Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 10:25 AM
37 online now:
AZPaul3, Diomedes, GDR, Meddle, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (6 members, 31 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,542 Year: 3,579/19,786 Month: 574/1,087 Week: 164/212 Day: 6/25 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   Mendel innocent, Darwin guilty
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3666 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 16 of 18 (12271)
06-27-2002 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
06-26-2002 8:23 PM


As far as I know, fitness only refers to reproductive success/rate. Since it's convenient and generally true to assume stasis (it generally all ends up the same after some time), I thought that in stead of reproductive rate it was better to talk about reproductive chance. That way the number of offspring can more easily be considered a trait, I think. Besides if not reproductive chance, I would still insist on a theory of reproductive success, over a theory of differential reproductive success, for basicly the same reasons as I've set out before.

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 06-26-2002 8:23 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Brad McFall, posted 07-02-2002 4:44 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3109 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 17 of 18 (12584)
07-02-2002 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
06-26-2002 8:23 PM


Taz, I have always felt that the difference of replication and metabolism to be a false one even if protocol useful. Stu Kaufmann told me of the inspiration for some of his work was one up man-ship with Dyson and so again a Xerox is not a carbon copy yet the procedure could actually work yet it would take likely more than a lecture on physiological/transmission genetics to show this working in any way for everyone. I may be correct becasue the code can be better conscripted via Newton's laws with Maxwell "evolution: rather than the current expression of molecular diverification slotted biometrically.

The problem here is that in aruging the C side of E one can not even permit one faux pau to be part of the sentence lest sin also be thatsame part which makes commuincatioon in C/E mode neigh impossible. If this was the result then why try to start with unless only negative social consequences are desired??

There is DNA replication but diploid-haploids are not the same, not even by a sembelnce I should think. You did say that you may disagree with Dawkins generally and on this we may find the neutral evolution to not decieve each other with even without a seperated NOMA-NOva.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 06-26-2002 8:23 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3109 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 18 of 18 (12585)
07-02-2002 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Syamsu
06-27-2002 5:07 AM


I have thought of the number of offspring as a trait as you point out but only in the context of variation divisions wider than current phenotype/genotype can turn. I do not see any formal use of numbers to organisms as that would be more the like I am not of Galileo which I am than the Kepler as it appears you could also have been in the corect by Pasteur but I have not read properly as per prior your "thesis".
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Syamsu, posted 06-27-2002 5:07 AM Syamsu has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019