If Newton was a Darwinist

Now, Brad, that message was very nearly 100% crystal clear and understandable!!Wouldn't it be great if everything you wrote was like that?Please try.

Yes, and as I see Lenard got a NO TEXT response I would still not dignfy the either/or which is actually for me not the illusory one we generally discuss on any C/E board but the fight between Fisher/Wright. Until or unless this clarity is more generally appreciated I am often in a dillema when I attempt to decided where but usually when is never but not that that that is not a problem.Thanks for the feed forward.

Good choice, I have done the same, as I indicated inter alia.

I think the better question is "What if Darwin was a Newtonist"?
Or even better "What if Newton was a Neumanist"? These are deep questions.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
Yes, and as I see Lenard got a NO TEXT response I would still not dignfy the either/or which is actually for me not the illusory one we generally discuss on any C/E board but the fight between Fisher/Wright. Until or unless this clarity is more generally appreciated I am often in a dillema when I attempt to decided where but usually when is never but not that that that is not a problem.

​

Thanks for the feed forward.

---

Damn, I knew it wouldn't last.

Joe, what is a neumanist?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
Joe, what is a neumanist?

---

A follower of Alfred E. Neuman, maybe?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
Joe, what is a neumanist?

---

​

A follower of Alfred E. Neuman, maybe?

​

---

JM: Exactly!CheersJoe Meert

Joe: Now THAT would be an odd debate. How would you characterize neumanism? Methodological whatmeworryism? Boggles the mind.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
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.

---

We do don't we?Different bodies have different masses and thus different
gravitional 'fields'.That's all bound up in a few equations (for Newtonists anyhow).

Hardly. Go and try to sell that idea on a physics forum if you believe what you say. Then you might be subject to the same kind of ridicule creationists are typically subject to from Darwinists!While it is true that gravity measurements are standardized by some metal object that lies in a safe somewhere, and so everything is compared with that metal object, that is not nearly the same as what Darwinists are doing. Again, reproduction is a real thing, you can count the number of offspring. So there is no fundamental need for comparison in a theory of reproduction. (edited to clarify: no fundamental need for comparison to make measurements)And actually the theory of gravity was superseded by the theory of relativity. What was "wrong" in gravity theory is that it supposed an attractive force between objects, while later it showed to be more accurate to say that an object bends the space around it. So you see the simplification of gravity theory, where only one object is needed for gravity to apply, in stead of two, finally won out. And so with reproduction theory a general theory that basicly applies to 1 reproductive unit should supersede any peculiar theories of reproduction like differential reproductive success, which needs a minimum of 2 reproductive units for it to apply.And while you are in the physics forum anyway, maybe you can put forward another theory of mine that says that matter eats space to exist, and that planets are like sponges swirling round the big sponge of the sun, the space between them being like water to the sponges. There would be no end to the ridicule you would be subject to then. regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 08-12-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
While it is true that gravity measurements are standardized by some metal object that lies in a safe somewhere, and so everything is compared with that metal object, that is not nearly the same as what Darwinists are doing.

---

This makes no sense. Measures of weight are standardized as you propose. This is not a measure of gravity. Gravity changes with mass and with distance.

quote:

---

And actually the theory of gravity was superseded by the theory of relativity. What was "wrong" in gravity theory is that it supposed an attractive force between objects, while later it showed to be more accurate to say that an object bends the space around it.

---

What force or property of matter might you say does the bending? [quote]And so with reproduction theory a general theory that basicly applies to 1 reproductive unit[q/uote]And after you babies, what can you do with the information?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

Well I thought both mass and weight measurements were standardized with a metal object of a particular weight and mass, but I could be mistaken.With a general theory of reproduction, you can protect endangered species with the knowledge of what they need for reproduction. Differential reproductive success would be largely useless and misleading to apply there. In any case a general theory of reproduction lies at the basis of differential reproductive success. That is true regardless of whether you ascribe scientific import of differential reproductive success over a general theory of reproduction. It just follows from the rules in systems of knowledge that a general theory of reproduction lies at the basis of a peculiar theory of reproduction like differential reproductive success.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Ooh ... Deja Vu I think my problem with your suggestion comes down to
subject matters.Conservationists may well benefit from knowing everything that
an organims needs to successfully reproduce ... but then,
by and large, this is covered by animal husbandry, and the
work of the zoo-keepers and vets.It's sort of just veterinary science.That's not what natural selection is about.As John said, once you have the number of offspring from a
single individual, what does that actually tell you?In NS, it's not that some reproduce and some don't, most
members of the population reproduce, so the change in traits
within a population has a direct relationship to those individuals
that breed more. To know who breeds more we need a minimum of two
parent organisms.Knowing how much one breeds tells us nothing about the subject
which we are studying.If I were to talk about predator-prey relationships, but only
count the predators I would not be covering the subject.

Really, just vetinary science? It's the main tool every biologist uses when looking to organisms. Biologists look to organisms in view of a possibe future event of reproduction. I think your tactic of disagreeing with everything I say and then making up some reason why you disagree after that, isn't paying of.Again! Much more would be covered by a general theory of reproduction then with differential reproductive success, since you can make subsets to the general theory of reproduction to deal with particular situations, such as predator prey relationships.Again! One could cover how the same organism reproduces, in different environmental conditions for instance.With differential reproductive success of variants the focus is prejudically laid on reproduction of different traits, and not on reproduction of same traits in different environments. Both of these are peculiar applications of a general theory of reproduction, and there are many more. To pick one of the peculiar theories of reproduction and sell that as the basic theory is being prejudicial.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu