EvC Forum: The End of Evolution By Means of Natural Selection

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: The End of Evolution By Means of Natural Selection

Hyroglyphx

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 137 of 851 (552453)
03-29-2010 9:14 AM

Reply to: Message 124 by Faith
03-28-2010 2:54 PM

Re: ANOTHER MID-THREAD RECON

1) In domestic breeding -- let's stick to dogs -- do you agree that you get and maintain a breed by being sure you breed it with its own type?

Sure, but inbreeding becomes a problem especially if isolation is present. Mutts are far more genetically diverse than pure breeds.

2) Do you agree that this is to protect the breed's particular allele complement from contamination from alleles of other dog types?

Well, if you want a pure breed dog, then I suppose yes.

3) Do you agree that any dog breed possesses a very limited genetic diversity with respect to the total dog population?

Yes

4) Do you agree that it is its limited genetic diversity that is the basis for the characteristics of the breed itself and that if there is any increase in the genetic diversity the breed will lose its character at least to some extent?

What do you mean by "lose its character?"

5) Do you agree that Darwin based his natural selection on domestic selection?

No, not entirely. I would think Mendel would be more prone to this. Don't you recall the numerous excursions all over the planet? Don't you recall instances, like on the Galapagos, where he noticied distinct characteristics in their iguana population that differed considerably from other South American iguana? Those weren't domesticated and neither were most of his studies.

6) Do you agree that natural selection is the "engine of evolution?"

There are several factors, but that is one component within the engine.

7) Do you agree that the end goal of evolution is speciation or is evolution simply any change at all whether it ever leads to speciation or not?

I don't believe there is any "goal," as a goal would be indicative of intent. Change is simply an inevitability.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
	Message 124 by Faith, posted 03-28-2010 2:54 PM		Faith has not replied

Hyroglyphx

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 693 of 851 (558193)
04-30-2010 8:20 AM

Reply to: Message 692 by Admin
04-30-2010 7:41 AM

Re: A Word about Message Ratings

I rated this message a 5

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
	Message 692 by Admin, posted 04-30-2010 7:41 AM		Admin has seen this message but not replied

Hyroglyphx

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 732 of 851 (558639)
05-03-2010 11:52 AM

Reply to: Message 729 by Admin
05-03-2010 11:10 AM

Re: Faith Is Suspended

She feels she begins unemotionally, but she's subjected to a great deal of abuse during discussion, and when she gets mad I "spring into action" as if it were her fault.

There is some truth to her claim. The tone in a lot of threads she belongs in usually has a negative one. It goes both ways really. The critical difference is in how she handles it versus other people. There seems to be some kind of disconnect with her that other people don't share. She flies off the handle at even a hint of a personal slight, whereas others seem to be able to recognize that sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.

It is also true that she does try to be on her best behavior, but it doesn't take but a few exchanges before it deconstructs. The issue really is one of self-restraint, which she doesn't have. She gets too emotionally invested in the forum and her position and it doesn't take much to get her fired up.

Personally, however, I think she's been on much better behavior for a few weeks now. I have noticed a difference and she seems to really be trying. She may be incapable of it in the long haul, I don't know. Regardless, you have much more history with this, so I'm not here to question your judgment, but lately I've seen some improvement for what it is worth.

I told Faith that I would like her to find a partner who shares her views and who could share the load and serve as emotional supprot, but she does not seem amenable to that.

What difference does this make? She has a few allies at EvC, not that I understand what difference it would make.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
	Message 729 by Admin, posted 05-03-2010 11:10 AM		Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 733 by Admin, posted 05-03-2010 12:05 PM		Hyroglyphx has replied

Hyroglyphx

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 739 of 851 (558761)
05-04-2010 9:14 AM

Reply to: Message 733 by Admin
05-03-2010 12:05 PM

Re: Faith Is Suspended

I left out a couple details. I'm asking Faith to find a partner who shares her views, and she and that partner can only advocate positions they both share. In this way I hope to avoid the constant protests of "That's not what I said, you're all misunderstanding me," and also to avoid the advocacy of positions that make no sense to anyone, creationists included, because when Faith gets her dander up she won't back away from any position, no matter how ridiculous.

I don't see why she would need an advocate to avoid people supposedly misunderstanding her. It's all documented the moment you submit a reply.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
	Message 733 by Admin, posted 05-03-2010 12:05 PM		Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 740 by Admin, posted 05-04-2010 9:41 AM		Hyroglyphx has replied

Hyroglyphx

Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display

Message 741 of 851 (558772)
05-04-2010 10:25 AM

Reply to: Message 740 by Admin
05-04-2010 9:41 AM

Re: Faith Is Suspended

People aren't misunderstanding Faith. What happens is that she says one thing, then when people point out the errors she first says how badly she's been misunderstood, often adding she feels people are doing it on purpose to make her look stupid.

The common denomonator rule applies here. If everyone seems to "misunderstand" her, that is indicative of the problem chiefly with being her. She's the common denomonator in the "misunderstanding" which reasonably places her as the focal point. So it isn't that anyone misrepresents her, it't that she misrepresents herself.

Then she explains what she really meant, which often bears no resemblance to what she first said, and usually makes equally little sense.

I believe this syndrome is colloquially referred to as "floundering," "frantic backpeddling," and the medical terminology called "foot-in-mouth disease." The only known cure is admitting one's mistake.

I want Faith to partner with someone, and they can only advocate views they both agree with. They'll have to take disagreements between themselves offline. If Faith agreed to this then I'm sure she'd soon be excoriating her partner just as she does everyone else, but at least it will be private, thus removing all the nonsense and garbage from my board.

I don't even see that as being feasible either. Some people are too pigheaded and prideful to ever change. Who would want the job of babysitting anyway? No one is going to want to do that. Besides, there's an excellent chance she'll bite the hand that feeds.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
	Message 740 by Admin, posted 05-04-2010 9:41 AM		Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 742 by Admin, posted 05-04-2010 10:40 AM		Hyroglyphx has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

1 online now:	PaulK
Newest Member:	popoi
Post Volume:	Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0