DarwinNeverSaidDifferentialReproduction

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/557a525aebe1bddb#
== Differential reproduction ==
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA500.html
"...."Survival of the fittest" is a poor way to think about evolution. Darwin himself did not use the phrase in the first edition of Origin of Species. What Darwin said is that heritable variations lead to differential reproductive success. This is not circular or tautologous. It is a prediction that can be, and has been, experimentally verified (Weiner 1994)....."
Weiner is incorrect , Darwin never said differential reproductive success. 
It was coined by JohnTyndall 1871, he meant the incremental differential increases in attributes. (or was this actually Herbert Spencer ?)
By saying that Darwin didn't use SoF in the first three editions, they leave out that Darwin referred to Spencer as one of the greatest thinkers in history.
Another statement floating around the Internet ether is " .... evolution takes place in populations not individuals..." A population is a collection of individuals. (see Fleeming Jenkin on the individual / population issue). Jenkin observed that individual attributes do not propagate into the wider population. Darwin bootstrapped Democritus atomism and acknowledged Jenkin's insight and thus changed individuals to populations, showing how unfalsifiable atomism/evolution is. Because a population is a a collection of individuals and Adaptation doesn't occur individuals, it neither occurs in populations. The 'populations' issue was an attempt to abrogate the actual facts and experimental observations to the Democritus tautology . 
=== sadf ===
=== post 99 emdong ===
=== ns acts ===
ies remain constant, none gets 
=== lklklk ===
JohnWilkinsOnDescentWithModification - asa gray
=== stawtollogy ===
=== asdf ===
=== MUST REPLY TO POST 88 BY HOWRD ===
 
----------------------
On Jan 28, 3:24 pm, backspace <stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 27, 5:47 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The *basic* idea of NS is quite simple and empirically observable by
> > basic experiments that can be done in a bacteria lab. The subtle
> > meanings require reading more widely and deeply than you seem capable
> > of.
> What occurs in a bacteria lab is that some bacteria die and some live,
What a crappy inadequate description! Of course, I know that you do
that intentionally.
The mere fact is that bacteria die and live whether or not there is
selection. In order for there to be selection, there have to be
environmental conditions that favor one phenotype over another, such
as the presence of an antibiotic. [It has been experimentally
observed that the environmental condition is selecting among pre-
existing variants rather than generating such variants itself -- which
would be Lamarckian.]
-------------------
----------------------
> the reason we are told is that the favorable bacteria lived because
> it was favorable, the dead one because it wasn't favorable.
No. The reason the favorable bacteria survive is because they have a
phenotype (and a genotype) that favors *their* growth over that of the
bacteria that have a different phenotype in the specified environment.
--------------------
-----------------------------------------------
> This is
> Aristotle extended but it doesn't tell us the actual reason the
> bacteria died.
If you are talking about selection in the lab, we do know. In this
case, the bacteria that die were sensitive to the antibiotic and those
that survived were resistant to it. Genetically resistant. Because
of spontaneous mutations that occurred prior to the addition of the
antibiotic.
------------------------------
If you are talking about preservation in the lab, we do know. In this
case, the bacteria that die were sensitive to the antibiotic and those
that survived were resistant to it. Genetically resistant. Because
of spontaneous mutations that occurred prior to the addition of the
antibiotic.
----------------------
> At the most fundamental level we are dealing with a
> cause effect inversion.
Only in your stupid description of non-selection. If there is an the
absence of selection, the two different phenotypes would drift in
frequency.
------------------------
rephrase:
Only in your description of non-preservation. 
If there is an absence of preservation, the organisms descendants would reproduce in unpredictable ways.
}}}
== asdf ==
=== quest ===
=== owen ===
=== asdf ===
=== ns ===
=== dar ===
=== kjh ===
=== howrd ===
=== howard ===
=== ljkh ===
=== do cows have goals ===
=== asdf ===
=== asdf ===
=== asdf ===
On Jan 26, 12:24 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > It wasn't his concepts but those of Empedocles as documented by Osborn
> > in his book "From the Greeks to Darwin"
 
> What's yer point? In which book did Empedocles write about natural
> selection acting on a pool of inheritable variation?
Are you using "acting" in the pattern or design sense. This is something I picked up in OoS where Darwin says ".....NS acts...." but he was using "acts" in the pattern sense, no will or volition was involved. In English we have much ambiguity, it is a quirk of the language itself leading to profound confusion. 
> Nearly every research paper published covers predictions and results.
> Look up any of the several million papers on evolutionary biology
> published in the last 150 years.
Which one of them defined what Life is? or what is the transition matrix that maps polypeptide space in Human space. 
> > What has been found is Empedocles reformulated through the ages ,
> > starting with Aristotle .... his trial and error metaphysics infused
> > into our collective thinking as noted by Popper in his discussion of
> > Einstein .
 
> No, Empedocles did not do biology, nor did he describe the General
> Theory of Relativity. He didn't design automobiles or computer chips,
> either. See, we (meaning everybody but you) know more than our
> ancestors did 1000 or 1,000,000 years ago. This is because the people
> who contribute to civilization learn from those who came before them,
> then add art or knowledge themselves. They *build on knowledge. In
> this way, knowledge accumulates, and those willing to learn know more
> than those in the past.
Empedocles and Aristotle made society think in tautological terms, this has for example made it impossible for people to understand bacterial resistance as a cause effect phenomena.
Category:TauTology
Category:Differential
Category:Populations individuals