I would like to invite some opinion on changing the language of the
theory of Natural Selection into a general theory of reproduction,
thereby getting rid of the emotive language of Natural Selection
theory, and providing some secondary scientific benefits as well.
To illustrate what problem I am addressing, I will quote a line from
Darwin's "Origin of Species".
"and as Natural Selection works solely by and for the good of each
being, all corpereal and mental endowments will tend to progress
towards perfection." (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species)
What's Darwin talking about here, a magical force of goodness leading
to perfection? Before reading further, you should try to translate
this line into more neutral scientific language yourself, to see if
this emotive language is a problem for you.
The translation should read:
"and as Natural Selection works solely by and for the reproduction of
each being, all corpereal and mental endowments will tend to become
more efficient in working towards this end."
The "good" Darwin is talking about means nothing more then
reproduction, and this is what his theory is "solely" about. This is
also well said in a phrase that Darwinists often use to make clear
what the unit of selection is. If you are familiar with Darwinists
literature you might have come across it several times:
"the organism either reproduces or fails to reproduce, and therefore
it is the unit of selection"
Again this shows that what Natural Selection is about is reproduction,
although the phrase is really about asserting the organism as the
thing that Natural Selection acts on.
That Natural Selection is solely about reproduction is not clear in
standard definitions of Natural Selection. A standard Natural
Selection story would probably go something like below:
Imagine a field of flowers....
When coming upon a field of flowers, usually Darwinists do not
actually describe the field of flowers in the present, usually
Darwinists describe only some would be ancestors like: zillions of
years ago, there were plants that did not have flowers, and a single
plant which had a rudimentary flowerpetal.etc.
Darwinism is basicly not much use to describe fields of flowers in the
present because of the lack of variation in them.
But imagine that there would be variation in the present population of
flowers that corresponds with a difference in reproductionrate.
Each flower is struggling to survive. Those that survive the longest
will reproduce the most. The blue flowers have a higher chance of
attracting insects to distribute it's pollen then the red flowers,
therefore they will on average survive longer, and reproduce more.
This doesn't actually make sense, because it's not neccesarily so that
failing to reproduce means you will live shorter. Still this is
standard Darwinian language that I'm sure you are familiar with.
After some time, the blue flowers compete the red flowers into
extinction, resulting in a population of uniformly blue flowers that
is more adapted to it's environment (the environment of insects).
This may happen when there are red and blue flowers, so in this sense
the Darwinian description is absolutely correct. But there are several
more possibilities of what could happen in a population of red and
blue flowers. We may find for instance that some insects prefer red
flowers, and other insects prefer blue flowers leading to a balance of
red and blue in the population. Also it is possible that the variation
mutually enhances the chance of reproduction of both blue and red
flowers. Or conversely the possiblity that this variation mutually
decreases the chance of reproduction of both sorts of flowers. etc.
Natural Selection makes us focus on this one possibility of extinction
of the one by the other, leading us to neglect the other
possibilities.
I find it also deceptive that the chance of reproduction is contrasted
solely with the chance of reproduction of a different sort in the
population. Different sorts are but one of many environmental factors
that possibly influence reproduction, and so to single out this one
environmental factor (a variational other) is being prejudicial about
what influences reproduction.
What's more the view provided of the flowers is exceptionally narrow.
By applying standard Natural Selection theory we have come to know how
the flower of a plant works in the assembly of reproductions (by
attracting insects to distribute it's pollen), but we know nothing
about the photosynthesis in the leaves of the flowery plant. Does
photosynthesis then not contribute to reproduction? Of course it does,
but it simply is ignored in Darwinist theory because it is normally
not variational.
What seems peaceful at first, a field of flowers, is by Darwinist
terminology reduced to a murderous deathstruggle between reds and
blues.
You shouldn't have these problems with a general theory of
reproduction in my experience. If you would just look at the flowers
in terms of a possible future event of it's reproduction, and any
competition with different sorts of flowers as incidental to the
possibility of that event. Remember the only reason that I imagined
there to be red and blue flowers, is because the standard formulation
of Natural Selection requires there to be this sort of variation for
the theory to apply. This is not required by a general theory of
reproduction.
The logic of a general theory of reproduction says that: since all
organisms die, only through continued reproduction are there any
organisms left in the world.
Compare this to watches, then I would have a general theory of
"telling the time" for watches. The logic of the watches theory then
becomes that: only because watches "tell the time" are there any
watches left in the world. If watches would stop telling the time we
would disregard them, and they would all be destroyed eventually.
This maybe clarifies something about Darwinist terminology, that you
can equally say reproductive selection, in stead of natural selection,
applied to organisms. Similarly you can also talk about "telling the
time" selection, in Darwinist terminology applied to watches.
The word selection in Natural Selection does not mean selecting
between two different organisms, but it means selection between the
event of reproducing, and not reproducing. Similarly selection of
watches happens on the event of the watches either telling the time,
or the watches not telling the time.
What is maybe difficult to grasp is that it is already very meaningful
to look upon organisms in view of their chance of reproduction,
without specially considering variation or competition. To answer the
question, how does this organism reproduce? Answers most everything
you want to know about an organism. To add in evolution you would only
have to ask the question, does this modification contribute to
reproduction or not?
Take for example the current mass extinction of species. The standard
theory of Natural Selection doesn't apply here, because variation in a
population is not at issue. A general theory of reproduction does
apply, because it always applies, and gives you the right focus. To
focus on the continued reproduction, rather then on individuals
surviving which standard Natural Selection theory might lead you to
focus on. Or otherwise consider how zookeepers have been quite able to
keep individuals alive longer then they normally would be in the wild,
but only recently have they begun to tackle the problem of making them
reproduce.
So there is a mix of scientific benefit and emotional benefit to
changing Natural Selection into a general theory of reproduction. The
scientific benefits are maybe small in my experience, but the
emotional benefits, to reinterpet the nasty Darwinist language in
terms of the more neutral perspective of a general theory of
reproduction, are great.
Maybe it needs psychological research to prove that the differences in
perception are generally significant, but since that is not available
you should test the different formulations in your own intellectual
experiences. I don't think it's wise to speculate and theorize too
much about how other people would perceive the difference betwen
Natural Selection and a general theory of reproduction. I think it
would be far more meaningful that you bring your own personal
experiences to this discussion in using the different formulations.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
™ Version 4.2