Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolutionary Theory Explains Diversity
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 61 of 160 (515866)
07-21-2009 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by interrelation
07-21-2009 11:03 AM


Re: The topic is diversity and how it is explained
Hi again interrelation, let's see what you have ...
First, diversity of organisms did not come from natural selection since the other mechanism in nature limits this diversification.
What mechanism limits the diversification?
Speciation has been observed, both in the lab, in the field and in the fossil record: this is diversification.
Pelycodus: gradulastic
quote:
Successive fossils in the Pelycodus fossil record show the gradual evolution of increased size, which can be recognized as a series of species. The coexistence of two simultaneous size trends indicates a speciation event.
Here you see the trend to diversity in the changing makeup of the populations from generation to generation, with a gradual trend for the whole population to consist of larger individuals, while the individuals clearly overlap in size at each level.
There is a clear division of the parent population into daughter populations - a speciation event - that then evolve in different directions, increasing the diversity of the total population.
This trend continues outside the realm of the graph without finding any barrier to such diversification by mutations causing variations, and by natural selection of the variations in each population\generation.
Second, interrelation theory states that the appearance of different kinds of organisms and the appearance of diversities of organisms were the result of the interrelated action between the CIO and the timing of the earth to nature.
In other words, it just "happened" - organisms were just existing in their specific populations, and then suddenly "poof" a new species appeared?
Curiously there is no evidence of this occurring.
I mean, the CIO, the giver of life, had specifically designed and put all living organisms in the designated geological era (that we knew so far) and interrelated those new organisms on the conditions and surroundings best suited for those organisms.
Curiously this is only logically feasible if these "designated geological era" were constant. Instead we see the geological record has many changing aspects, and the life is observed adapting to those changing conditions, rather than dying out and being replaced "poof" by new species in the new conditions.
Interestingly, your claim here is also invalidated by the pelycodus fossil record above: we see a gradual trend, divisions and a spreading of diversity, yet there is no sudden "poof" of new forms of organisms at different "designated geological era".
If what you claim is true, there is absolutely no reason for a tree of common descent to be visible in the fossil record (see pelycodus example) or in the genetic record.
Pelycodus single-handedly shows each of your statements to be false, a rather incredible degree of failure for your concept in explaining any evidence.
A theory that doesn't explain the evidence is not a valid theory.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : extended

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by interrelation, posted 07-21-2009 11:03 AM interrelation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by interrelation, posted 07-22-2009 9:15 AM RAZD has replied

  
themasterdebator
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 160 (515870)
07-21-2009 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by interrelation
07-21-2009 10:54 AM


Re: I Like this Bit
Interrelation, if you are interested in disproving evolution, I would suggest you start addressing the evidence. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent provides a pretty good starting point for the evidence in favor of evolution. I would suggest you address each of these points and explain why your theory explains all this evidence better. Enjoy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by interrelation, posted 07-21-2009 10:54 AM interrelation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by interrelation, posted 07-22-2009 9:20 AM themasterdebator has not replied

  
interrelation
Member (Idle past 5361 days)
Posts: 31
From: Japan
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 63 of 160 (515894)
07-22-2009 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Granny Magda
07-21-2009 1:26 PM


