If Newton was a Darwinist

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Again, differential reproductive success does not neccesarily incorporate competition, it just involves variants that have different rates of reproduction.

---

And what factors will affect the reproduction rate of any one
particular variant ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

I sort of have this on the highest authority, the authority of Benjamin Franklin no less. That is I paid 100 dollars (Franklin's picture being on the bill) to have this question answered, and the answer I got from some knowledgeable biologist, was that competition is not required to occur to call some process differential reproductive success.

---

You could have concluded that for free. Competition is ONE
factor which can effect differential reproductive success, it
is not the only one. It is sufficient but not necessary

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Again, if biologists would mean competition with differential reproductive success, they would have called it competitive reproductive success.

---

True. They didn't mean that, and that's why its not called that.Don't get hooked up on competition, it's just one of numerous
factors that can effect the chances of reproduction of any
individual.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

There are many definitions of Natural Selection which require competition, but differential reproductive success is not one of them.

---

Provide 5.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

I think this confusion over the meaning of Natural Selection is highly damaging in view of stimulating Social Darwinism (and also creating ignorance about Nature), and there would be no such confusion with a simple theory of reproduction.

---

In what way is NS engendering ignorance of nature ?What exactly would this simple theory of reproduction be ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

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.

​

What would the chance of reproduction generally be at birth?

---

The CHANCE of reproduction of any aindividual living organism
is 1 if it is not sterile, and 0 otherwise.This information is useless in any meaningful sense.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

What would happen to the chance of reproduction of an intelligent creature like a horse during mating season?

---

Nothing. If the horse were not sterile it would have a chance
of reproduction based upon mate availability. Whether its intelligence lead it to choose not to mate is irrelevent with regard
to its chance to mate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

What are normally the main events in the life of some organism that determines it's chance of reproduction most greatly?

---

Death has a pretty severe impact.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

How does each attribute of the organism contribute or decrease it's chance of reproduction in relating to the environment?

---

Many relate to survivability :: Are the basic resources available,
can the organism evade predation, can it survive a temporary
(or seasonal)radical change of environment, can it out-compete
others in the same ecological niche.Some relate to mate selection:: is it pretty, can it build a good
shelter, is it a good hunter.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

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?

---

Organisms obtain resources to generate energy in order to survive long enough to pro-create.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Also, variation is not required to be there for a simple theory of reproduction to apply. 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.

---

But variation is essential to evolution, and without differential
reproductive success we do not have evolution.As an educational tool on a field trip ... show me a point observation
of evolution ?You can observe the traces of evolution, but not evolution itself
(its one of the creationist arguments against evolution).I'm not sure what that last point is getting at.In this thread you show, in my opinion, why you are having trouble
with natural selection in general.NS is NOT about individuals, although it operates on individuals.It is about populations, and how the traits exhibited can be
changed over time by interaction with the environment.

I think I nearly got that ... is that a problem

What's Darwin Camp Chat ????

I think I'll avoid that then!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
If Newton was a Darwinist, then we wouldn't have a theory of Gravity. In stead we would have a theory of differential gravitational success.

---

We do don't we?Different bodies have different masses and thus different
gravitional 'fields'.That's all bound up in a few equations (for Newtonists anyhow).

Ooh ... Deja Vu I think my problem with your suggestion comes down to
subject matters.Conservationists may well benefit from knowing everything that
an organims needs to successfully reproduce ... but then,
by and large, this is covered by animal husbandry, and the
work of the zoo-keepers and vets.It's sort of just veterinary science.That's not what natural selection is about.As John said, once you have the number of offspring from a
single individual, what does that actually tell you?In NS, it's not that some reproduce and some don't, most
members of the population reproduce, so the change in traits
within a population has a direct relationship to those individuals
that breed more. To know who breeds more we need a minimum of two
parent organisms.Knowing how much one breeds tells us nothing about the subject
which we are studying.If I were to talk about predator-prey relationships, but only
count the predators I would not be covering the subject.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Really, just vetinary science? It's the main tool every biologist uses when looking to organisms. Biologists look to organisms in view of a possibe future event of reproduction.

---

Could you provide evidence for this please.I was under the impression that biologists studied organisms, and
the internal processes that allow organisms to do what they do.By that I mean looking at chemical pathways, genetics, and the like.Zoologists study animals at the species level, in terms of
behaviour etc., and conservationists and vets study animals in
terms of what they require to survive and thrive, and in the
case of vets, what to do when something goes wrong.To which of these groups would a general theory of reproduction
be most relevant ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

I think your tactic of disagreeing with everything I say and then making up some reason why you disagree after that, isn't paying of.

---

It's not a tactic, and I'm not making up reasons. I just have
contrary opinions that's all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Again! Much more would be covered by a general theory of reproduction then with differential reproductive success, since you can make subsets to the general theory of reproduction to deal with particular situations, such as predator prey relationships.

---

How? Predator prey relationships are about population sizes,
and behaviours where ONE behaviour is concerned with
reproduction.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Again! One could cover how the same organism reproduces, in different environmental conditions for instance.

---

OK. But that does not tell us anything about the population to
which that individual belongs.What differences does environment make to the way an organism
reproduces? I know there are some organisms that will reproduce
asexually if there are no opposite sex partners about, and
sexually otherwise, but apart from that what are you driving
at here?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

With differential reproductive success of variants the focus is prejudically laid on reproduction of different traits, and not on reproduction of same traits in different environments.

---

Not prejudicially ... that's what evolutionary theory studies ...
the proliferation of different traits within a population and
what factors can affect which traits become fixed in the
population.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Both of these are peculiar applications of a general theory of reproduction, and there are many more.

---

Again! ( ) No, they are not. Reproduction is focussed on individuals while
ToE is focussed not just on populations, but on population change
over time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

To pick one of the peculiar theories of reproduction and sell that as the basic theory is being prejudicial.

---

Natural selection is not being sold as a theory of reproduction
at all!! It is a mechanism which is considered to be one of
the main driving forces behind evolutionary change.

So do you disagree with::'Reproduction is focussed on individuals while ToE is focussed not just on populations, but on population change over time.'If so how does reproduction elaborate population change over time?

Individuals within a population express traits (such
as black wing colour), but ToE is interested in the
distribution of that trait throughout the population, and
how that distribution came about/can change.Natural selection is aimed at explaining such changes in
trait distribution within a population.

Your general theory of reproduction is focussed on the
individual, and is therefore insufficient to describe
population-wide phenomena.Evolution is about populations ... it is not a sub-set of
your general theory of reproduction ... quite the reverse
in fact.Reproduction is one facet of evolution.

Describe the orbit of the earth in gravitational
terms without reference to the sun and other planetary
bodies.

But we can (and have) observed natural selection in action.Several posters have pointed to examples of natural selection
which has been seen to happen.Even YEC's don't actually contend against NS, in so far as
speciation is concerned. Some of them even rely on it as an
explanation of how Noah could have had sufficient animals on
his Ark to generate the diversity of life we see now.Where YEC's and Evo's part company is on the formation of
new species or rather on the separation of a population into
two new species.Your objection seems levelled at the need for a Gen.Th.of.Repro.
that ENCOMPASSES the phenomena that NS attempts to explain.Since your GToR is focussed on INDIVUDUALS it cannot encompass
these phenomena, becuase they are populational phenomena, not
individual.Yes, it is sepculative how a particular trait came about, but
that speculation is based on observed phenomena ... at the
level of a population.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
As before... if I would find a population that splits of from it's ancestor-population, through a mutation being applicable to different resources, then your theory of evolution through populational trait distribution is found false for not applying generally.

---

Not applying generally does not make something false.Since this thread mentions Newton, I'll ask if Newton's laws
of motion are false because they say nothing about a body at rest.OK ... so they do say (in my words) that a body it rest will stay
that way unless acted upon by some external force ... but then
doesn't evolutionary theory say that evolution will happen when
there are traits within the population that make some individuals
more fit to the environment that others.That is ... evolutionary theory says that it does not apply all
the time.This does not make it false.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Evolution is also not focused on populations as you say, it is focused on individual differences of ancestor and offspring, in view of how the different traits contribute to their reproduction.

---

Check out the glossary for the definition of evolution accepted on
this site (I assume it's accepted anyhow).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

A population can also be considered to be a unit of selection that reproduces, but this is not normal practice within evolutionary theory, which is almost solely about the individual.

---

Evolution is about trait distributions within populations and
how they change over time.We cannot ignore individual contribution to this, but that
deosn't mean that that is what evolution is 'about'.The theory is often explained in a simplified manner, almost a
parable, by referring to single organisms ... that's for
elaboration.Organism's cannot evolve ... only species can ... that is only
populations can evolve.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Most likely your false interpretation of selection being on the event of survival has led to the falsehood of your focus on the population.

---

You hold the opinion that NS is not about survival ... not getting
into that again, so I'll use your discussive style ... you are wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Anyway this is all a separate issue from whether or not a general theory of reproduction is valid science. The theory still does cover everything that reproduces, differential reproductive success just stands as a very questionable add-on to it.

---

I don't doubt that you could have a scientific General Theory of Reproduction ... I just don't believe that it would have
evolution as a sub-set.Analogy:: You can explain chemical reactions in terms of atomic
physics, but that doesn't make chemistry a sub-set of physics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
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.

---

If the trait doesn't become fixed in the population it's not
evolution it's just a difference that has been introduced by
random (perhaps stochastic) process.For it to be evolution the new trait needs to get fixed into the
population ... it is not sufficient for a single offspring to
bear a heritable change for evolution to occur. Perhaps in
subsequent generations, when that offspring has offspring of it's
own, so the trait frequency increases, this will lead the
species to evolve ... but not at an individual level.I don't believe I am 'playing' with definitions. The definition
of evolution states that evolution is concerned with populations.That's what it is about.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

If I would find an example of splitting of, then I guess that would settle it.

---

Could you say again what you mean by splitting off, I perhaps don't
understand what you mean by that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

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.

---

Can you show the Darwinists who have no respect for accuracy,
quoting to illustrate this ... or is it just your unsupported
opinion ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

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.

---

Again ... elaborate splitting off for me, please.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

When you introduce mutation to a general theory of reproduction, then you have a theory of evolution.

---

No ... you have mutation. That's why a general theory of reproduction
appears to me to be redundant. It already exists, and it is niether
evolution nor natural selection.If you consider your comment above, you may see that reproduction
is ONE aspect of evolution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
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

---

Your X-Bacteria mutants are just that ... mutants.Only once the X-factor is fixed in the population can the
species be considered to have evolved.One mutant does not an evolution make.Species evolve ... not individuals. Individuals cannot evolve,
because once set, the DNA sequence of an operating cell does
not change.You don't need to develop a perfect length beak for a longer
beak to give you a better bug-gathering probability. The exact
length that is best can be accounted for by natural variation
filtered through fitness. I doubt that all G.finches have beaks
of exactly the same length.Before answering check some text books, or pay another 100 dollars,
to find out whether ToE AS IT STANDS is aimed at populations
or not rather than just saying 'It's not, you are wrong.'