nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW
461
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 4:
Line 4: + + + + +
→"Newtonists"
Actually, proponents of Newton's scientific theories in the 18th century '''were''' called "Newtonians." (Though it wasn't pejorative, typically)
Actually, proponents of Newton's scientific theories in the 18th century '''were''' called "Newtonians." (Though it wasn't pejorative, typically)
==To answer a question in the edit summary==
"holds that natural selection in combination with random mutation is the directive or creative force of evolution. How do we falsify this?" To answer the question you have to think about the two variables that are acting on the population, natural selection, through environmental changes (this includes physical as well as chemical changes), and random mutation. Random mutation first, not all mutations can pass down to off spring so we can not accept these (the mutations that will not pass) as leading to an evolutary adaptation. Second the mutation has to be one that does not reduce the chance of the organism's survival, thus we study the mutation that can be passed to offspring and does not reduce survivability of the organism. Now to natural selection, this would be a change in environment that would lead to either the reduced reproduction of the population or a change where the reproduction rate slows. Now when combined, the mutation must provide some benefit to allow for the organism to have an increased rate of reproduction compared to the population thus allowing for gene dispersion by the organism thus allowing for a genetic shift in the population due to competing factors. How to falsify this is to break it into the parts I described above and show that if any of these parts are missing or do not prescribe to the limits express above and evolution occurs then it is the mechanism of natural selection with random mutation would be false in regards to being the core of evolutionary theory. If the variables above do not lead to genetic and eventually phonotypical changes then once again it is falsified. Oh and why some scientist feel that Darwinism is a pejorative term is due to the difference in what Darwin proposed and modern evolutionary theory. To use Darwinism implies a lack of modification of the theory since Darwin's time. I hope this helps.
I am still working through the scientific method, we had talked about it before. Where the method starts to break break down as compared to what the article states is when the science is proven through logic and mathematics but has yet to be proven experimentaly (due to technological limitations, quantum mechanics often encounters this)--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 09:50, 17 December 2008 (EST)