If Newton was a Darwinist

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

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.

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

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.

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
[B]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.{/QUOTEUm, actually, Syamsu, Almost any Biologist would agree with Peter that evolution takes place in populations.I would also agree.I believe I had this conversation with you some time ago.9QUOTEIf 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.[QUOTE] Irrelevant mudslinging saide...What kind of splitting off of populations would you accept as evidence of evolution?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
[B]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.[QUOTE] It is much more likely that the reason a population is resistant to toxin X is because it evolved right along side toxin X in it's environment.A population is not likely to develop, in other words, a resistance to a particular toxin without it being in contact with that particular toxin directly.What do you mean by "a mutation being applicable to different resources?" [QUOTE]Again, this is commonly called evolution, but if you have another word for that then tell me.[QUOTE] No, it is not commonly called evolution, at least not how you have described it. Please be clearer.

quote:

---

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.

---

Please stop with trying to make science racist. Do you need me to remind you that you have aleready admitted that it is not?

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by 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

---

Last month, you and I had a lengthy discussion in which you finally admitted that evolution and science were not racist even though some of it's participants might have said or written racist things.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 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

---

Peter and I are both evolutionists, and we agree that evolution takes place at the population level.Did it ever enter your one-track mind (which is encased in a thick skull) that you have had an incorrect definition of evolution all along, like we, the evolutionists, have been telling you, all along?You are not capable of learning or change, it seems.

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

The discussion about racism went around in circles and that is why we (me and Peter) decided to call it quits. I did not finally admit anything, from the start on I said that the issue was about Darwinist language being conducive to racist thoughts, rather then Darwinism being racist.Actually at the end of the discussion Peter did bring in something new, (or more accurately he rephrased your argument to say something new). He said that maybe racism is grounded in a Darwinistic heritable quality of some kind of biological xenophobia. I did not feel compelled to opening that can of worms, you can discuss that amongst yourselves if you wish.This discussion about a general theory of reproduction vs Natural Selection is also finished, going around in circles. Useless arguments about definitions indicates that there is no substance to the discussion anymore.My guess is that all of you would accept a general theory of reproduction if you would have been taught it from a textbook in school or college.Peter's insistence on "survival to ultimately reproduce" in stead of plain reproduction, just makes no sense, as doesn't his insistence on focusing on a population. What I mean to say is that someone who has first learned a general theory of reproduction, will not then insist on adding ornaments like population or survival or competition to the fundaments of a general theory of reproduction. The focus would obviously lie with how organisms reproduce, and it would seem to me highly unlikely that anyone would come up with the idea to insist on anything more then that. Evolution just meaning mutants that reproduce.Again, your counterargument about Natural Selection theory / dufferential reproductive success needing to be complex to deal with a complex phenomena just shows your misunderstanding of how to build systems of knowledge. The complexity of Darwinism is caused by the most influential Darwinian scientists writing in common prosa style talking about obscure things like "the struggle for existence", rather then that they were forced to make a complex theory to deal with complex phenomena.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

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.'

So then you are mutationist / evolutionist.The mutation need not be fixed in the population, generally it only needs to contribute to reproduction for it to be called evolution. And actually standard formulations of evolution go like a change (any change) in the genepool is alrady evolution.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu