Are there evolutionary reasons for reproduction?

True! but to achieve what?! What is the target? Ok ok! Let's add it and see what happens!Original:
Y= G(t)+R(t)-D(t)+...We name the second reproduction parameter as g(t) now lets as add it:Y= G(t)+g(t)+R(t)-D(t)Now we have T(t)=G(t)+g(t) as the two reproductions are summable so formula becomes:Y=T(t)+R(t)-D(t)Do you see really any difference?!! As I said it is already there! You can't add something that is already there! I understand where are you coming from. But I am not after fuzzy description of things. To me there is huge difference between 'having the most grandchildren' and 'survival of genes'. I am looking for scientific definition not just laymen talking. I understand things relate to each other but relation is something, being equal is something else. You can't mix one with another. True! that's why I previously mentioned that all the main primary parameters have a minimum accepted level which should be met. But in this example, I assumed both species are the same in that respect. So only thing that is different is death rate and we assume still that death rate is above the limit that is acceptable. Still you will see that dominant bacteria will be the dark one. Why? because light one die with a higher rate. Simple as that. As I said in previous post, these are all metaphorical but in fact it is true. It doesn't matter weather a target is avoidable or unavoidable, the fact is that is the target no matter what is the reasons behind it. So if somebody says the target of the rivers are the oceans then it is not wrong. But if we say rivers consciously looking for oceans then that is wrong!

I don't really understand why people here are reacting like this. Asteroid doesn't hit the earth not because it chooses to hit the earth. But everything in universe has reason behind it. The reason for asteroid hitting the earth is gravity. You remove that and no asteroid will even bother coming this way! Also, Nova is created the same way by gravity. So if you have the mass of the star, you can calculate when it is going to use up all the fuel and when it is going to collapse. If we can calculate everything of a star just by having two or three basic parameters, then I don't see why we can't calculate the mechanics of evolution like that. I am sure somebody actually have done this. The problem is I have engineering background and don't know that much of biology. But I know there are many evolution simulation programs out there. I don't know to what details they went but you can't do very much if don't have a proper mathematical modeling of what is happening in the evolution. And in mathematics you always have a function that has a target like that is maximizing or minimizing or get close to something. The same is true in thermodynamics as total entropy of the system always increases. So THIS IS THE TARGET that I am talking about! You might say entropy is a natural process of particles randomly move about. In reality then there is no entropy. Entropy is a MAN MADE phenomena and it is an illusion but it is a TARGET for everything happening in the universe. It is a illusional target but nobody seems to complain about it!Edited by MrQ, : Spell

That's interesting. But what I understand from development of physics is that in many many occasions we did the calculation first and these calculations resulted some predictions that only long time after it we realized that they are true. If the actual model really doesn't reflect the reality then that means that we don't understand reality properly yet. What I said is a logical behavior of a random system like evolution. If we don't have at least one event in nature that correspond to it then we are missing something here. But with my poor biology, I can count you at least one event like this. In Africa we have highest number of cases of a genetically disease known as sickle cell. In this disease, the blood cells bend like sickle and can absorb less oxygen. Therefore, people with this condition constantly suffer from it and can't do much physical activity. Also their average life span comes dramatically down to 40 years. The reason this disease is prevalent there is because of Malaria. Malaria bug can't live on sickle shaped cells therefore they have immunity against it. These kind of individual have many key characteristics of evolution lower than normal people. They live less, reproduce less and have less physical activity which means they would become good prey. But still Malaria protection was so powerful force which kept the trait survive till now.I don't know if this phenomena can be explained by Differential Reproduction. If yes, then I guess we just have a misnomer here. It could be we are talking about the same thing. I think best name for it would be 'survival of traits' or 'differential traits' or 'trait dominance'. The key is that the main factor here is the trait and not reproduction.

