|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5617 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: If Newton was a Darwinist | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1506 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Could you provide evidence for this please. I was under the impression that biologists studied organisms, andthe internal processes that allow organisms to do what they do. By that I mean looking at chemical pathways, genetics, and the like. Zoologists study animals at the species level, in terms ofbehaviour etc., and conservationists and vets study animals in terms of what they require to survive and thrive, and in the case of vets, what to do when something goes wrong. To which of these groups would a general theory of reproductionbe most relevant ? quote: It's not a tactic, and I'm not making up reasons. I just havecontrary opinions that's all. quote: How? Predator prey relationships are about population sizes,and behaviours where ONE behaviour is concerned with reproduction. quote: OK. But that does not tell us anything about the population towhich that individual belongs. What differences does environment make to the way an organismreproduces? I know there are some organisms that will reproduce asexually if there are no opposite sex partners about, and sexually otherwise, but apart from that what are you driving at here? quote: Not prejudicially ... that's what evolutionary theory studies ...the proliferation of different traits within a population and what factors can affect which traits become fixed in the population. quote: Again! ( ) No, they are not. Reproduction is focussed on individuals whileToE is focussed not just on populations, but on population change over time. quote: Natural selection is not being sold as a theory of reproductionat all!! It is a mechanism which is considered to be one of the main driving forces behind evolutionary change.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5617 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
A general theory of reproduction covers all cases of reproduction. That should answer all your questions.
regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Wow.... now THAT is a refutation...... !!!!! ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1506 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
So do you disagree with::
'Reproduction is focussed on individuals while ToE is focussed not just on populations, but on population change over time.' If so how does reproduction elaborate population change over time?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5617 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
I think you are making things very confusing by implying that for instance black wingcolor of moths is a populational trait. You are mixing individual traits with populational traits. I wouldn't know if I would agree or not, since I don't understand what you say.
regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1506 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Individuals within a population express traits (such
as black wing colour), but ToE is interested in the distribution of that trait throughout the population, and how that distribution came about/can change. Natural selection is aimed at explaining such changes intrait distribution within a population.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5617 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
So it would still fall under a general theory of reproduction. It's just a very questionable add on for reasons mentioned before. Besides what is intended to be described by Darwinists is how organisms can differ from their ancestor, how new species form. The way this can occur is if the change contributes to reprocution.
regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1506 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Your general theory of reproduction is focussed on the
individual, and is therefore insufficient to describe population-wide phenomena. Evolution is about populations ... it is not a sub-set ofyour general theory of reproduction ... quite the reverse in fact. Reproduction is one facet of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5617 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
I refer you back to the arguments I made in the posts before. You raised nothing new.
The theory of gravity cannot possibly deal with all these planets, you need differential gravitational theory for that which is focused on groups of planets! regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5060 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Thanks John.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5060 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Biology still needs the older analogy however even if physics thinks it has left behind any other bio-aquosity. Dunn tried explictly to keep physico-chemisty off genetic turff. This much is fluff and notter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: No problem. Happy to proselytise for this great thinker. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1506 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Describe the orbit of the earth in gravitational
terms without reference to the sun and other planetary bodies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5617 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
See that moose overthere? Well there are a lot of mooses around here behind some of the trees, and that's what we call a pop-u-lation. See how this moose has ears? Well we figure that 100000 years ago, give or take a million years, there was this population of moose where some had ears and other's didn't. And we figure the greater inclusive fitness of relatively reproducing earimpaired versus earenabled moose gradually led to the current trait distribution of a totally earenabled moosepopulation.
Mainly what the theory of Natural Selection / differential reproductive success provides is speculative and meaningless descriptions of the history of some organism. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1506 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
But we can (and have) observed natural selection in action.
Several posters have pointed to examples of natural selectionwhich has been seen to happen. Even YEC's don't actually contend against NS, in so far asspeciation is concerned. Some of them even rely on it as an explanation of how Noah could have had sufficient animals on his Ark to generate the diversity of life we see now. Where YEC's and Evo's part company is on the formation ofnew species or rather on the separation of a population into two new species. Your objection seems levelled at the need for a Gen.Th.of.Repro.that ENCOMPASSES the phenomena that NS attempts to explain. Since your GToR is focussed on INDIVUDUALS it cannot encompassthese phenomena, becuase they are populational phenomena, not individual. Yes, it is sepculative how a particular trait came about, butthat speculation is based on observed phenomena ... at the level of a population.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024