If Newton was a Darwinist

Now, Brad, that message was very nearly 100% crystal clear and understandable!!Wouldn't it be great if everything you wrote was like that?Please try.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
Yes, and as I see Lenard got a NO TEXT response I would still not dignfy the either/or which is actually for me not the illusory one we generally discuss on any C/E board but the fight between Fisher/Wright. Until or unless this clarity is more generally appreciated I am often in a dillema when I attempt to decided where but usually when is never but not that that that is not a problem.

​

Thanks for the feed forward.

---

Damn, I knew it wouldn't last.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
[B]Do I understand you correctly that eventhough in my example the offspring is heritably different then it's ancestor, and that this difference contributes to reproduction, that you want to deny that this is evolution by playing around with definitions? No single evolutionist would agree with you, as they wouldn't agree that evolution is essentially focused on a population over being focused on individual heritable differences.{/QUOTEUm, actually, Syamsu, Almost any Biologist would agree with Peter that evolution takes place in populations.I would also agree.I believe I had this conversation with you some time ago.9QUOTEIf I would find an example of splitting of, then I guess that would settle it. But if I find something like that in some book, then I'm sure it would be noted as evolution in the text, and the Darwinist writing it would just gloss over the fact that it doesn't actually fit in with their theory. Darwinists traditionally just don't care for accuracy like that. So I guess in the end you will just say "so what". But you should be mindful that you didn't think of a scenario like splitting of, while I did. It is obvious this is theoretically possible from the point of view of a general theory of reproduction, as are many more things obvious. I don't understand why you don't use it.[QUOTE] Irrelevant mudslinging saide...What kind of splitting off of populations would you accept as evidence of evolution?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
[B]For instance a bacteria get's resistance to toxic X, and then goes into an environment with toxic X. It's ancestor population remaining in the non-toxic environment. That is what I mean by splitting of, through a mutation being applicable to different resources.[QUOTE] It is much more likely that the reason a population is resistant to toxin X is because it evolved right along side toxin X in it's environment.A population is not likely to develop, in other words, a resistance to a particular toxin without it being in contact with that particular toxin directly.What do you mean by "a mutation being applicable to different resources?" [QUOTE]Again, this is commonly called evolution, but if you have another word for that then tell me.[QUOTE] No, it is not commonly called evolution, at least not how you have described it. Please be clearer.

quote:

---

Darwin "the races or species of man encroach on one another until some finally become extinct"
Dawkins "selfish genes"
Lorenz "innate aggression"
Haeckel... someting with heritable vibrations and whatnot
as shown, no care for accuracy.

---

Please stop with trying to make science racist. Do you need me to remind you that you have aleready admitted that it is not?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
I don't see how you can at once say you don't really know what I am talking about, but then still say to disagree with what I am saying.

​

In my example they are alongside toxin x, just not in it. Food that can only be got at by finches with very long beaks might be another example. Gradualism doesn't work here, because a discrete length is required and half longer contributes zero to reproduction. etc. etc. I would guess there are many examples like that in Nature, as I've previously disccussed with Peter.

​

The mutation makes resources available to the organism that are not available to it's ancestor. The mutant is non-competitive with it's ancestor, it inhabits a different environment then it's ancestor. This is still called evolution, regardless of whether the mutants split of from the ancestor population or not.

​

Some of the writings of influential Darwinists such as Darwin, Haeckel, Lorenz and Galton are explitely racist, other writings are only conducive to racist thought. Galton being the orginator of the word eugenics, and one of the main inspirators of it, Haeckel being noted as a main racist influence in most every history of Nazi-Germany, and Lorenz actually participating with the Nazi's in a Nazi race office, in which he worked on the ethnic cleansing of the Sudetenland among other things. That you accuse me of trying to make science racist, simply because I quote some of the main ideas of Darwinisms' most influential scientists, is more then a little ridiculous. You should aim your accusations towards a big share of the most influential Darwinists.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

Last month, you and I had a lengthy discussion in which you finally admitted that evolution and science were not racist even though some of it's participants might have said or written racist things.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
No evolutionist would agree that the mutants would have to remain in the population for it to be called evolution. Therefore you and Peter are not evolutionists, but simply lawyers without a cause.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

Peter and I are both evolutionists, and we agree that evolution takes place at the population level.Did it ever enter your one-track mind (which is encased in a thick skull) that you have had an incorrect definition of evolution all along, like we, the evolutionists, have been telling you, all along?You are not capable of learning or change, it seems.