For who is what a success? Edit
DRS was never used by Darwin in any of his works - DarwinNeverSaidDifferentialReproduction. JohnTyndall coined differential reproduction as a dissimilar term to refer to same competitionist Malthus concept Darwin had. The term Differential reproductive success only surfaced later after 1871. DernavichInfidels. Success is a volitional JohnWilkins term used to express reaching of some predetermined goal. DRS, fitness, natural selection, evolution are all dissimilar terms for Unintentional Adaptation.
John Tyndall Edit
Somewhere stumbled upon JohnTyndall using Differential redproduction, with differential he meant small imperceptible differences adding up to transform a species, like the flow of honey. Will have to find the link again.
The success part was added only later and the date is as yet unknown.
He meant by this small differential changes accumulating via PatrickMatthew's natural means of competitive selection(what Darwin actually meant with Natural Selection) and specifically used Survival of the Fittest, which is a restating of Democritus atomism or what HenryFairfieldOsborn referred to as the doctrine of atoms.
A difference or differential could be either large or small, the term itself doesn't provide the scale. Both Gould and Dawkins used 'differential' with Gould a large scale and Dawkins micro. Goulds' punk-eek confuses the issues as it deals with a perception of scale and not the mechanism.
Ray Martinez Edit
> Ray, when you see the words "differential reproduction" what does that > mean to you? I've seen you use the term without any sign you > understand what the words mean.
The phrase is unintelligible. I cannot grasp AND retain its meaning without having to consult a source. And again: I initiated this admission. Who has ever done such a thing in origins debate? I am the first. I explain the preceding in the context of Darwin's admission that he was unable to make certain scientific men understand natural selection. In other words, until one has been initiated into Materialism (a certain way of thinking) its claims are unintelligible. What then is Materialism? Materialism is an explanation of evidence that ASSUMES the non-existence of God; hence the reason why its claims are unintelligible! When God (Creationism and ID) is abandoned, nonsense ensues.
In response the evos have misrepresented and downplayed the Darwin Autobio admission. I could provide even more quality evidence supporting unintelligibility. Since the same would be met with the same downplaying, I'll pass for now.
The bottom line: Only Darwinists understand natural selection as intelligible. I can now define "Creationist" to mean "any person who understands natural selection to be nonsense, non-existent."
> >> If there is "significant differential > >> reproduction" of two alternative traits, you have NS by definition.
> > So mere existence of "significant differential reproduction" and "two > > alternative traits" means natural selection will occur/has occurred?
> Again, if you understood what the words "differential reproduction" > meant, you'd possibly have a clue to understanding this.
> If you have two alternative traits, say, short fur, and long fur, and > you have significant differential reproduction, ie one of those two > variants produces significantly more offspring, i.e. has more babies > than the other, then after a number of generations, you will have either > a population predominately long haired, or short haired, depending on > which variant reproduced more.
> Here's a simple quiz for you, Ray:
> if Rabbit A has 200 babies in her life time, and Rabbit B has 5 > babies, which Rabbit left more offspring?
> Part 2:
> If the above ratio continues, and each of Rabbit A's offspring has > 200 babies, for each of Rabbit B's 5 babies, after 10 generations, which > Rabbit variation will be more commonly found?
> >> Variation in a trait is a necessary but not sufficient condition for there > >> to be NS. Heritability of the trait to some extent (it need not be completely > >> heritable) is only necessary for NS to have evolutionary consequences. You > >> will have "significant differential reproduction" of the traits 'able-to-run- > >> from-bear and 'not-able-to-run' regardless of whether the 'not-able-to-run' trait > >> is due to genetic defect, accident leg break, or your mother taking thalidomide. > >> Only the first (genetic defect) reason has evolutionary consequences.
> > Unintelligible nonsense.
> This indicates you are just stuffing your ears and humming loudly. The > above makes a great deal of sense, if you just take each sentence, and > try to see what Howard is saying.
> 1 Variation (different traits in the population) is necessary for > natural selection to operate, but variation itself is not natural > selection.
> 2. Traits that can be inherited are required for natural selection to > affect evolution.
> 3. Traits that affect reproductive success may be acquired in different > ways
> 4. Only those traits that were acquired by genetic change matter to > evolution.
> None of those four concepts above are difficult to understand.
Our Evolutionist really thinks that his four points cannot be misunderstood. He has dumbed down the claim a far as he can. That much I understand.
> None of those four concepts above are difficult to understand.
