Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New name for evolution, "The Bacteria Diet"
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 1 of 77 (578023)
08-31-2010 2:26 PM


I have been thinking that the name Darwinian evolution is kind of outdated, and doesn't really do your theory justice. I think it is not really specific and accurate enough to encompass all of the aspects of the theory.
So I propose a new name, "The Bacteria Diet Theory".
Basically what is says is that the only evidence anyone can ever come up with since the beginning of time, for the supposed random mutations and natural selection of evolution, that they think shows how all of life on the planet, every system, every thought, ever animal trait and behavior, and every complex, interrelated detail of existence, is the changing diets of some bacteria.
That's it. Its not fancy, but its accurate and to the point.
If there are other evidences, we can consider amending the name in the future, but I think it is where we are at now, so let's go with it.
New names, with supporting evidence for the name of course, are welcome for review.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Granny Magda, posted 09-01-2010 11:35 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-01-2010 12:26 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 8 by hooah212002, posted 09-01-2010 12:30 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 10 by Blue Jay, posted 09-01-2010 1:18 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2010 5:46 PM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 16 by onifre, posted 09-01-2010 6:22 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 47 by Straggler, posted 09-02-2010 1:28 PM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 54 by barbara, posted 09-03-2010 7:26 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 4 of 77 (578300)
09-01-2010 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
09-01-2010 10:48 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Well, it won't be surprising if there is not much for people to say here. There are not going to be many possibilities for adding to the "bevy" of data to support the ToE that goes beyond bacteria's appetite.
Isn't it truly amazing that the whole world has been sold this bill of goods, all based on only this. You can fool most of the people, some of the time...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 09-01-2010 10:48 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Coyote, posted 09-01-2010 11:51 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 6 by Wounded King, posted 09-01-2010 11:55 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 9 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-01-2010 12:47 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 11 by Omnivorous, posted 09-01-2010 1:27 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 17 of 77 (578495)
09-01-2010 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Granny Magda
09-01-2010 11:35 AM


Re: "Fossil"
Fossils can tell you that RM and NS took place? Talk about a canard.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Granny Magda, posted 09-01-2010 11:35 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Granny Magda, posted 09-02-2010 8:11 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 30 by Taq, posted 09-02-2010 12:08 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 18 of 77 (578504)
09-01-2010 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Wounded King
09-01-2010 11:55 AM


Re: Why on Earth was this Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Of all the people who post here WK, if you really study biology like you claim you do, you should never beter than to just throw your hands up in the air, and say, well we have it mostly figured out already, so what is there to argue.
So now you seem to want to say that there is tons of evidence that doesn't involve the simplistic biology mutations which do nothing to form new structures, and then you just back away and basically say...its out there.
Well, the truth is, what's actually out there, when you see the studies of developmental biology is not the gradual, RM, NS construction of animal development, instead what we are seeing more and more, is the evo-devo style of large scale changes, being "switched" on by animals to self-style their own needs. You know this perfectly well, and I am sure this is why you keep wanting to bring up the "other mechanisms" argument for biology-within being willing to pin down what you mean. Because you know this presents a huge problem for Darwinian biology. If organisms have switches that control large scale areas of their development, who decides which switches get used. And where did the switches come from to begin with? Don't just tell me the evidence is "out there" that is a weak, defenseless ploy of surrender.
If you think this topic is too weak to be promoted, what do you think about people saying fossils are the evidence for RM/NS? What do you think of the lack of ONE concrete example in this thread so far of a non-bacterial example of anything? What do you think of people sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "we are right" so we don't care about evidence. If anything is fucking stupid, its that people want to accept this theory so badly, that they will accept that anything proves their theory true, including that fossils are the proof of the mechanisms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Wounded King, posted 09-01-2010 11:55 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Nij, posted 09-02-2010 12:24 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 26 by caffeine, posted 09-02-2010 6:14 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 27 by Wounded King, posted 09-02-2010 7:59 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 21 of 77 (578573)
09-02-2010 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by crashfrog
09-01-2010 5:46 PM


Let's just say, for argument sake, that no one was quibbling with a RM/NS pathway for bacteria to exploit new energy sources (mind you there are also reasons to quibble with this, because of the evidence which suggests adaptive pathways for these mutations-but ignore that for now). I would say, well, does that explain everything?
Of course it doesn't. None of these types of simple mutations are creating any new kinds of potential structures. And even calling natural selection in bacteria the same thing as natural selection in reproductive choice situations faced by sexual creatures is unscientific. Bacteria simply divide. There are a thousand different reasons for the reproductive success of species which are competing in a eat, be eaten, be noticed, be handsome, be strong competitive scenario of Darwin's natural selection. There are no choices being made for who "get's the girl" like there are in the rest of the species reproducing world. Why should we draw conclusions from one world to the other as if they are the same thing? They aren't the same at all.
So this type of reasoning applied to the RM-NS tag team is illogical on the face of it. You have no evidence for it in nature so why claim you have. I think any of branch of science would be insulted at such a lack of standards by which it jumps to such conclusions.
And thus, we are back to saying all we have for ToE to grab its evidential dentures on is bacteria diet- no comparison at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 09-01-2010 5:46 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2010 1:44 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 53 by bluegenes, posted 09-02-2010 4:24 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 23 of 77 (578604)
09-02-2010 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by crashfrog
09-02-2010 1:44 AM


Since I already knew you had absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the claims Darwinian evolution makes (crashfrog says so is not evidence, remember?), it was hardly necessary for you to waste four paragraphs claiming you can provide "abundance of evidence" proceeded by none.
I already knew you had none, thus the reason for this thread you see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2010 1:44 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Taq, posted 09-02-2010 12:12 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 24 of 77 (578610)
09-02-2010 5:06 AM


But here is the really intriguing part.
Its like, yea, now I know you have all this "abundance of evidence. Because its like crashfrog has said so. Plus I know that Wounded King has also claimed that there is so much evidence that's its a complete canard to start a thread or even suggest otherwise. plus Granny will tell you that its all in a book, if you just read it in English or whatever language she uses, and Percy has said that they are just waiting for someone to ask what specific evidence you want, and they will be happy to provide it, and Dr. A has also made it clear that the evidence is everywhere, but he just won't provide it because us fools can't understand it, and then there's NIj and Coyote and Subbie, and they have made it clear that the evidence is so overwhelming as to create an impenetrable wall of knowledge...so what they are all saying is they are just waiting for the one opportunity for someone to simply ask them, and they just can't wait, they are dying to reveal it, if only someone, anyone would just ask!
So now I am thinking, maybe they are waiting for someone to pay them? Or perhaps its a secret club, and you have to join and go through hazing first? I mean, I know there are all of these fence sitters out there that they are desperate to convince of the voracity of their bullet-proof theory, but perhaps their bond to their secret fraternity of the Order of The Darwinian Evidence Brotherhood is so strong, that even though they really really want to convince the fence sitters to join their common cause of spreading atheism throughout the world, their loyalty to the Brotherhood prevents them.
Unless you pay the monthly dues, maybe.
Of for the love of the right person asking....boy we wish we could share.

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2010 11:17 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 32 of 77 (578719)
09-02-2010 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by crashfrog
09-02-2010 11:17 AM


Well let's take a closer look:
I know you've seen 29+ evidences for Macroevolution
Nope, supposed evidence for macro-evolution is NOT evidence for mechanisms. I will give you a hint how you can know this. Read the article! "Common Descent Can Be Tested Independently of Mechanistic Theories " The fact that the article itself tells you it is about evolution independent of the mechanisms involved in creating that evolution should give you some clue that it is NOT evidence about the mechanisms involved.
In simpler math terms you may understand: Not about the mechanisms=Not about the mechanisms.
Beneficial Mutations
Hmm, what does this link take us to? An evolution page attempting to answer the question, quote "Are Mutations Harmful", which then goes on to talk about sickle cell resistance, and nylon eating bacteria, and lactose tolerance in bacteria. Sound familiar? Ok, no credit given. Stick with Bacteria Diet Theory.
I know you've seen bacterial evidence of complexity-increasing mutations because I showed it to you
Whoops, we are still on the Bacteria Diet. Perhaps you mistyped.
I know you've seen evidence of common descent by modification in this thread,...
Quck IQ test: Is evidence for common descent evidence for
A. common descent
B. aliens from space
C. random mutations and natural selection
D. crashfrog not being very clever
Ok, I confess, its a trick question, there is only one wrong answer, C. I thought if I gave you more options it might help.
You just have to open the books and read them...
Don't you think it would be more fair if I have to open the books and read them, you also should have to read them?
Now, about the new name change for evolution, The Bacteria Diet, since there appears to be no objections, are we all in agreement now?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2010 11:17 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2010 12:28 PM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 34 of 77 (578722)
09-02-2010 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Taq
09-01-2010 3:39 PM


I appreciate very much that you would like the data to be about Rm mutations and natural selection, but unfortunately instead of talking about what you would like the data to be about, I am forced to talk about what the data actually is talking about-which is about constructing phylogenies from retroviruses.
Yea, sure, in an ideal world, collecting data about phylogenies through retroviruses would be exactly the same thing as demonstrating the mechanisms for evolutionary change through natural selection, or in an even more ideal world it would be exactly the same thing as winning the power-ball lottery twice in one day, or in an even more ideal world it would be exactly the same thing as having sex with Paris Hilton on a cocaine fueled all night binge, while finding out that you just won two power-ball lotteries while Nicole Richie is filming it all from on top of the headboard-but alas we live in a compromised world-where we have to just stick with boring reality shows.
But I am with you, I just wish...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Taq, posted 09-01-2010 3:39 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2010 12:37 PM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 37 by Taq, posted 09-02-2010 12:47 PM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 36 of 77 (578725)
09-02-2010 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by crashfrog
09-02-2010 12:28 PM


I know I know I know crash, I feel your pain. I keep putting this burden on you to provide evidence for something other than bacteria changing its diet, and its just not fair, because well, its hard work.
And then I make it even more difficult for you by insisting that evidence for common descent is not evidence for mechanisms. Its so unfair. I mean why shouldn't you be allowed to just draw unrelated conclusions without being called on it all the time. If you see a baseball, why shouldn't you be able to just say, that it evolved from a ping pong ball, without having to show how! God, I hate all these fussy rules! They are both balls, can't you see that plain as day!! Of course they came about through mutations! You are so stubborn.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2010 12:28 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2010 12:56 PM Bolder-dash has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 39 of 77 (578730)
09-02-2010 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by crashfrog
09-02-2010 12:37 PM


Do both bacteria and otters crack open seashells with rocks?
Do both bacteria and humans know how to throw a frisbee?
Do bacteria and bartenders make good listeners for drunks at 2 a.m.?
Do bacteria and Tyra Banks have the same ideas about the best angle to tilt your chin for dramatic effect?
Please answer these questions honestly so we can make sure we can draw the same conclusions for both of them.
I know, I know, its the same thing!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2010 12:37 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2010 12:57 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 45 by Granny Magda, posted 09-02-2010 1:02 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 40 of 77 (578731)
09-02-2010 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Taq
09-02-2010 12:48 PM


Chimps rarely, if ever, tip the cart girl after buying beers during a round of golf.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Taq, posted 09-02-2010 12:48 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 12:58 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 49 by Taq, posted 09-02-2010 1:40 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 43 of 77 (578734)
09-02-2010 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Bolder-dash
09-02-2010 12:55 PM


Ok, I admit that is not a very good criticism of chimps, because in fairness, their pants usually don't have pockets to carry extra change around. Plus they would probably get the percentages wrong anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-02-2010 12:55 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 44 of 77 (578735)
09-02-2010 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by crashfrog
09-02-2010 12:56 PM


Why? Bacteria are a perfectly appropriate model organism for demonstrating random mutation and natural selection.
Yes! We can finally agree. The Bacteria Diet it is!! The bacteria proves it, that's why chimps and crashfrog don't have pockets!! Who needs more proof.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2010 12:56 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 09-02-2010 3:18 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3629 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 46 of 77 (578740)
09-02-2010 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Taq
09-02-2010 12:47 PM


Taq, there is big difference, a huge difference a cavernous difference between saying that we can look at retro-viruses to see that over time random mutations have occurred to some bits of DNA, and saying that those RM actually formed the structure of anything. Nevermind even attempting to throw NS into the mix.
Who was making the argument that Rm never happened? Certainly not I.
If science was really this loose in drawing correlations, we would still be blaming the moon for the irritating effects of Celine Dion music.
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Taq, posted 09-02-2010 12:47 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Taq, posted 09-02-2010 1:39 PM Bolder-dash has 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