If Newton was a Darwinist

If Newton was a Darwinist, then we wouldn't have a theory of Gravity. In stead we would have a theory of differential gravitational success.Above is to illustrate how odd the theory of Natural Selection (differential reproductive success of genotypes) is formulated when compared to other science theories, like the theory of Gravity.Newton made some standards which science-theories have to meet. They have to be general, they have to be based on observation, and it's application needs to result in the same descriptions in the same circumstances.The theory of Natural Selection, differential reproductive success, is not general because it deals with a special case of reproduction, and not with reproduction generally.It is not based on observation but on a comparison of observations. (comparing the reproduction of white moths, to the reproduction of black moths)It's application is not uniform since there is widespread disagreement and confusion if or not competition is required to be there to call some sequence of events Natural Selection. (You can read texts where it is said that in competition the black moths caused the white moths to become far and few, and you can read texts where the disappaerance of the white moths is explained as being caused by the disappearance of white trees for cover)All organisms come to die, so only through reproduction, by constantly making new ones, are there any organisms left in the world. These observations should be covered by a general theory of reproduction, which consists of describing organisms in view of their chance of reproduction. We have a general theory of gravity, why don't we have a general theory of reproduction?I can't see any scientific merit in describing in terms of a theory of differential reproductive success, but if there was any merit in it, it would still be just one of many subset theories to a general theory of reproction. So it's relative importance in science would be less then, or derived from, a general theory of reproduction.I think teaching a general theory of reproduction would solve many issues in the creation vs evolution debate. My guess is both Darwinist creationists, and Darwinist evolutionist do not know how to look to organisms in view of their chance of reproduction, or know the scientific importance of viewing organisms in that way. I think that this is much of the common ground that is missing.I wrote much of the same thing before here in the falsification of Natural Selection theory thread, but the response I got was not really specific to the points I raised, so I here try to say it again in another way.I'd like to know if you consider yourself able to describe organisms in terms of their reproduction, and how you rate the scientific importance of describing organisms in terms of their reproduction in biology.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

There is nothing "odd" about evo with selection as the cause and effect in this regard. Consider the existence of "bioentropisms". Newton was pointing out an issue with Galileo and the question would have been answered by Maxwell that you abduct, I guess.Darwin wrote all around tropisms. Have you ever read "The Power of Motion in Plants". Notice the perpendiularity referred to in the seed penetrating the ground and you will be able quickly to disabuse oneself/appositionally at least of any comparison of Darwin and Newton. This is not necessary as long as developement can not proceed by ingrained teaching of rough differences of nature and nurture. New Zealanders made quite a spatial idea out of this Anglo-America figi frog fancy feeling and I could too.

I think the reason you're not getting the responses you expected is because your views seem based on a misunderstanding of differential reproductive success, which is just a long synonym for competition. Your requirement for a "Theory of Reproduction" probably makes sense to very few.--Percy

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
[B]If Newton was a Darwinist, then we wouldn't have a theory of Gravity. In stead we would have a theory of differential gravitational success. [/QUOTE]This strikes me as a largely semantic objection. You can call something a "manual earth extracting implement" or you can call a spade a bloody SHOVEL. Granted the latter is simpler and more easily understood, but ultimately they are just names. It doesn't really matter.But I think your real objection is to what you see as an overly complicated theory-- that of evolution. You seem to be saying "Why isn't the theory of evolution stated as simply as Newton's Universal Theory of Gravity?"Think about the differences in the complexity of the phenomena which the two theories are trying to describe. Gravity, in the sense Newton envisioned it, is simple and easy to describe. There are very few variables-- mass and distance essentially. And remember that gravity can be measured with very little effort. Also remember that Newton was wrong. His theory doesn't describe gravity well under extreme conditions, though to his credit it does a wonderful job under normal circumstances. Einstein's much more complicated General Theory of Relativity is front runner for an accurate description of gravitation.The theory of evolution isn't like that. There are mountains of variables. Evolution, in concept is simple-- survive and reproduce, you win. But it quickly becomes complicated. Reproduction isn't an all or nothing proposition. An animal may have one offspring at a time, or twenty, or a hundred. An animal may reproduce once a year or multiple times per year. Then there is the issue of the survival of the offspring. One offspring per year which survives to reproduce is better than a thousand offspring which all die. There is predation, environment, and just plain chance.

quote:

---

Newton made some standards which science-theories have to meet. They have to be general, they have to be based on observation, and it's application needs to result in the same descriptions in the same circumstances.

---

... not sure you can credit this to Newton.

quote:

---

The theory of Natural Selection, differential reproductive success, is not general because it deals with a special case of reproduction, and not with reproduction generally.

---

Reproduction in general IS differential. Different organisms reproduce at different rates, via different methods, with different rates of success, and with differing rates of offspring survival due to disease, predation, etc.

quote:

---

It is not based on observation but on a comparison of observations. (comparing the reproduction of white moths, to the reproduction of black moths)

---

The same can be said of gravity. No one observes gravity but compares the orbits of various planetary bodies or the motions of objects in the lab.

quote:

---

(You can read texts where it is said that in competition the black moths caused the white moths to become far and few, and you can read texts where the disappaerance of the white moths is explained as being caused by the disappearance of white trees for cover)

---

And.... ? The two are functionally the same thing.

quote:

---

All organisms come to die, so only through reproduction, by constantly making new ones, are there any organisms left in the world. These observations should be covered by a general theory of reproduction, which consists of describing organisms in view of their chance of reproduction. We have a general theory of gravity, why don't we have a general theory of reproduction?

---

We do. It is called natural selection.

quote:

---

I can't see any scientific merit in describing in terms of a theory of differential reproductive success

---

Even though differential reproductive success happens to describe pretty much the way things work in the wild wild outdoors?

quote:

---

My guess is both Darwinist creationists, and Darwinist evolutionist do not know how to look to organisms in view of their chance of reproduction

---

Wrong. This is exactly what evolutionary biologists have been doing since Darwin, and before actually.

quote:

---

I'd like to know if you consider yourself able to describe organisms in terms of their reproduction

---

Of course, that is what I have been doing. That is what biologists have been doing for over a century, but you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept.Now my turn.Describe a theory of reproduction that differs from the theory of evolution. I don't think you can.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

'Darwinist creationist'!Now that's what I call a contradiction in terms!

Again, differential reproductive success does not neccesarily incorporate competition, it just involves variants that have different rates of reproduction.I sort of have this on the highest authority, the authority of Benjamin Franklin no less. That is I paid 100 dollars (Franklin's picture being on the bill) to have this question answered, and the answer I got from some knowledgeable biologist, was that competition is not required to occur to call some process differential reproductive success.Again, if biologists would mean competition with differential reproductive success, they would have called it competitive reproductive success.There are many definitions of Natural Selection which require competition, but differential reproductive success is not one of them.I think this confusion over the meaning of Natural Selection is highly damaging in view of stimulating Social Darwinism (and also creating ignorance about Nature), and there would be no such confusion with a simple theory of reproduction.To the poster that thinks to know to describe organisms in view of the event of their reproduction. I've offered a simple theory of reproduction before to some Darwinists, and they said that such a theory was unworkable, that these chances could not be measured.
What would the chance of reproduction generally be at birth? What would happen to the chance of reproduction of an intelligent creature like a horse during matingseason? What are normally the main events in the life of some organism that determines it's chance of reproduction most greatly? How does each attribute of the organism contribute or decrease it's chance of reproduction in relating to the environment? Where the organisation of a watch can be explained in view of the event of telling the time, how can you explain the organisation of an organism?Also, variation is not required to be there for a simple theory of reproduction to apply. The theory of differenital reproductive success almost never applies (there is most always no meaningful variation present) so it's basicly useless as an educational tool on a fieldtrip.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Thanks for the feed forward. I will try to work on that. You can expect that when I failed to get over, page after page, with Will Provine that I felt he was mistaken about group selection this will be a long journey from cause because of the effect you noted. Well taken.

