[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
[B]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.
[/QUOTE]
This strikes me as a largely semantic objection. You can call something a "manual earth extracting implement" or you can call a spade a bloody SHOVEL. Granted the latter is simpler and more easily understood, but ultimately they are just names. It doesn't really matter.
But I think your real objection is to what you see as an overly complicated theory-- that of evolution. You seem to be saying "Why isn't the theory of evolution stated as simply as Newton's Universal Theory of Gravity?"
Think about the differences in the complexity of the phenomena which the two theories are trying to describe. Gravity, in the sense Newton envisioned it, is simple and easy to describe. There are very few variables-- mass and distance essentially. And remember that gravity can be measured with very little effort. Also remember that Newton was wrong. His theory doesn't describe gravity well under extreme conditions, though to his credit it does a wonderful job under normal circumstances. Einstein's much more complicated General Theory of Relativity is front runner for an accurate description of gravitation.
The theory of evolution isn't like that. There are mountains of variables. Evolution, in concept is simple-- survive and reproduce, you win. But it quickly becomes complicated. Reproduction isn't an all or nothing proposition. An animal may have one offspring at a time, or twenty, or a hundred. An animal may reproduce once a year or multiple times per year. Then there is the issue of the survival of the offspring. One offspring per year which survives to reproduce is better than a thousand offspring which all die. There is predation, environment, and just plain chance.
quote:
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.
... not sure you can credit this to Newton.
quote:
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.
Reproduction in general IS differential. Different organisms reproduce at different rates, via different methods, with different rates of success, and with differing rates of offspring survival due to disease, predation, etc.
quote:
It is not based on observation but on a comparison of observations. (comparing the reproduction of white moths, to the reproduction of black moths)
The same can be said of gravity. No one observes gravity but compares the orbits of various planetary bodies or the motions of objects in the lab.
quote:
(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)
And.... ? The two are functionally the same thing.
quote:
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?
We do. It is called natural selection.
quote:
I can't see any scientific merit in describing in terms of a theory of differential reproductive success
Even though differential reproductive success happens to describe pretty much the way things work in the wild wild outdoors?
quote:
My guess is both Darwinist creationists, and Darwinist evolutionist do not know how to look to organisms in view of their chance of reproduction
Wrong. This is exactly what evolutionary biologists have been doing since Darwin, and before actually.
quote:
I'd like to know if you consider yourself able to describe organisms in terms of their reproduction
Of course, that is what I have been doing. That is what biologists have been doing for over a century, but you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept.
Now my turn.
Describe a theory of reproduction that differs from the theory of evolution. I don't think you can.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
™ Version 4.2
