If Newton was a Darwinist

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.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
A general theory of reproduction covers all cases of reproduction. That should answer all your questions.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

Wow.... now THAT is a refutation...... !!!!!------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
Thanks John.

---

No problem. Happy to proselytise for this great thinker.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

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

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

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.