What four concepts?
- 1 contains 3 concepts other than natural selection (variation,
different traits, population).
- 2 contains 3 concepts (traits, inheritance, evolution).
- 3 contains 3 concepts (traits, reproductive success, acquire).
- 4 contains 4 concepts (traits, acquire, genetic change, evolution).
- 1 says the claim cannot operate unless it has access to variation
(defined as different traits in a population). #2 says only traits that can be inherited by offspring "affect evolution" (whatever that may mean, I don't know or understand quoted portion). #3 says certain traits may be acquired in different ways (relevance?, meaningless in my understanding). #4 makes another requirement about traits. Its relevance and relation to the other points is what? What is the point of these points?
> > "I tried once or twice to explain to able men what I meant by natural > > selection, but signally failed" (C. Darwin, Autobio:124).
> Basing an argument on an out of context quotation is never a smart idea, > Ray.
> > "I have heard by round about channel that Herschel says my Book 'is > > the law of higgledy-pigglety'. What this exactly means I do not know, > > but it is evidently very contemptuous. If true this is great blow & > > discouragement" (C. Darwin to C. Lyell; December 1859).
> > Herschel was a scientist that all scientists respected.
> This only means that Darwin had heard that Herschel disagreed with > Darwin. It doesn't indicate that Herschel could not understand > Darwin's mechanism.
> >>> More escape hatchism.
> >> No. Simple deductive logic. If A occurs only under conditions B and C, and it > >> is possible for conditions B or C to be absent, then, ergo, it is possible for A > >> not to occur.
> > Howard: Does existence of variation, laws of inheritance, and > > differential reproduction mean natural selection occurs?
> Existence of variation in a population means that there are different > types for selection to work on. No variation, no selection.
> Laws of inheritance indicate that the different types have potential > to transmit those types to the next generation. No inheritance, > selection doesn't matter.
> Differential reproduction means that not every type will transmit > their type to the next generation. No differential reproduction, no > shift in types represented in the next generations.
> All of the above are required for natural selection to occur. Since > all three do exist, and natural selection has been observed to happen in > populations, why do you deny that natural selection occurs?
> >> In this argument, A (NS, or significant differential success) requires > >> B (variation in phenotype) and C (some level of heritability) according to the > >> original poster's statement. I have agreed that B (variation in phenotype) is > >> a necessary, but not sufficient condition, but pointed out that C (some > >> level of heritability of the traits) is only needed for NS to have evolutionary > >> consequences. In either argument, the key *definition* of what constitutes > >> NS is significant differential reproductive success and even if B and C are > >> present, that is no guarantee that NS will or has occurred.
> >> By *definition* NS is significant differential reproductive success and the > >> absence or non-existence of NS therefore requires that there be no > >> conditions where there is signifiant differential reproductive success > >> in natural environments. Do you have evidence of the universal absence > >> of "significant differential reproductive success" in nature?
> > So mere existence of "significant differential reproductive success" > > means natural selection occurs?
> No, you have to have variation, and you have to have inheritance as > well. How did you possibly get your version out of the above?
> Note you haven't answered Howard's question. Where is there an absence > of significant differential reproductive success anywhere in nature?
> >>> Do you see the concept of "survival" in both sentences?
> >> Yes. And every time I see someone trot out "survival of the fittest" as if > >> that were the real meaning of NS in evolutionary biology, I want > >> to scream out that that person is a blithering idiot. But I tend to be too > >> polite to actually do so.
> > Darwin himself adopted the phrase.
> Reluctantly. He preferred "Descent with modification" but Spencer's > phrase had become more well known.
> > According to a vast majority of scholars,
> Ray, you don't know what the vast majority of scholars say. You only > have your extremely limited, and badly misunderstood ideas. You base > your claim on reading (and misunderstanding) maybe one, or two sources.
> > the theory of (how) > > evolution (occurs) remains Darwinian.
> Which only means that natural selection is recognized as one of the > major mechanisms of adaptive evolution. It doesn't mean that Darwin is > worshiped as a god.
> > According to Gould 2002 the same > > has only needed slight or light modification since Darwin lived.
> Note that Gould was not the "vast majority" and many scientists > considered Gould to be a "Media Scientist" not a leader in the field. > Assuming, for the moment, you've correctly understood Gould, (and I see > no reason to accept that assumption), the opinion of one person isn't > that convincing, no matter how well known that person might be.
> DJT- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -