If Newton was a Darwinist

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.Above is to illustrate how odd the theory of Natural Selection (differential reproductive success of genotypes) is formulated when compared to other science theories, like the theory of Gravity.Newton made some standards which science-theories have to meet. They have to be general, they have to be based on observation, and it's application needs to result in the same descriptions in the same circumstances.The theory of Natural Selection, differential reproductive success, is not general because it deals with a special case of reproduction, and not with reproduction generally.It is not based on observation but on a comparison of observations. (comparing the reproduction of white moths, to the reproduction of black moths)It's application is not uniform since there is widespread disagreement and confusion if or not competition is required to be there to call some sequence of events Natural Selection. (You can read texts where it is said that in competition the black moths caused the white moths to become far and few, and you can read texts where the disappaerance of the white moths is explained as being caused by the disappearance of white trees for cover)All organisms come to die, so only through reproduction, by constantly making new ones, are there any organisms left in the world. These observations should be covered by a general theory of reproduction, which consists of describing organisms in view of their chance of reproduction. We have a general theory of gravity, why don't we have a general theory of reproduction?I can't see any scientific merit in describing in terms of a theory of differential reproductive success, but if there was any merit in it, it would still be just one of many subset theories to a general theory of reproction. So it's relative importance in science would be less then, or derived from, a general theory of reproduction.I think teaching a general theory of reproduction would solve many issues in the creation vs evolution debate. My guess is both Darwinist creationists, and Darwinist evolutionist do not know how to look to organisms in view of their chance of reproduction, or know the scientific importance of viewing organisms in that way. I think that this is much of the common ground that is missing.I wrote much of the same thing before here in the falsification of Natural Selection theory thread, but the response I got was not really specific to the points I raised, so I here try to say it again in another way.I'd like to know if you consider yourself able to describe organisms in terms of their reproduction, and how you rate the scientific importance of describing organisms in terms of their reproduction in biology.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Again, differential reproductive success does not neccesarily incorporate competition, it just involves variants that have different rates of reproduction.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.Again, if biologists would mean competition with differential reproductive success, they would have called it competitive reproductive success.There are many definitions of Natural Selection which require competition, but differential reproductive success is not one of them.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.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? What would happen to the chance of reproduction of an intelligent creature like a horse during matingseason? 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?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.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Hardly. Go and try to sell that idea on a physics forum if you believe what you say. Then you might be subject to the same kind of ridicule creationists are typically subject to from Darwinists!While it is true that gravity measurements are standardized by some metal object that lies in a safe somewhere, and so everything is compared with that metal object, that is not nearly the same as what Darwinists are doing. Again, reproduction is a real thing, you can count the number of offspring. So there is no fundamental need for comparison in a theory of reproduction. (edited to clarify: no fundamental need for comparison to make measurements)And actually the theory of gravity was superseded by the theory of relativity. What was "wrong" in gravity theory is that it supposed an attractive force between objects, while later it showed to be more accurate to say that an object bends the space around it. So you see the simplification of gravity theory, where only one object is needed for gravity to apply, in stead of two, finally won out. And so with reproduction theory a general theory that basicly applies to 1 reproductive unit should supersede any peculiar theories of reproduction like differential reproductive success, which needs a minimum of 2 reproductive units for it to apply.And while you are in the physics forum anyway, maybe you can put forward another theory of mine that says that matter eats space to exist, and that planets are like sponges swirling round the big sponge of the sun, the space between them being like water to the sponges. There would be no end to the ridicule you would be subject to then. regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 08-12-2002]

Well I thought both mass and weight measurements were standardized with a metal object of a particular weight and mass, but I could be mistaken.With a general theory of reproduction, you can protect endangered species with the knowledge of what they need for reproduction. Differential reproductive success would be largely useless and misleading to apply there. In any case a general theory of reproduction lies at the basis of differential reproductive success. That is true regardless of whether you ascribe scientific import of differential reproductive success over a general theory of reproduction. It just follows from the rules in systems of knowledge that a general theory of reproduction lies at the basis of a peculiar theory of reproduction like differential reproductive success.regards,
Mohammad Nor 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. 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.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.Again! One could cover how the same organism reproduces, in different environmental conditions for instance.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. Both of these are peculiar applications of a general theory of reproduction, and there are many more. To pick one of the peculiar theories of reproduction and sell that as the basic theory is being prejudicial.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

A general theory of reproduction covers all cases of reproduction. That should answer all your questions.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I think you are making things very confusing by implying that for instance black wingcolor of moths is a populational trait. You are mixing individual traits with populational traits. I wouldn't know if I would agree or not, since I don't understand what you say.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

So it would still fall under a general theory of reproduction. It's just a very questionable add on for reasons mentioned before. Besides what is intended to be described by Darwinists is how organisms can differ from their ancestor, how new species form. The way this can occur is if the change contributes to reprocution.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I refer you back to the arguments I made in the posts before. You raised nothing new.The theory of gravity cannot possibly deal with all these planets, you need differential gravitational theory for that which is focused on groups of planets!regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

See that moose overthere? Well there are a lot of mooses around here behind some of the trees, and that's what we call a pop-u-lation. See how this moose has ears? Well we figure that 100000 years ago, give or take a million years, there was this population of moose where some had ears and other's didn't. And we figure the greater inclusive fitness of relatively reproducing earimpaired versus earenabled moose gradually led to the current trait distribution of a totally earenabled moosepopulation.Mainly what the theory of Natural Selection / differential reproductive success provides is speculative and meaningless descriptions of the history of some organism.regards,
Mohammad Nor 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. 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. 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. Most likely your false interpretation of selection being on the event of survival has led to the falsehood of your focus on the population.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.regards,
Mohammad Nor 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 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.When you introduce mutation to a general theory of reproduction, then you have a theory of evolution.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

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.Again, this is commonly called evolution, but if you have another word for that then tell me.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.regards,
Mohammad Nor 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

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