Re: Did Not
No. You don't prove a claim with a theory.
You provide evidence for a claim with... well, evidence.
Using your "theory" to prove your "theory" is circular logic and utterly redundant.
Yes, I provide to you an evidence of the claim that in the preservation of life,
the best and most logical mechanism is the biotic preservation mechanism since this is what
we've been seeing in nature. It is not natural selection.
I don't prove my theory based on my theory. That is TOE not Interrelation Theory.
My theory was rooted on the evidence that I've gathered of the experiments that Ive made.
Anybody can check it. It is n nature, besides, it is very simple.
Of course, if you would like to ignore it, fine. But my evidence is testable and
observable.
I'm sorry, but this is laughable. You have proved nothing.
Yeah, it is laughable. I also laughed at the conclusion of TOE but I don't
blame those scientists or proponents of TOE. It's part of life.
All you have demonstrated is that plants grow towards light.
We already knew that and any averagely well educated child of
ten would know that too. We know why plants grow towards light
and it has nothing to do with your "biotic presrvation mechanism".
Yes, I did it with purpose. Since I believe that Interrelation Theory will surely
topple TOE, then, I had to prepare any simple experiments for all students
so that they could understand fully the important of life in Interrelation Theory.
Since in TOE, life has no important at all, then, TOE doesn't care about this topic.
But in Interrelaton Theory and in nature as we see it, life is very important.
Yes, you will surely ignore the mechanism of biotic preservation mechanism (BPM),
I don't care. But even so, the fact that we see it in nature and it is natural
and testable is there. And this fact will never change whether you like it or not.
And this is the reason why I am surprised to see that TOE had a very limited mechanisms to
explain the complexities of life. TOE should dig further and they could find
this mechanism. But sad to say, TOE could not find it.
Here is a satircal version of what you are doing.
The theory of gravity is wrong. In fact, magic pixies push objects
towards other objects. I can prove this by experiment; watch an apple
drop from a tree. If it falls toward the ground, then I have proved
that pixies are pushing it. Thus, I have proved Newton and Einstein
wrong and Pixie Theory correct. QED
Well, I can do satirical post too to TOE. But being a professional who valued life the most
after I found the Interrelation Theory than TOE, I'd rather waste my time
thinking on how to help the human lives by giving them the most logical theory
of human origin and their reason to preserve life.
Do you see what you are doing? You are taking well known and well
understood facts and adding unnecessary non-explanations to them.
You already know the outcome of your "experiment", and you have tailored
your explanation to suit it. That is not how science is
supposed to work my friend.
First, I don't tailored it. You observed facts and evidences. You make theory so that
you could use it for prediction and guide for further
study to the facts that you've been seeing. That is science.
I've been seeing and witnessing
biotic preservaton mechanism since I was a child, even before I went to school to
study biology. Since I've always done those simple experiments to many animals
that I've encountered to see how they behaved in their life.
And one conclusion had only been around:
organisms change or interrelate by the mechanism of biotic preservaton and
not natural selection. Nailing the TOE on its own coffin.
Don't give the rat cheese. Rats are not supposed to be eating cheese.
It's not good for them. You seem to have gleaned your knowledge of biology
from Tom and Jerry cartoons. Unlucky.
Assuming that the rat in your experiment did not eat the cheese, but the result will
be the same in the experiment. Rat will change not because of natural selection,
but by biotic preservation mechanism. You can test it many times and you will get the same results.
Can I ask; have you actually performed this experiment?
Or is it still just at the mental masturbation stage?
Don't hit pet rats with sticks. In most countries, this would be
considered criminal. Animal experiments which involve suffering
on the part of the animal usually require a license.
You don't have a license. Don't hit rats with sticks.
Yes, I did that experiments in my lifetime for maybe 5 or more times in rats. But some
settings were different. Rats were pests in my place, so we need to literally take them
out from our closets and kitchens, backyards. And sometimes we needed to use sticks
to bring them out. And the results are the same: rats will change not
becuase of natural selection but because of biotic preservation.
I did that experiments too to frogs, fishes, dogs, cats, chickens, crabs...
many animals to find out the same result.
That is the reason why I knew that Darwin and TOE proponents are wrong in their mechanism.
The reason why I used rat in my experiment in my web site was that since I believe that
many laboratories are using rats and mice. If they wanted to do some experiment, then,
they could use that specimen for test. No sweat, just use the available items.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rat is looking for way to live by changing its body size to smaller size to
fit any holes or openings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow. You have proved that animals and plants attempt to stay alive.
Pardon me if I don't call the Nobel prize committee just yet though.
Plants and animals attempt to stay alive. We already knew this.
TOE knew it maybe but TOE did not know the mechanism that work on why
plants and animals attempt to stay alive! Me too! I did not know it
until I discovered Interrelation Theory!
And the worst part of TOE is that TOE is using the wrong mechanism, i.e.
natural selection in this important natural event of the living organisms!
Wrong mechanism means wrong explanation, wrong explanation means wrong theory,
therefore TOE is wrong!
There is simply no need to try and explain this through some hokey
"mechanism". Indeed, you have demonstrated no such mechanism.
We need to use that mechanism in that event since we are talking about biology
and the life of organisms on how they change (interrelate) just to preseve life.
That is biology....we don't study dead rocks! We study life forms and organisms.
How do we know that your "mechanism" is what's making the organisms
respond this way?
Good question. We know it by test and experiment. In this, I've proved that I'm right.
How do we know it isn't merely that they are acting
in accordance with their instincts?
We don't know yet if life of an organism is an instict one. Behavior is an instict
but we don't know about life if it is instinct. And behavior must have source to
behave or it will never behave at all. In the living organisms, the source of this
behavior is the biotic preservation mechanism. The follow-up question will be: why animals
have that instinct to live?
How do we know it isn't magic
pixies making them act this way? You haven't established cause and effect.
In my Interrelation Theory, the cause of life is the common interrelated originator (CIO) since
before this organisms must form on earth, this CIO must already been existing or
there will be no organisms at all.
Also, what is it about living things displaying a self-preservation instinct
that you think runs counter to the Theory of Evolution? From where I'm sitting,
it seems to coincide with the ToE quite-nicely-thank-you.
It is the difference in mechanism use in both theories. In TOE, to preserve life,
you will use natural selection. But in Interrelation Theory, to preserve life, it uses
biotic preservation mechanism with clarification. But if we study in whole both theories,
TOE is an incomplete since TOE had neglected time mechanism (MSM in Interrelation),
behavioral mechanism (BPM in Interrelation), properties mechanism (APM in Interrelation)
and population mechanism (LCM in Interrelation) that we are seeing in nature.
The incompleteness of TOE to explain the diversities and complexities of life
proves that TOE's explanation is incorrect, therefore TOE is not correct in scientific
explanation, therefore TOE must be uprooted or replaced in science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
Both results in the animal's and plant's experiment tell me that the reason why
those living organisms are changing is that they are following the interrelation
process, by the mechanism of biotic preservation mechanism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, those are just some fancy terms you have invented to describe the effect.
You have nothing on the cause, nor have you challenged the ToE in any way.
I am the discoverer of this new theory and new mechanisms, so I think it is my right
to use the best suitable words or terms for this theory.
Since you did not yet read all the explanation in my web site, then, you will surely
never know what is Interrelaton Theory. I don't blame you.
Or probably, you will just ignore it. It is OK for me.
Even so, the fact in nature will never change. It is Interrelaton Theory or nothing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And it is not evolution process by natural selection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, I'm going to be frank here. It will not come across as particularly friendly,
but I consider it to be for your own good.
The quoted comment above betrays just how ignorant of biology you are and just how
far out of your depth you are. No-one would expect a lone rat in a box to evolve.
No-one. Populations evolve, not individuals. You have badly, badly, badly misunderstood
what the Theory of Evolution is saying. I'm not trying to be unkind here, but you have
misunderstood it to the point where it's just laughable.
I strongly suggest that you stop trying to impress people with your silly notions,
go to a library and pick up a biology textbook. It's the only way you are going to
learn anything. Right now, you are attempting to run before you can walk and you are
only making yourself look foolish.
No-one here or anywhere else is going to be impressed with your half-baked nonsense.
People are just going to assume that you are a crackpot and not without reason.
The only value your "theory" has is its comedy value.
I understand TOE for if I don't, I will never have a nerve to fight TOE in head to head,
in natural explanation clashing with natural explanation battle in science.
Why should I waste my time depending a loser theory?
I can and I know what is TOE's weaknesses and errors. TOE is man-made, therefore,
it is not perfect. Of course, I am not a perfect too. BUT TOE is incomplete as
compared to Interrelation Theory.
Okay, I knew that population evolve accdg to TOE. But TOE had no mechanism in population,
to support that claim from TOE. In Interrelaton Theory, it had and it is just the opposite
of TOE. It is called the Lineage Continuaton Mechanism (LCM).
It is very observable in nature!
And the worst case for TOE is that it had no mechanism for time. that supposed to be
"evolution is change in time!". But in Interrelation Theory, the "time" that TOE had been
depending upon for evolution (evolution and the end-product is new species)to occur,
time itself is aginst TOE! It is very observable in nature!
I was really surprised too that when I've discovered these mechanisms,
TOE did not know them! TOE is seeing a square object. But in reality,
it is a cube. And that is Interelation Theory.
Edited by interrelation, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Granny Magda, posted 07-21-2009 1:26 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Granny Magda, posted 07-22-2009 10:46 AM interrelation has replied
 Message 73 by lyx2no, posted 07-22-2009 7:01 PM interrelation has replied
 Message 76 by caffeine, posted 07-23-2009 8:51 AM interrelation has replied

  
interrelation
Member (Idle past 5361 days)
Posts: 31
From: Japan
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 64 of 160 (515909)
07-22-2009 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by RAZD
07-21-2009 9:01 PM


Re: The topic is diversity and how it is explained
First, diversity of organisms did not come from natural selection
since the other mechanism in nature limits this diversification.
What mechanism limits the diversification?
Speciation has been observed, both in the lab, in the field and in the
fossil record: this is diversification.
Pelycodus: gradulastic
Time mechanism actually limits or kills diversification. That means, time kills TOE.
TOE must deliberately ignore time mechanism and avoid it so that evolution with respect
to time must be true. Actually TOE is doing it right now. Well, it is true until
Interrelation Theory found out the time mechanism in nature. Since nature has time,
it must not be deliberately forgotten.
The changes that we are seeing in all species are best explained as permissible
interrelated changes (PIC). Diversification is caused by interrelation, and the
changes are very limited. In Interrelation Theory, it is called allowable changes for
all organisms to preserve life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to enlarge
Successive fossils in the Pelycodus fossil record show the gradual evolution of
increased size, which can be recognized as a series of species.
The coexistence of two simultaneous size trends indicates a speciation event.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here you see the trend to diversity in the changing makeup of the populations
from generation to generation, with a gradual trend for the whole population
to consist of larger individuals, while the individuals clearly overlap in size
at each level.
There is a clear division of the parent population into daughter populations -
a speciation event - that then evolve in different directions, increasing the
diversity of the total population.
This trend continues outside the realm of the graph without finding any barrier
to such diversification by mutations causing variations, and by natural selection
of the variations in each population generation.
I understand it. But you don't understand. Since TOE had deliberately neglected or
undiscovered or ignored time mechanism (and other mechanisms) in nature, you will simply
arrive in the same conclusion with TOE. Incorrect conclusion by using
incomplete mechanisms, that result in incorrect theory.
Explanation in nature must be "cube", but since TOE had been neglecting and
deliberateley ignoring time mechanisms and etc as describe in Interrelation Theory that are
observable in nature, then, the picture that TOE is presenting is "square".
Now square is totally different from cube! Did you get me?
Second, interrelation theory states that the appearance of different kinds of
organisms and the appearance of diversities of organisms were the result of
the interrelated action between the CIO and the timing of the earth to nature.
In other words, it just "happened" - organisms were just existing in their specific
populations, and then suddenly "poof" a new species appeared?
Curiously there is no evidence of this occurring.
Since time mechanism limits the change and kills TOE, then, the process
of evolution by natural selection is also dead. It is impossible to happen.
So the best and most plausible explanation for the diversification and the origin
of new organisms/species is the gradual appearance of all new organisms by the process
of interrelation by CIO. Why gradual? Since the earth changes gradually. So the designed
and properties of that oganisms that who must live on that time/era must be interrelated to
that era, and interrelated to the former organisms and interrelated to the CIO.
Of course, it is not nature since natural selection is already falsified.
That means, we will find similarities of species/organisms
in the same geological era as we are looking now in the so called Tree of Life.
It should be called now, the Tree of Interrelation of Organisms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean, the CIO, the giver of life, had specifically designed and put all
living organisms in the designated geological era (that we knew so far)
and interrelated those new organisms on the conditions and surroundings
best suited for those organisms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curiously this is only logically feasible if these "designated geological era"
were constant. Instead we see the geological record has many changing aspects,
and the life is observed adapting to those changing conditions, rather than
dying out and being replaced "poof" by new species in the new conditions.
Interestingly, your claim here is also invalidated by the pelycodus fossil
record above: we see a gradual trend, divisions and a spreading of diversity,
yet there is no sudden "poof" of new forms of organisms at different "
designated geological era".
If what you claim is true, there is absolutely no reason for a tree of common
descent to be visible in the fossil record (see pelycodus example) or in the
genetic record.
Pelycodus single-handedly shows each of your statements to be false, a rather
incredible degree of failure for your concept in explaining any evidence.
No, designated geological era is not constant. This is fact. I accept it.
I did not say that it is not gradual. If the earth changes gradually, then, all organisms
that should appear must interrelate with it. This is Interelation Theory.
The CIO knew that the earth is gradually changing, so the observable 4 mechanisms
in Interrelation Theory must work hand in hand to preserve the life of all
organisms on gradually changing earth. This is Interelation Theory. (i)
And that is what we are looking in nature.
But the change is limited as I had stated above.
A theory that doesn't explain the evidence is not a valid theory.
I agree. That is why I am asking you to replace TOE now with Interrelation Theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by RAZD, posted 07-21-2009 9:01 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by RAZD, posted 07-22-2009 10:15 PM interrelation has replied

  
interrelation
Member (Idle past 5361 days)
Posts: 31
From: Japan
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 65 of 160 (515911)
07-22-2009 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by themasterdebator
07-21-2009 10:29 PM


Re: I Like this Bit
Interrelation, if you are interested in disproving evolution, I would suggest you start addressing the evidence. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent provides a pretty good starting point for the evidence in favor of evolution. I would suggest you address each of these points and explain why your theory explains all this evidence better. Enjoy.
I am just telling the world that Interrelation Theory is better than TOE. And it happens that TOE is incomplete.
I've been reading TalkOrigins 9 years ago. But I am not convinced since observable and testable facts in nature are telling different things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by themasterdebator, posted 07-21-2009 10:29 PM themasterdebator has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 66 of 160 (515918)
07-22-2009 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by interrelation
07-22-2009 8:26 AM


