If Newton was a Darwinist

There is nothing "odd" about evo with selection as the cause and effect in this regard. Consider the existence of "bioentropisms". Newton was pointing out an issue with Galileo and the question would have been answered by Maxwell that you abduct, I guess.Darwin wrote all around tropisms. Have you ever read "The Power of Motion in Plants". Notice the perpendiularity referred to in the seed penetrating the ground and you will be able quickly to disabuse oneself/appositionally at least of any comparison of Darwin and Newton. This is not necessary as long as developement can not proceed by ingrained teaching of rough differences of nature and nurture. New Zealanders made quite a spatial idea out of this Anglo-America figi frog fancy feeling and I could too.

Thanks for the feed forward. I will try to work on that. You can expect that when I failed to get over, page after page, with Will Provine that I felt he was mistaken about group selection this will be a long journey from cause because of the effect you noted. Well taken.

Sewall Wright knew very well about the differnt "phase" of matter that incorporating Lotka-Volterra relaxation into the theory but this has not been generally done even though numerical techniques could apply for a solution not piezeoelctricty which would still adhere to Percy's reference to "competition". Personally I am interested in the possibility of generalizing to all herps the Brodies' understanding of salamanders and snakes. I do not agree with all of the particulars but the attempt is in the spirit of natural history. [b] [QUOTE] Again, if biologists would mean competition with differential reproductive success, they would have called it competitive reproductive success.To the poster that thinks to know to describe organisms in view of the event of their reproduction. I've offered a simple theory of reproduction before to some Darwinists, and they said that such a theory was unworkable, that these chances could not be measured.[/b][/QUOTE]That would not have been the response if you had gone with me to Cornell in the 80s because Si Levin was there at that time and even Stu Kaufmann encourged me where Simon said I was too philosophical (you could know that Stu took up biology when he realized he could not respond to Kant) for Dr. Levin was talking about moving objects in and out of bath water which in the now existing information techonolgy objects make some sense it did not then but for those who wanted to spend all time solving equations. I brought a bucket of swimming water bettles to Simon and he promptly set me to work, as if that is what I wanted to become of the bugs, to figuring out how they moved without considering the individual motions. Now if this attitdue was applied to any group under dispute in group selection ....you get the landscape at least..apparently my requirement that I put on tape in the video was not really simple but the take home message was repeatedly to "see the complex as simple". I have little confidence in the idea I presented in that thread because the background was the ability to measure the difference of Midland and Eastern Painted Turtles not the not hybrid swarm that would be if that was not etc. That was speculation like all life from non-life ideas. I do have some ideas how Molecular Nano Techonolgy could be applied to better results in that problem however. This does not mean it should be granted large $ simply for some fancy nonetheless. [b] [QUOTE]What would the chance of reproduction generally be at birth?[/b][/QUOTE]Garstang held that the zygote were allways diverging so it would be premature on my understanding to enter the statistical refinement possibility at this stage in my theortical grasp on the external varaible invovled. [b] [QUOTE] What would happen to the chance of reproduction of an intelligent creature like a horse during matingseason?[/b][/QUOTE]i AM NOT permitting myself the freedom to grammatically differentiate mammals from lower vertebrates at this time. But ask this another time and I may choose to direct directums not transient this way.
[b] [QUOTE] What are normally the main events in the life of some organism that determines it's chance of reproduction most greatly? How does each attribute of the organism contribute or decrease it's chance of reproduction in relating to the environment? Where the organisation of a watch can be explained in view of the event of telling the time, how can you explain the organisation of an organism?[/b][/QUOTE]tHERE are many things to say between and within these questions. For the time being if I had all the $$ I ever wanted I would begin to look to see if electromagentics equations could not help to narrow down the enumeration of these, specifically I would have been trying to see if electroronic functions participate in histogeny.
[b] [QUOTE] Also, variation is not required to be there for a simple theory of reproduction to apply. [/b][/QUOTE]This is true and in the refinement I will try to propose an addition to the tools of biometry through the application of Cantor's fundamental series to the tangent refernce form in the affine transforms of morphometrics.
[b] [QUOTE] The theory of differenital reproductive success almost never applies (there is most always no meaningful variation present) so it's basicly useless as an educational tool on a fieldtrip.[/b][/QUOTE]Well with this last I must disagree. My grandfather was one of the first teachers to design curricula in field biology (in Western NY) and it was sociobiology and not this perspective that generally took the psychology of the whole thing to lab relations between them and neurobiologists and behavor(wilson)ists. But every one is entitled to opnions as they say in the same building.

You are correct to say that NS is nOT about individuals but consider what would happen if one Actually took Fisher up on his analogy to the gas laws? In looking at Darwins use of Science in the worked up power of motion in plants by defining tropism in the nano science of today I have every reason to stick with the BSM homegrwon notion of bioentropism for wich much the explanatory power of chance is exhausted on the molecular level such that natural selection can be seen as artifical selection for turns of otherwise insignificant behavioral energy expenditures (movement) but done by utility of Galileo's impressed force. This is not Mayr's "proximate" as his work is too close to Aristolte to enable the more modern innovations of mass and inertia to be differential for the same gravity (gravitas) it was.

Only if you or your functionary is calling me names on Darwin Camp Chat otherwise best. Brad.

Darwin Campfire Chat is a website I reach, usually by links from the Talk ORIGINS web site of other discussions but I dare not give the link as they have devolved into very vile name calling that not even True Seekers sunk to. I recently posted there hoping they have come to there senses but the titles to posts are words I would not want my children to read even if they Had some real notion of who I am. Pascal would have understood.

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.

Good choice, I have done the same, as I indicated inter alia.

Joe, what is a neumanist?

Thanks John.

Biology still needs the older analogy however even if physics thinks it has left behind any other bio-aquosity. Dunn tried explictly to keep physico-chemisty off genetic turff. This much is fluff and notter.