Sewall Wright knew very well about the differnt "phase" of matter that incorporating Lotka-Volterra relaxation into the theory but this has not been generally done even though numerical techniques could apply for a solution not piezeoelctricty which would still adhere to Percy's reference to "competition". Personally I am interested in the possibility of generalizing to all herps the Brodies' understanding of salamanders and snakes. I do not agree with all of the particulars but the attempt is in the spirit of natural history. [b] [QUOTE] Again, if biologists would mean competition with differential reproductive success, they would have called it competitive reproductive success.To the poster that thinks to know to describe organisms in view of the event of their reproduction. I've offered a simple theory of reproduction before to some Darwinists, and they said that such a theory was unworkable, that these chances could not be measured.[/b][/QUOTE]That would not have been the response if you had gone with me to Cornell in the 80s because Si Levin was there at that time and even Stu Kaufmann encourged me where Simon said I was too philosophical (you could know that Stu took up biology when he realized he could not respond to Kant) for Dr. Levin was talking about moving objects in and out of bath water which in the now existing information techonolgy objects make some sense it did not then but for those who wanted to spend all time solving equations. I brought a bucket of swimming water bettles to Simon and he promptly set me to work, as if that is what I wanted to become of the bugs, to figuring out how they moved without considering the individual motions. Now if this attitdue was applied to any group under dispute in group selection ....you get the landscape at least..apparently my requirement that I put on tape in the video was not really simple but the take home message was repeatedly to "see the complex as simple". I have little confidence in the idea I presented in that thread because the background was the ability to measure the difference of Midland and Eastern Painted Turtles not the not hybrid swarm that would be if that was not etc. That was speculation like all life from non-life ideas. I do have some ideas how Molecular Nano Techonolgy could be applied to better results in that problem however. This does not mean it should be granted large $ simply for some fancy nonetheless. [b] [QUOTE]What would the chance of reproduction generally be at birth?[/b][/QUOTE]Garstang held that the zygote were allways diverging so it would be premature on my understanding to enter the statistical refinement possibility at this stage in my theortical grasp on the external varaible invovled. [b] [QUOTE] What would happen to the chance of reproduction of an intelligent creature like a horse during matingseason?[/b][/QUOTE]i AM NOT permitting myself the freedom to grammatically differentiate mammals from lower vertebrates at this time. But ask this another time and I may choose to direct directums not transient this way.
[b] [QUOTE] What are normally the main events in the life of some organism that determines it's chance of reproduction most greatly? How does each attribute of the organism contribute or decrease it's chance of reproduction in relating to the environment? Where the organisation of a watch can be explained in view of the event of telling the time, how can you explain the organisation of an organism?[/b][/QUOTE]tHERE are many things to say between and within these questions. For the time being if I had all the $$ I ever wanted I would begin to look to see if electromagentics equations could not help to narrow down the enumeration of these, specifically I would have been trying to see if electroronic functions participate in histogeny.
[b] [QUOTE] Also, variation is not required to be there for a simple theory of reproduction to apply. [/b][/QUOTE]This is true and in the refinement I will try to propose an addition to the tools of biometry through the application of Cantor's fundamental series to the tangent refernce form in the affine transforms of morphometrics.
[b] [QUOTE] The theory of differenital reproductive success almost never applies (there is most always no meaningful variation present) so it's basicly useless as an educational tool on a fieldtrip.[/b][/QUOTE]Well with this last I must disagree. My grandfather was one of the first teachers to design curricula in field biology (in Western NY) and it was sociobiology and not this perspective that generally took the psychology of the whole thing to lab relations between them and neurobiologists and behavor(wilson)ists. But every one is entitled to opnions as they say in the same building.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Again, differential reproductive success does not neccesarily incorporate competition, it just involves variants that have different rates of reproduction.

---

And what factors will affect the reproduction rate of any one
particular variant ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

I sort of have this on the highest authority, the authority of Benjamin Franklin no less. That is I paid 100 dollars (Franklin's picture being on the bill) to have this question answered, and the answer I got from some knowledgeable biologist, was that competition is not required to occur to call some process differential reproductive success.