Re: Did Not
It gets worse...
quote:
I don't prove my theory based on my theory.
Then why did you say;
interrelation writes:
Yeah, I've alreday proved it in my theory.
Make up your mind.
quote:
Of course, if you would like to ignore it, fine. But my evidence is testable and
observable.
As you well know, I have not ignored your "evidence", I have addressed it in my previous post. It is seriously flawed and does not demonstrate what you seem to think it does.
quote:
Since in TOE, life has no important at all, then, TOE doesn't care about this topic.
This comment is moronic. Suggesting that life is not important to the ToE only serves to further reveal your deep ignorance of biology (NB "biology" = the science of life).
quote:
Yes, you will surely ignore the mechanism of biotic preservation mechanism (BPM),
I don't care. But even so, the fact that we see it in nature and it is natural
and testable is there. And this fact will never change whether you like it or not.
A theory is not a fact. You have blandly imposed your pet explanation on the facts. Here;
FACT; Plants grow towards light.
THEORY; This is because of the "biotic preservation mechanism".
Plants will always grow towards light, that is true, but your pet "theory" is subject to alternative explanations. To say that it "will never change" is to place it outside of science.
Science is always subject to possible change. Only crackpots insist that they are infallible.
quote:
And this is the reason why I am surprised to see that TOE had a very limited mechanisms to explain the complexities of life.
The ToE has clearly defined and observable mechanisms for producing diversity, unlike your waffling and hand-waving.
quote:
Well, I can do satirical post too to TOE. But being a professional...
Whoa there! You are a professional!? A professional what exactly? What are your academic qualifications? At which institution do you work? What professional bodies are you a member of?
The answer, I suspect, is that you are not a professional scientist, merely a deluded egotist and crackpot, with no relevant professional status.
For the record, I myself am merely a layperson, an amateur with an interest in science. I see no need to claim prestige that I do not deserve. I prefer to let my arguments speak for themselves.
quote:
I've been seeing and witnessing
biotic preservaton mechanism since I was a child
No. You have, at best, been seeing events which are compatible with the "BPM" explanation. Unless you are telling us that "BPM" is in some way visible, perhaps under a microscope, then you have not seen it. You have only seen events which may have been caused by it. This is a very important point and the fact that you don't seem to understand this simple distinction speaks your ignorance of the scientific method and gives the lie to your claims to be a "professional".
quote:
Assuming that the rat in your experiment did not eat the cheese,
You misunderstand. I mentioned the cheese, because rats should not be fed cheese. Read any book on pet care for rats and you will be able to confirm this. I only mention this to try and bring home to you just how litlle you seem to know about animals and to try and protect any rodents unfortunate enough to find themselves in your "care".
DON'T FEED RATS ON NOTHING BUT CHEESE. RATS NEED A BALANCED DIET
Seriously, you are trying to rewrite the whole science of biology and you don't even have the same level of expertise as a six-year-old looking after a pet rat. Pathetic.
quote:
I did that experiments too to frogs, fishes, dogs, cats, chickens, crabs...
many animals to find out the same result.
That is the reason why I knew that Darwin and TOE proponents are wrong in their mechanism.
Oh dear.
So, we now know that not only are you an ignorant and egotistical crackpot, but you are a cruel animal-abuser as well. Let me assure you, if you were in my country, I would already have alerted the authorities to your activities, which would be considered illegal as well as immoral.
LEAVE THE ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS TO REAL SCIENTISTS. QUIT HITTING ANIMALS WITH STICKS.
Worse is that you seem to think that just because animals run away when you hit them with a stick you have toppled the ToE. Moronic.
quote:
TOE knew it maybe but TOE did not know the mechanism that work on why
plants and animals attempt to stay alive!
Pathetically wrong once again. Organisms evolve with instinctive behaviours which encourage them to preserve their lives because;
a) those behaviours are encoded in their genomes,
b) an organism which doe snot seek to preserve its own life would not survive long enough to pass on its defective genes (natural selection).
Seriously, this is easy, entry-level stuff. Any school child should be able to understand this. That you do not is shocking.
Granny writes:
How do we know that your "mechanism" is what's making the organisms
respond this way?
interrelation writes:
Good question. We know it by test and experiment. In this, I've proved that I'm right.
No. You are failing to understand once again.
FACT; Plants grow towards light.
THEORY; This is because of "BPM"
But how do you rule that explanation in and rule these out;
THEORY; This is because of genetic instructions in the plants genome.
THEORY; This is because of magnetism.
THEORY; This is because of magic pixies.
etc.
All of those explanations are just as compatible with the results of your experiment as your "BPM" explanation.
You can propose any number of explanations for a phenomenon, what matters to scientists (you know, real scientists, not just crackpots) is separating the good explanations from the bad. This is done with evidence. You seem to be doing it with nothing more than wishful thinking. That's bad. That's why you're wrong. That's how I know you're lying when you insinuate that you are a scientist.
The rest of your post is repetitious waffle or indecipherable gibberish and I have no desire to further waste my time with it. I will respond to this though;
quote:
I understand TOE for if I don't, I will never have a nerve to fight TOE in head to head,
in natural explanation clashing with natural explanation battle in science.
Why should I waste my time depending a loser theory?
Simple. You are too ignorant and too arrogant to realise that you are wrong and that you are seriously out of your depth.
You may think that I have been unnecessarily rude and abusive throughout this post. Indeed, I have been less than polite, but understand this; I am not going to mollycoddle you. Your ideas are ridiculous and you are deeply ignorant of the science you are seeking to overturn. To pretend otherwise or to act as though your output is deserving of anything more than scorn and ridicule would be to do you a disservice. You are deluding yourself if you think that you have anything useful to say and you need to snap out of it and stop wasting your life with this rubbish. Your "theory" is at best a waste of your time, at worst a symptom of mental illness.
Grow up. You are not "the discoverer of this new theory"; that is self-aggrandising bullshit. You are merely yet another internet crackpot, the latest in a line of thousands of kooks. Give it up and go and educate yourself.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by interrelation, posted 07-22-2009 8:26 AM interrelation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by interrelation, posted 07-22-2009 1:06 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
interrelation
Member (Idle past 5361 days)
Posts: 31
From: Japan
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 67 of 160 (515977)
07-22-2009 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Granny Magda
07-22-2009 10:46 AM


