Proposed: Law of Evolution of Species by Reproductive Selection

[CraigLLeech]

one characters

[Pyrotex]

Actually, I believe your definition is pretty spot on.

And I believe it may be almost identical to what Charles Darwin his own fine self said about 150 years ago. So, if you came up with your definiton WITHOUT reading Darwin, I would say you did an excellent job. :doh:

[CraigLLeech]

Actually, I believe your definition is pretty spot on.

And I believe it may be almost identical to what Charles Darwin his own fine self said about 150 years ago. So, if you came up with your definiton WITHOUT reading Darwin, I would say you did an excellent job. :doh:

 

I am only familiar with Darwin. I haven't actually read his books or writings. I made an honest effort to author this in my own words, using what I know to be true.

 

Thanks for the words of encouragement.

 

-Craig

[Overdog]

You might be interested in this...

 

Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[freeztar]

Well done. :doh:

 

I'll make my suggestions with red, in your quote.

 

Law of Evolution of Species by Reproductive Selection:

 

"As the result of organisms living (this is redundant as organisms are by default, living. Perhaps define organism instead), which shall be defined as the process of self-propagating duplication of deoxyribonucleic acids (DNA) or ribonucleic acids (RNA) as genetic molecules that form organisms which can reproduce, which shall result in selection by survival via reproductive success (there are other factors influencing selection by survival, such as "fit-ness", environmental changes, etc., but given your title, this seems fine) or removal by death via reproductive failure of organisms within a population of a species, naturally or unnaturally (what would be an example of an "unnatural" removal?); one or many mutations to the genes of a organism can occur which may be passed to its offspring, which alter the form and function of a part (I think there's a better word than "part", but I can't think of it right now) of the organism; the result of which would be a difference of those offsprings' genes from the rest of a the species', and therefore, one or many members of that species exist from the general population to potentially, via reproductive selection, pass on these mutations to offspring, and this process can potentially alter a population of a the species' DNA or RNA significantly enough, over time generations, to become a separate species, as genetic mutations alter the structure of the body morphology and/or physiology of an organism, including the reproductive apparatus." (That last part is unnecessary imo)

 

Mostly nitpicking...

[CraigLLeech]

Yes, I know I should have proposed a "theory", but I believe this is already proven as a scientific "law".

 

Simply trying to keep the skeptics and nay-sayers at bay.

 

-Craig

[CraigLLeech]

Well done. :doh:

 

I'll make my suggestions with red, in your quote.

 

 

 

Mostly nitpicking...

 

duly noted, and edited.

[CraigLLeech]

You might be interested in this...

 

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I wanted to create a scientific Law, not quote a boundless hyper-text encyclopedia.

[CraigLLeech]

If I win the Nobel Prize in Biology for this, I will share it with freeztar.

 

Thanks, man,

-Craig

[modest]

Yes, I know I should have proposed a "theory", but I believe this is already proven as a scientific "law".

 

Simply trying to keep the skeptics and nay-sayers at bay.

 

-Craig

 

It looks like your motivation for stating natural selection as a "law" rather than a "theory" is to give it credibility against skeptics and nay-sayers. In this effort, I believe you misunderstand (as many do) the difference between a law and theory.

 

A scientific law is no more valid than a theory. It is not a reflection of how proven or how correct it is. The inverse square law of gravity is less correct than Einstein's theory of gravity.

 

A scientific theory has some power of explanation. It is more, in many ways than a law. The first quote is from the first link above, and the second quote is from the second link. They explain better than I am able:

 

While the concept of a scientific law is closely related to the concept of a scientific theory, it is important to realize that a scientific law does not grow from or supersede a related scientific theory. A scientific law attempts to describe an observation in nature while a scientific theory attempts to explain it.

Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles which can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions.[7] Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics.

 

A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. This is not true, as scientific theory and scientific law have different definitions. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law. A theory will never become a law, and a law never was a theory. [8]

 

I wanted to create a scientific Law, not quote a boundless hyper-text encyclopedia.

 

And indeed, evolution and its mechanism, natural selection, are rightfully theories.

 

If I win the Nobel Prize in Biology for this, I will share it with freeztar.

 

I think there should be a Nobel prize for biology - and math as well

 

~modest

[the_wise_observer]

I am not quite sure if proof can be submitted for or against evolution.

 

The problem lies in the simple fact that such a process has never been observed and studied, and so it is still referred to as a theory.

 

On One side have you have the Intelligent Design group stating something along the lines of (though extremely over simplified) "Dogs are still having dogs." By which they mean that over the many, many, years of selective breeding we've created various kinds--or breeds--of dogs. No one has ever witnessed a dog giving birth to something new. Fine.

 

On the other side you have the Evolutionary scientists stating something along the lines of (though also extremely over simplified) "A new species was discovered!" meaning that with the discovery of this new species, ideally having completely new traits never observed before, can lead to something entirely new in the future. Fine also.

 

Which side is correct? Unfortunately the evidences displayed from each side are still inconclusive. The debate rages on.

[Overdog]

I am not quite sure if proof can be submitted for or against evolution.

 

The problem lies in the simple fact that such a process has never been observed and studied, and so it is still referred to as a theory.

 

On One side have you have the Intelligent Design group stating something along the lines of (though extremely over simplified) "Dogs are still having dogs." By which they mean that over the many, many, years of selective breeding we've created various kinds--or breeds--of dogs. No one has ever witnessed a dog giving birth to something new. Fine.

 

On the other side you have the Evolutionary scientists stating something along the lines of (though also extremely over simplified) "A new species was discovered!" meaning that with the discovery of this new species, ideally having completely new traits never observed before, can lead to something entirely new in the future. Fine also.

 

Which side is correct? Unfortunately the evidences displayed from each side are still inconclusive. The debate rages on.

 

The five propositions below seem to be the most common misconceptions based on a Creationist straw-man version of evolution. If you hear anyone making any of them, chances are excellent that they don't know enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions about it.

 

Evolution has never been observed.

Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

There are no transitional fossils.

The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.

Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.

Explanations of why these statements are wrong are given below. They are brief and therefore somewhat simplified; consult the references at the end for more thorough explanations

 

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

 

How DNA Repairs Can Reshape Genome, Spawn New Species

[Moontanman]

Law of Evolution of Species by Reproductive Selection:

 

"As the result of Life; which shall be defined as the process of transcription and replication of deoxyribonucleic acids (DNA) and/or ribonucleic acids (RNA) as genetic molecules that form organisms which may reproduce, which shall result in selection by survival via reproductive success or removal by death via reproductive failure of organisms within a population of a species; one or many mutations to the genes of an organism can occur which may be passed to its offspring which alter the morphology and/or physiology of a component of the organism; the result of which, would be a difference of those offsprings' genes and survivability from the rest of the species', and therefore, one or many members of that species exist from the general population to potentially, via reproductive selection, pass on these mutations to offspring, and this process can potentially alter a population of a species' DNA or RNA significantly enough, over generations, to become a separate species, as genetic mutations alter the morphology and/or physiology of the bodily components of an organism."

 

In other words: "As a result of an organism of a population of a species living by reproduction of DNA and/or RNA, genetic mutations may be passed to offspring by reproductive selection which alter form and function of the parts of the organism, and this process, over generations, can alter a population of a species significantly enough to be declared a separate species."

 

-Craig Lawrence Leech

 

-----------------------

 

I realize a Law of Science should be simple. And, I've done my best to simplify one of the most complex systems known to Science, encompassing Chemistry, Physics, Biology, and Philosophy.

 

I invite Scientific proof, for or against, this form of this Law. I also invite reformation of this Law, if it does not fit the actual results of scientific investigation through experimentation. But, we know inherently by the body of evidence, that this is a Law, none the less.

 

Thank you,

Craig

 

First I think you are being far too selective in saying that life must have DNA or RNA, life is replicating chemicals that can change to match their environment. We don't know if life has to have RNA or DNA . I say this is enough.

"Life is a replicating chemical reaction that evolves through natural selection to exploit other chemicals for replication as efficiently as possible"

[freeztar]

First I think you are being far too selective in saying that life must have DNA or RNA, life is replicating chemicals that can change to match their environment. We don't know if life has to have RNA or DNA . I say this is enough.

"Life is a replicating chemical reaction that evolves through natural selection to exploit other chemicals for replication as efficiently as possible"

 

That got me thinking, MooTaMa. What if the definition of life was left ambiguous as far as the Law is concerned.

 

One could argue that a strict definition of life is not necessary for this Law. Perhaps it could refer to a preexisting "Law of Life".

 

Is this necessary for the law to stand true:

 

[life] which shall be defined as the process of transcription and replication of deoxyribonucleic acids (DNA) and/or ribonucleic acids (RNA) as genetic molecules that form organisms

 

Upon reexamination, I don't believe that any of the above is necessary for a Scientific Law such as this, imho.

[Moontanman]

That got me thinking, MooTaMa. What if the definition of life was left ambiguous as far as the Law is concerned.

 

One could argue that a strict definition of life is not necessary for this Law. Perhaps it could refer to a preexisting "Law of Life".

 

Is this necessary for the law to stand true:

 

 

 

Upon reexamination, I don't believe that any of the above is necessary for a Scientific Law such as this, imho.

 

Yeah, lately I've been leaning back toward the idea that life as we know it might not quite as universal as we think and maybe life as we know it might be quite the unusual occurrence. Maybe I should start a new thread?