---

You could have concluded that for free. Competition is ONE
factor which can effect differential reproductive success, it
is not the only one. It is sufficient but not necessary

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Again, if biologists would mean competition with differential reproductive success, they would have called it competitive reproductive success.

---

True. They didn't mean that, and that's why its not called that.Don't get hooked up on competition, it's just one of numerous
factors that can effect the chances of reproduction of any
individual.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

There are many definitions of Natural Selection which require competition, but differential reproductive success is not one of them.

---

Provide 5.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

I think this confusion over the meaning of Natural Selection is highly damaging in view of stimulating Social Darwinism (and also creating ignorance about Nature), and there would be no such confusion with a simple theory of reproduction.

---

In what way is NS engendering ignorance of nature ?What exactly would this simple theory of reproduction be ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

To the poster that thinks to know to describe organisms in view of the event of their reproduction. I've offered a simple theory of reproduction before to some Darwinists, and they said that such a theory was unworkable, that these chances could not be measured.

​

What would the chance of reproduction generally be at birth?

---

The CHANCE of reproduction of any aindividual living organism
is 1 if it is not sterile, and 0 otherwise.This information is useless in any meaningful sense.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

What would happen to the chance of reproduction of an intelligent creature like a horse during mating season?

---

Nothing. If the horse were not sterile it would have a chance
of reproduction based upon mate availability. Whether its intelligence lead it to choose not to mate is irrelevent with regard
to its chance to mate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

What are normally the main events in the life of some organism that determines it's chance of reproduction most greatly?

---

Death has a pretty severe impact.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

How does each attribute of the organism contribute or decrease it's chance of reproduction in relating to the environment?

---

Many relate to survivability :: Are the basic resources available,
can the organism evade predation, can it survive a temporary
(or seasonal)radical change of environment, can it out-compete
others in the same ecological niche.Some relate to mate selection:: is it pretty, can it build a good
shelter, is it a good hunter.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Where the organisation of a watch can be explained in view of the event of telling the time, how can you explain the organisation of an organism?

---

Organisms obtain resources to generate energy in order to survive long enough to pro-create.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:

Also, variation is not required to be there for a simple theory of reproduction to apply. The theory of differenital reproductive success almost never applies (there is most always no meaningful variation present) so it's basicly useless as an educational tool on a fieldtrip.

---

But variation is essential to evolution, and without differential
reproductive success we do not have evolution.As an educational tool on a field trip ... show me a point observation
of evolution ?You can observe the traces of evolution, but not evolution itself
(its one of the creationist arguments against evolution).I'm not sure what that last point is getting at.In this thread you show, in my opinion, why you are having trouble
with natural selection in general.NS is NOT about individuals, although it operates on individuals.It is about populations, and how the traits exhibited can be
changed over time by interaction with the environment.

You are correct to say that NS is nOT about individuals but consider what would happen if one Actually took Fisher up on his analogy to the gas laws? In looking at Darwins use of Science in the worked up power of motion in plants by defining tropism in the nano science of today I have every reason to stick with the BSM homegrwon notion of bioentropism for wich much the explanatory power of chance is exhausted on the molecular level such that natural selection can be seen as artifical selection for turns of otherwise insignificant behavioral energy expenditures (movement) but done by utility of Galileo's impressed force. This is not Mayr's "proximate" as his work is too close to Aristolte to enable the more modern innovations of mass and inertia to be differential for the same gravity (gravitas) it was.

I think I nearly got that ... is that a problem

Only if you or your functionary is calling me names on Darwin Camp Chat otherwise best. Brad.

What's Darwin Camp Chat ????

Darwin Campfire Chat is a website I reach, usually by links from the Talk ORIGINS web site of other discussions but I dare not give the link as they have devolved into very vile name calling that not even True Seekers sunk to. I recently posted there hoping they have come to there senses but the titles to posts are words I would not want my children to read even if they Had some real notion of who I am. Pascal would have understood.

I think I'll avoid that then!