Re: Did Not
Then why did you say;
interrelation writes:
Yeah, I've alreday proved it in my theory.
Because in my theory, I have facts and experiments.
If I don't have, I will never say so.
As you well know, I have not ignored your "evidence", I have addressed it in my previous
post. It is seriously flawed and does not demonstrate what you seem to think it does.
Anybody could say that...and I don't care about it.
I could say that too to TOE. But it is a waste of time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since in TOE, life has no important at all, then, TOE doesn't care about this topic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This comment is moronic. Suggesting that life is not important to the ToE only serves to
further reveal your deep ignorance of biology (NB "biology" = the science of life).
You don't really understand your position. You are very confused person.
I don't question biology. I question TOE in biology for I believe that in biology
life must be the first priority, that is why, the FIRST and MAIN mechanism in the
preservation of life for Interrelation Theory is biotic preservation mechanism.
TOE lacks this importance of life. I forgive you for this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, you will surely ignore the mechanism of biotic preservation mechanism (BPM),
I don't care. But even so, the fact that we see it in nature and it is natural
and testable is there. And this fact will never change whether you like it or not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A theory is not a fact. You have blindly imposed your pet explanation on the facts. Here;
FACT; Plants grow towards light.
THEORY; This is because of the "biotic preservation mechanism".
Plants will always grow towards light, that is true, but your pet "theory" is subject
to alternative explanations. To say that it "will never change" is to place it outside
of science.
Science is always subject to possible change. Only crackpots insist that they are
infallible.
Yes, fact will never change in nature. It is only the point of observation of reference
that will change. If you will use the incomplete TOE in biology, then, fine.
I don't care.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this is the reason why I am surprised to see that TOE had a very limited mechanisms
to explain the complexities of life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ToE has clearly defined and observable mechanisms for producing diversity,
unlike your waffling and hand-waving.
Yes it is true if and only if TOE will use a very limited or incomplete mechanisms.
You don't really understand. Since TOE had deliberately neglected or
undiscovered or ignored time mechanism (and other mechanisms) in nature, you will simply
arrive in the same conclusion with TOE. Incorrect conclusion by using
incomplete mechanisms, that result in incorrect theory.
Explanation in nature must be "cube", but since TOE had been neglecting and
deliberateley ignoring time mechanisms and etc as describe in Interrelation Theory that are
observable in nature, then, the picture that TOE is presenting is "square".
Now square is totally different from cube! Did you get me?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I can do satirical post too to TOE. But being a professional...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whoa there! You are a professional!? A professional what exactly? What are your academic
qualifications? At which institution do you work? What professional bodies are you a
member of?
The answer, I suspect, is that you are not a professional scientist, merely a deluded
egotist and crackpot, with no relevant professional status.
For the record, I myself am merely a layperson, an amateur with an interest in science.
I see no need to claim prestige that I do not deserve. I prefer to let my arguments
speak for themselves.
You don't understand real life. Maybe you need to study more about people in science.
You can say anything you want to say. That is your opinion but as long as you can't
refute my claim in biology of my theory, I will still hold that title.
So if you come here to make satirical or emotional comment, leave them at home.
Let us talk science here. Many people are dying everyday and they need to know
that their life are important. And we need to know exactly the origin of organisms
and humans. We need to clear this.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've been seeing and witnessing
biotic preservaton mechanism since I was a child
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. You have, at best, been seeing events which are compatible with the "BPM" explanation.
Unless you are telling us that "BPM" is in some way visible, perhaps under a microscope,
then you have not seen it. You have only seen events which may have been caused by it.
This is a very important point and the fact that you don't seem to understand this
simple distinction speaks your ignorance of the scientific method and gives the
lie to your claims to be a "professional".
You don't know how science works?
I have already put up my claims. Supposed to be I will be printing it in books,
but I decide to put it in website so that many people could see it.
They are openly written in the website.
And this web site is still changing since many logical ideas are coming everyday.
If you don't like it since it directly attack TOE, then, you can put your own web
site and refute it. If somebody could claim to refute that I will surely delete it.
But until now, none. Maybe you can.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming that the rat in your experiment did not eat the cheese,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You misunderstand. I mentioned the cheese, because rats should not be fed cheese.
Read any book on pet care for rats and you will be able to confirm this.
I only mention this to try and bring home to you just how litlle you seem to know
about animals and to try and protect any rodents unfortunate enough to find
themselves in your "care".
DON'T FEED RATS ON NOTHING BUT CHEESE. RATS NEED A BALANCED DIET
Seriously, you are trying to rewrite the whole science of biology and you don't even
have the same level of expertise as a six-year-old looking after a pet rat. Pathetic.
Maybe you need to read this first before you judge.
What Do Rats Eat?
My observation tells me that rats can almost eat anything. Well, it depends on the people
about their rats.
I did not say a pet rat for testing. Look at my original post.
I said a "house rat" that means a "pest" to a certain house.
Well, if the scientist had his own rat, then, fine. He can use it.
The goal is not the rat but the theory that claim that it debunked TOE.
Read first before you post, it is already written there.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did that experiments too to frogs, fishes, dogs, cats, chickens, crabs...
many animals to find out the same result.
That is the reason why I knew that Darwin and TOE proponents are wrong in their mechanism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh dear.
So, we now know that not only are you an ignorant and egotistical crackpot, but you
are a cruel animal-abuser as well. Let me assure you, if you were in my country,
I would already have alerted the authorities to your activities, which would be
considered illegal as well as immoral.
LEAVE THE ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS TO REAL SCIENTISTS. QUIT HITTING ANIMALS WITH STICKS.
Worse is that you seem to think that just because animals run away when you hit
them with a stick you have toppled the ToE. Moronic.
Your country is just following the laws that I've stated in the biotic preservation
mechanism of my theory. My country too is following it.
You can read the detail in my BPM mechanism if you would
like to see my view.
You should not be surprised since you are accepting the
validity of TOE, then, you must be the one, by definition, who are doing animal-abuse,
human rights violations, immoral acts, inhuman treatment and the likes.
Since by definiton, TOE had no purpose whatsoever in life. Since the existence
of every living organisms in TOE is being done
by unconscious natural selection mechanisn, then, life must have no meaning at all in TOE.
Do you want more about this? The implications of real TOE in nature and society?
You will never like it. I wish you shold not open it, for your sakes.
Yes, I did try it. I don't hit them with sticks. Those frogs, fishes, dogs,
cats, chickens, crabs and other were used as foods. Some parts in my country (before)
ate dogs and mountain cats. I tried once eating both.
They are not animal abuses since we consumed them for foods.
Maybe you need to read my background first. But all of these animals they had life too,
and the moment you took their life or before you took their life
for your foods, you will know the same result. And the most aching part of it is when you
saw some of animals cried (have literally tears in their eyes) for asking life.
That is the reason why I don't believe in natural selection is happening in nature.
I cannot blame you, you are the one who are opposing animal abuses, me too, then,
you knew for sure that life, even in animal, is very important.
So, you are just putting weight on my theory. Thank you.
I forgave you for this.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOE knew it maybe but TOE did not know the mechanism that work on why
plants and animals attempt to stay alive!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pathetically wrong once again. Organisms evolve with instinctive behaviours which
encourage them to preserve their lives because;
a) those behaviours are encoded in their genomes,
b) an organism which doe snot seek to preserve its own life would not survive long
enough to pass on its defective genes (natural selection).
Seriously, this is easy, entry-level stuff. Any school child should be able to
understand this. That you do not is shocking.
Yes, TOE will surely say evolution since TOE had forgotten the time mechanism.
Yes, the encoded genomes works in the biotic preservation mechanism.
Thank you for putting the details. I don't have time putting up details since
I will leave that to our other scientists who will work for that. But my job is to find
the right mechanism now and the right theory.
It is true that an organism which does not seek to preserve its own life would not
survive long enough to pass on its defective genes but it doesn not mean also
that this organism had already lost its desire to live longer or had lost its desire to
have a corrected genes. My experiment tells me the facts about it.
This is the big difference between the natural selection and
the biotic preservation mechanism.
You see, natural selection is false, inhuman, cruel, unnatural, unscientific
..It doesn't make any sense.
interrelation writes:
Good question. We know it by test and experiment. In this, I've proved that I'm right.
No. You are failing to understand once again.
FACT; Plants grow towards light.
THEORY; This is because of "BPM"
But how do you rule that explanation in and rule these out;
THEORY; This is because of genetic instructions in the plants genome.
THEORY; This is because of magnetism.
THEORY; This is because of magic pixies.
etc.
All of those explanations are just as compatible with the results of your experiment
as your "BPM" explanation.
You can propose any number of explanations for a phenomenon, what matters to
scientists (you know, real scientists, not just crackpots) is separating the good
explanations from the bad. This is done with evidence. You seem to be doing
it with nothing more than wishful thinking. That's bad. That's why you're wrong.
That's how I know you're lying when you insinuate that you are a scientist.
The rest of your post is repetitious waffle or indecipherable gibberish and
I have no desire to further waste my time with it. I will respond to this though;
Wishful thinking??? You made me laugh.
There are many explanations. I knew it. Some may neglect others some may include others.
Some are none.
But in my Interrelation Theory, I included almost everything that TOE had forgotten.
So if TOE is square, Interrelaton Theory is cube.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand TOE for if I don't, I will never have a nerve to fight TOE in head to head,
in natural explanation clashing with natural explanation battle in science.
Why should I waste my time depending a loser theory?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simple. You are too ignorant and too arrogant to realise that you are wrong and
that you are seriously out of your depth.
You may think that I have been unnecessarily rude and abusive throughout this post.
Indeed, I have been less than polite, but understand this; I am not going to mollycoddle
you. Your ideas are ridiculous and you are deeply ignorant of the science you are
seeking to overturn. To pretend otherwise or to act as though your output is
deserving of anything more than scorn and ridicule would be to do you a disservice.
You are deluding yourself if you think that you have anything useful to say and you
need to snap out of it and stop wasting your life with this rubbish. Your "theory"
is at best a waste of your time, at worst a symptom of mental illness.
Grow up. You are not "the discoverer of this new theory"; that is self-aggrandising
bullshit. You are merely yet another internet crackpot, the latest in a line of
thousands of kooks. Give it up and go and educate yourself.
I can say that too to TOE. But I am not that person, I still honor those scientists in
their fields since they are also humans like me who had life to live.
Nothing personal in scientific fields. We are just trying to argue which is which.
If I found wrong, then, so be it. If I found them wrong, then, so be it.
Nothing personal. We are all the same humans.
Don't worry. I knew that you will surely hate me since
I've been saying and claiming that TOE is wrong. It's life.
But it did not say that all the TOE are stupid. Scientists in TOE are intelligent
(but of course not perfect, so errors will found)
that but they've forgotten some mechanisms that are undiscovered.
I've just said that there are undiscovered and unknown mechanisms in nature that TOE had
forgotten that is why TOE is now incorrect and wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Granny Magda, posted 07-22-2009 10:46 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Theodoric, posted 07-22-2009 1:14 PM interrelation has replied
 Message 70 by Granny Magda, posted 07-22-2009 1:57 PM interrelation has replied
 Message 72 by Parasomnium, posted 07-22-2009 2:51 PM interrelation has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 68 of 160 (515981)
07-22-2009 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by interrelation
07-22-2009 1:06 PM