ok I kind of got where are you coming from. I checked wikipedia for differential reproduction:"Natural variation occurs among the individuals of any population of organisms. Many of these differences do not affect survival (such as differences in eye color in humans), but some differences may #improve the chances of survival of a particular individual#. A rabbit that runs faster than others may be more likely to escape from predators, and algae that are more efficient at extracting energy from sunlight will grow faster. #Individuals that have better odds for survival also have better odds for reproduction#.#If the traits that give these individuals a reproductive advantage are also heritable#, that is, passed from parent to child, then there will be a slightly higher proportion of fast rabbits or efficient algae in the next generation. #This is known as differential reproduction#. Even if the reproductive advantage is very slight, over many generations any heritable advantage will become dominant in the population, due to exponential growth. In this way the natural environment of an organism "selects" for traits that confer a reproductive advantage, causing gradual changes or evolution of life. This effect was first described and named by Charles Darwin."Basically what is mentioned here is that(check between #s):1- First we should have a variation
2- That variation should bring a better chance of survival for an individual organism
3- The variation should be hereditary
4- Better survival means higher chance of reproduction
5- Gradually over time the variation will have dominance.now back to drawing board:reproduction -> variations ~> better adaptation ~> longer existence(survival)Variation is mentioned here. Statement 2 also means better adaptation and better adaptation means better survival which is also mentioned above. The only thing missing here is the recursive loop which that longer survived individual should reproduce again. Which means basically following:reproduction -> variations ~> better adaptation ~> longer existence(survival) -> higher reproductionBut in the sickle cell example that I gave, can we really say the sick people had better reproduction or it is better to say normal people died faster and earlier by Malaria so these sick individual had better chance to live and reproduce. But this reproduction is far less than what normal people could do. It only become valuable because normal people died faster and now these guys got better chance with their minimal reproduction. I guess the complexity comes from the fact that several forces and filtering stages are involved at the same time. I presume the better name for this would be 'differential existence' or better even 'differential population growth'. As you can clearly see here 'reproduction' is not a key factor here but 'death' of the competitor is. The word 'reproduction' doesn't include a key aspect in this balance of power which is 'death'. That said I agree that these sick individual must be able to reproduce at a minimum level. But I wouldn't call that higher reproduction as it is nothing close to it. Please comment on this.Edited by MrQ, : #Edited by MrQ, : differential existanceEdited by MrQ, : differential population growth

Exactly! I guess 'differential reproduction' by itself is confusing. I mentioned 'differential population growth' which is what exactly happens.

So you accept that death in some cases can provide reproductive advantage.The idea is to use a name that can cover almost all the cases with no extra exceptions. That's why I think death should be taken into consideration as a force that can make a difference. 'differential population growth' includes both reproduction and also death so it is more complete.

Well I tried then I resorted to use math as well. I thought it would help and it did. You see that this issue didn't come up any more.

I couldn't agree with you more on your first statement that I didn't use mathematics but only used mathematical notation. Therefore, I don't believe your second comment is relevant. But I think Mathematical notation is relevant here as I wanted to find out what exactly is the target in evolutionary process considering all the forces that are involved. At first everybody was saying there is no target confusing the matter with a purposeful goal of some mind. I clarified it by these gibberish as you call it that what I merely mean is simple maximization or minimization of a function. I finally got proper answer from AZ3Paul of what that ultimate target is. We just have some disagreements over the naming and underlying principles of it.Ultimately, if you had some patience you would see that there will be a great role for these gibberish. If there was in fact a ready made simple understandable mathematical equation for the main forces involved in a simple format it would have made everyone's life easier. In fact when I investigated later I found plenty of material on mathematical modeling. For example GA Genetic Algorithms as you can see is very similar to what we worked out here. We summarized all the forces as Reproduction, Genetics, Variations and Death(which still we are discussing). If you go through this link you will find that we were more or less on track and I was going to polish the original equation after we finalized the forces.

I accept that my original statement was not accurate that's why I continuously corrected it. My whole goal is to finish my diagram specially the last bit of it which we got stuck in. I am not here to prove anything. I am here to learn. I didn't claim that I know biology. That's why as we progress I correct the original statements and move forward. Tell me just where in the notation 'differential reproduction' my death scenarios fit? What this means to me is the difference in the reproduction rate between two changed and unchanged species.

Why do you think it is hopeless?! Even if we resort to tear it into peaces, I would be happy and call it progress! 'We' stands for the whole community of people who participated ACTIVELY and POSITIVELY in this topic. Therefore, it certainly excludes you which means you shouldn't get offended! So even if I were a monarch I wouldn't have sovereignty over you! As a result you can let your territorial feelings rest in peace now!

Just wanted to clarify that by 'positive' I didn't mean 'in agreement' but meant 'constructive and positive attitude'. Therefore, 'disagreements' if are combined with 'respect' and 'constructive attitude' is also within the boundaries of my definition.I would rather ignore the rest of your comment. But your original post would have been helpful if you could provide a better alternative.