[CraigLLeech]

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

[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.

[CraigLLeech]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by CraigLLeech

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]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Well done.

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



Mostly nitpicking...

duly noted, and edited.

[CraigLLeech]

Originally Posted by Overdog

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by CraigLLeech

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.

Originally Posted by CraigLLeech

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