OK lets get down to basics
Do you understand what a scientific theory is? Do you understand that TOE is a scientific theory?
Please tell me what you think the definitions of theory and scientific theory are. Maybe then there might be something to go on and maybe I can then understand where the disconnect is.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by interrelation, posted 07-22-2009 1:06 PM interrelation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by interrelation, posted 07-22-2009 1:22 PM Theodoric has replied

  
interrelation
Member (Idle past 5361 days)
Posts: 31
From: Japan
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 69 of 160 (515984)
07-22-2009 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Theodoric
07-22-2009 1:14 PM


Re: OK lets get down to basics
I understand what scientific theory is. I also understand that TOE is scientific theory but TOE is incomplete theory. Therefore, it is incomplete scientific theory...that means wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Theodoric, posted 07-22-2009 1:14 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Theodoric, posted 07-22-2009 1:59 PM interrelation has replied
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 07-22-2009 10:25 PM interrelation has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 70 of 160 (515990)
07-22-2009 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by interrelation
07-22-2009 1:06 PM


Re: Did Not
Okay.
Since nothing in your post is even close to coherent and since you seem unable or unwilling to address what is being said to you, I will leave you to your delusions of grandeur. Clearly nothing I say will make the slightest impact on you and any further effort on my part to help you see through these delusions will be wasted effort. You appear to be beyond help. I can only reiterate my suggestion that you abandon your silly ideas and go and get an education and, perhaps, a psychiatric examination.
Good luck in your endeavours.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : Typo.

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by interrelation, posted 07-22-2009 1:06 PM interrelation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by interrelation, posted 07-24-2009 7:13 AM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 71 of 160 (515992)
07-22-2009 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by interrelation
07-22-2009 1:22 PM


Re: OK lets get down to basics
I understand what scientific theory is.
Telling me you know what one is doesn't mean your definition is correct.
Please tell me what your working definition of it is. If we do not have the same definition then we can not debate.
Please tell me what you understand the definition to be.
Therefore, it is incomplete scientific theory...that means wrong.
What makes it incomplete and what makes it wrong? Do you have any other evidence or arguments than your own? Can you cite any other evidence other than what you claim?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by interrelation, posted 07-22-2009 1:22 PM interrelation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by interrelation, posted 07-23-2009 5:40 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 72 of 160 (516002)
07-22-2009 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by interrelation
07-22-2009 1:06 PM


Re: Did Not
interrelation writes:
You see, natural selection is false, inhuman, cruel, unnatural, unscientific
..It doesn't make any sense.
So basically, what you're saying is that natural selection is unnatural? Interesting choice of words, I must say. No wonder it doesn't make sense.
Anyway, I would like to see you describe your BPM in a little more detail. If it's a mechanism, there must be details you can describe. How exactly does it work? Can it be influenced in some way, with chemicals, drugs, or whatever? Does it have a basis in molecular biology? Are there certain organelles in the cells that regulate its expression? Please, tell us.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by interrelation, posted 07-22-2009 1:06 PM interrelation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by interrelation, posted 07-24-2009 10:57 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 73 of 160 (516036)
07-22-2009 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by interrelation
07-22-2009 8:26 AM


Change the Header Already
Yes, you will surely ignore the mechanism of biotic preservation mechanism (BPM),
I don't care. But even so, the fact that we see it in nature and it is natural
and testable is there. And this fact will never change whether you like it or not.
You mistake a motive for a mechanism. Your rat has a motive for squeezing through an impossibly tiny hole, but that doesn't supply a "how" unless rat wishes come true. Now, the rat's stress may cause it to suffer an increased, nervous metabolism, loss of appetite, and weight reduction. There you have a mechanism: anxiety.
Nonetheless, this is not the point at which one reaches a grand conclusion; aka, THEORY. One says to themselves, "Self, Is there a possible connection with this rat's predicable behavior to cellulose impactor events (CIE)'s (Just trying to make my post all sciency like yours) and the long term variation in rat populations? What might that connection be and how could that connection be made observable?" If one manages to concoct a mechanism, one makes predictions of unique, observable, sufficient and necessary outcomes to which one can tailor experiments that can make plain the connection. Not wishing to die is a wee bit too ubiquitous to be considered unique, sufficient or necessary. Congrat's, professional dude, you achieved observable.
You also keep making the strange argument that proponents of the ToE don't know, don't care, or don't concur about rat responses to (CIE)'s I think it's safe to say we all respond negatively to (CIE)'s and therein recognize the impetus for the rat to seek lodgings elsewhere.
You also have to rid yourself of the silly notion of the more mechanisms the better. Newton reduced planetary motions to a single mechanism. Anyone want to add a Revolution Preservation Mechanism (RPM). {I can hear the conservation of angular momentum crowd even now. Well, shut-up.}{ And before any of you don't shut-up, I know that orbital deflection is not a conserved property but continually induced by gravity. So my little joke doesn't really work if given any consideration, So I'll not make it in stand-up; well, boo-hoo.}
Ever hear of the Law of Parsimony: Occam's razor. My own corollary states one event has one mechanism. ToE has two parts; thus, two mechanisms. Part one: Variation. Part two: Selection. Mechanism one: Imperfect Replication. Mechanism two: Limited Resources. Sufficient and necessary.
I am the discoverer of this new theory and new mechanisms, so I think it is my right
to use the best suitable words or terms for this theory.
Since you did not yet read all the explanation in my web site, then, you will surely
never know what is Interrelaton Theory. I don't blame you.
Or probably, you will just ignore it. It is OK for me.
You have no new ideas at your website. You've named a few ideas that have been floating around. Your COI, or whatever, is the same as the Noah's ark boy's "kinds" claim. Your "time" thingy is merely a claim to having "discovered" a mechanism to limit the evolution you're forced to admit. Watch this:
"Hey look guys, an 8th continent."
Okay, who believed me? 'cause I didn't really discover an 8th continent. I was only pretending. Try it for yourself Oh yeah! That's right. You already did.
Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by interrelation, posted 07-22-2009 8:26 AM interrelation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by interrelation, posted 07-24-2009 11:49 AM lyx2no has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 74 of 160 (516044)
07-22-2009 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by interrelation
07-22-2009 9:15 AM


Silly experiments and reality
Hi again interrelation, I'm still wondering when you will ever deal with the facts of evolution.
Message 63 Yes, I did that experiments in my lifetime for maybe 5 or more times in rats. But some settings were different. Rats were pests in my place, so we need to literally take them out from our closets and kitchens, backyards. And sometimes we needed to use sticks to bring them out. And the results are the same: rats will change not becuase of natural selection but because of biotic preservation.
I did that experiments too to frogs, fishes, dogs, cats, chickens, crabs... many animals to find out the same result.
But the question is -- did you do the same experiment with plants - see if they avoided the stick?
If they don't, and the mechanism is really a process to avoid death, then should not plants exhibit the same behavior?
Did you do it with bacteria? With sponges? Starfish? Coral? Opossums? Turtles?
That is the reason why I knew that Darwin and TOE proponents are wrong in their mechanism.
Except that you did not test Darwin's concepts nor TOE in any way. If you don't know that then you know squat about evolution. What you have done is test individual organisms to see if they react to their environment -- curiously the ability of life to react to it's environment is one of the defining elements of living things.
We know it by test and experiment. In this, I've proved that I'm right.
You have proven that living organisms exhibit one of the defining elements of living things. WOW.
You have also shown, yet have not seemed to have observed, is that the methods used by different organisms to react to their environment are different, due to their different evolution.
... and not natural selection. Nailing the TOE on its own coffin.
Except for the minor detail that your experiments have zilch, zero, nada, zip, rien, nothing to do with natural selection. Why?
Because it doesn't test for the differential preservation of different inherited traits from one generation to the next within a population.
You don't have a population.
You don't have a generation.
All you have is sadistically tormenting small animals for no apparent purpose.
Now lets look at some more of you silly concepts:
Time mechanism actually limits or kills diversification. That means, time kills TOE.
And again, when we look at the evidence this is not what we see. The previous example of pelycodus starts with a population with a variety of sizes, and after time has passed ends up with a wider variety of sizes split into two distinct populations. This diagram actively shows evolution occurring:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/pelycodus.html
quote:
Pelycodus was a tree-dwelling primate that looked A complete fossil much like a modern lemur. The skull shown is probably 7.5 centimeters long.
The numbers down the left hand side indicate the depth (in feet) at which each group of fossils was found. As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about five million years.
The numbers across the bottom are a measure of body size. Each horizontal line shows the range of sizes that were found at that depth. The dark part of each line shows the average value, and the standard deviation around the average.
The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. The two species later became even more distinct, and the descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of genus Notharctus.
Looks to me like the organisms thrived over time, increasing in diversity, and with no apparent limit.
TOE must deliberately ignore time mechanism and avoid it so that evolution with respect to time must be true.
Can you show where on the side scale (the one that shows time) where time is being ignored?
The changes that we are seeing in all species are best explained as permissible interrelated changes (PIC). Diversification is caused by interrelation, and the changes are very limited.
What causes the limitation? Once you have speciation you have two populations that increase variations over time, and different natural selection (the real kind) operating on the two different populations with necessarily different results -- necessarily different because (a) the mutations that provide opportunity for increased survival and reproduction will necessarily be different and (b) because the ecology that is imposing a selective filter on what organisms survive and reproduce better than other is also necessarily different.
Diversity by TOE is inevitable. It is specifically predicted by the theory, And it is observed in reality.
Now square is totally different from cube! Did you get me?
I again refer to the pelycodus chart. Pretty funny that one little primate proves so many of your silly concepts to be false. In fact, just about every piece of evidence I turn to shows your concepts and your understanding of evolution to be false and a rather pathetic display of ignorance.
A true scientist would go back to the drawing board. Actually a true scientist would never get to your drawing board - they would learn the facts first, and study evolution rather than beat up the neighbors cats and dogs.
So the best and most plausible explanation for the diversification and the origin of new organisms/species is the gradual appearance of all new organisms by the process of interrelation by CIO. Why gradual? Since the earth changes gradually. So the designed and properties of that oganisms that who must live on that time/era must be interrelated to that era, and interrelated to the former organisms and interrelated to the CIO.
This is the biggest piece of ad hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy that I have seen in a while. The "plausible explanation for the diversification" is precisely what (real) evolution (with real natural selection plus real mutation), but instead is evidence of god poofing organisms into existence. Here's another inconvenient truth:
article 8
quote:
Tony Arnold and Bill Parker compiled what may be the largest, most complete set of data on the evolutionary history of any group of organisms, marine or otherwise. The two scientists amassed something that their land-based colleagues only dreamed about: An intact fossil record with no missing links.
"It's all here--a virtually complete evolutionary record," says Arnold. "There are other good examples, but this is by far the best. We're seeing the whole picture of how this group of organisms has changed throughout most of its existence on Earth."
About 330 species of living and extinct planktonic forams have been classified so far. After thorough examinations of marine sediments collected from around the world, micropaleontologists now suspect these are just about all the free-floating forams that ever existed.
The species collection also is exceptionally well-preserved, which accounts largely for the excitement shared by Parker and Arnold. "Most fossils, particularly those of the vertebrates, are fragmented--just odds and ends," says Parker. "But these fossils are almost perfectly preserved, despite being millions of years old."
Where's the "poofed" life forms in that record - it covers over 66 million years, shows complete speciation event after speciation event after speciation event.
That means, we will find similarities of species/organisms in the same geological era as we are looking now in the so called Tree of Life. It should be called now, the Tree of Interrelation of Organisms.
Sadly for you genetics shows that your concept is codswallop. Preserved in DNA are small inserts caused by viral infections that have been deactivated by the surviving cells, these insertions are passed on to following generations because (a) they are there and (b) they do not affect survival, reproduction or development of the organisms. The is also absolutely no rational reason for exactly the same insertion of exactly the same kind of virus in exactly the same sequence from one individual to another, let alone from one species to another.
When these inserts are compared between the genomes of different species they show a tree of hereditary relationship that logically only comes via common descent from the individual with the original infection.
Fascinatingly this tree of relationship matches that previously derived from the homologies in the fossil record. Amazingly they even extend back to the original life forms, with the three major domains of life, archea, bacteria and eucharyota.
But the change is limited as I had stated above.
And we come back to the fact that what you have stated (a) has absolutely no effect on reality, and (b) is in fact contradicted by reality.
Scientists discard falsified concepts. You have several to send to the trash bin.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : more

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by interrelation, posted 07-22-2009 9:15 AM interrelation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by interrelation, posted 07-24-2009 10:47 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 75 of 160 (516045)
07-22-2009 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by interrelation
07-22-2009 1:22 PM


Logic Lessons
Well interrelation, you are just digging yourself in deeper and deeper.
I understand what scientific theory is. I also understand that TOE is scientific theory but TOE is incomplete theory. Therefore, it is incomplete scientific theory...that means wrong.
No, what makes a theory wrong is contradictory evidence, like the evidence of pelycodus and foraminifera (just for starters) that totally invalidate your concept.
Now you have shown that you don't understand natural selection, evolution, life, biology, science, the scientific process and logic.
What's next?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by interrelation, posted 07-22-2009 1:22 PM interrelation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by interrelation, posted 07-24-2009 11:01 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024