with the idea to insist on anything more then that. Evolution just meaning mutants that reproduce.Again, your counterargument about Natural Selection theory / dufferential reproductive success needing to be complex to deal with a complex phenomena just shows your misunderstanding of how to build systems of knowledge. The complexity of Darwinism is caused by the most influential Darwinian scientists writing in common prosa style talking about obscure things like "the struggle for existence", rather then that they were forced to make a complex theory to deal with complex phenomena.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

So then you are mutationist / evolutionist.The mutation need not be fixed in the population, generally it only needs to contribute to reproduction for it to be called evolution. And actually standard formulations of evolution go like a change (any change) in the genepool is alrady evolution.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

My support is the reasoning I gave before. By your wordusage you would / could have different species, where one descended from the other, but you would not say the one had evolved from the other. You would then say that the one has mutated from the other apparently, but not evolved.When, as per my example, a mutant reproduces, then you have an organism different then it's ancestor, and the new trait contributes to reproduction (in real terms, not relative terms), and that is what I understand to be evolution, mainly.So I would include in evolution, mutants that split of from their ancestorpopulation into a different environment through use of their mutation, while you apparently wouldn't.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Again, a mutation, as I argue, theoretically can split a population in 2, each population (the new population that does have the mutation, and the ancestral population that doesn't) inhabiting a separate environment to which they are adapted to reproduce. Where are you then with your insistence on populational traitfrequency for evolution when you have separate populations?The evolution of the eye is all about trait frequencies in populations? And ears too, and hair, and whatnot?The evolution of the eye is about how the eye as a new trait contributes to reproduction. It does so by receiving light etc. etc. Again, in evolution we are essentially looking at individual qualities, not population qualities.I think you are putting up trait frequency as an alternative to reproduction, just as you did before with survival. I've read this also in more standard literature, to describe units of selection in terms of contributing to trait frequency, in stead of survival, or reproduction. Needless to say I think these alternatives to reproduction are deceptive. All organisms eventually die, only through continuous reproduction are there any organisms left in the world. That is the special function of reproduction.Besides if you have a glass of water and put in some colouring liquid which would gradually color the water, would you also call this evolution of water from colorless to color? Your meaning of evolution is too vague, it would largely also apply to coloring water and other things. Coloring water is what I imagine when you talk about populational traitfrequencies. But reproduction does not apply to coloring water at all, reproduction makes biological evolution clearly distinct.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You are not answering my question, the populations are separate in my example. It's doubtful that a change in traitfrequency, or the fixation of a trait in a population, can be meaningfully called evolution (because it doesn't mention modification), it is even less doubtfull that simple populationgrowth of a uniform population can meaningfully be called evolution (this is what happens in my example since the populations are separate). So then this case of evolution falls outside your definition of evolution, simply because you insist on populations. And again, while it may (or may not) be unlikely that a population splits in 2 through a mutation, the case shows that your definition is lacking generally. It will be more likely to occur that variants *within* a population use different sorts of resources according to their different heritable qualities, and your view of that by your definition is deceptive.Again, if an organism is different then it's ancestor, and the difference normally contributes to reproduction, then that is the more meaningful definition of evolution, and also inclusive of my scenario of a mutation splitting a population apart. When a mutation doesn't contribute to reproduction or makes the chance of reproduction less, then I guess that is still evolution, although a less meaningful definition of it. It is just descent with modification.Again..., strange that the fossilrecord is full of dead organisms with eyes, since you say that eyes contribute to survival. How come they are all dead then?Again,.... I think this discussion is finished.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You use a definition of evolution which is vague on 6 points,- gradualness (this probably refers to a small number of genetic mutations, but then small genetic changes can have large effects, and besides changes are discrete, specific molecules are made through specific genetic changes, gradualness doesn't cover this),- modification (I doubt modification is understood to be shifts in traitsfrequencies by evolutionists), and- how big a traitfrequency there should be when you start calling it evolution, and- when you start calling something a species, and- your description of traits in terms of their contribution to survival, or contribution to traitfrequency apart from describing them in terms of reproduction.Again, you can't cover mutants splitting of from their ancestorpopulation with changes in traitfrequencies in populations. As predicted, you just gloss over the fact that your definition doesn't cover this case of evolution, which doesn't matter much since your definition is already vague on many other points. Your assertion that NS is all about increased effeciency also fits in with that vagueness. Strictly speaking it's simply false, but then you have obviously thrown away exactitude as a scientific standard already when you wrote that.I prefer the exactness of my definitions, and the simplicity, and power of logic of a general theory of reproduction on which it is based. It also covers lots more then NS, most all possible types of scenario's of evolution are instantly obvious by it, and more besides, since it also applies to uniform populations in changing environments for instance. Environmentalists especially should use a general theory of reproduction, as should people in zoo's and such.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu