Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
53 online now:
(53 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,320 Year: 4,432/6,534 Month: 646/900 Week: 170/182 Day: 3/47 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   About New Lamarckian Synthesis Theory
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(2)
Message 10 of 264 (674621)
10-01-2012 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by zi ko
10-01-2012 7:11 AM


We know where this is going to end up, don't we? Every few years you start going on about how there is some guiding intelligence to evolution where cells have intelligence and I bet you are going to say that Lamarkian Evolution is is evidence of guided evolution.

Then after many, many pages you will admit that you have no evidence, but you are not a scientist and it is unfair of people to want you to provide evidence.

We've been here at least three times in the past and it's going to go the same way: again.

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by zi ko, posted 10-01-2012 7:11 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by zi ko, posted 10-01-2012 12:09 PM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 39 of 264 (674963)
10-04-2012 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by zi ko
10-01-2012 12:09 PM


You don't need to bother about my supposed(!) intentions. You just present the evidences of your beliefs if you can.

No. You started the thread, you pony up the evidence.

My prediction is that you will do what you always do and say:

'do you expect me, an non scientist provide the evidence?'

If I'm wrong I will buy you a bag of balloons.

ABE:

I will try by my poor knowledge of biology

See?

Edited by Larni, : The very next post.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by zi ko, posted 10-01-2012 12:09 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by zi ko, posted 10-04-2012 7:20 PM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 43 of 264 (675080)
10-05-2012 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by zi ko
10-04-2012 7:20 PM


Oh for fuck sake.

Yet again you refuse to post any evidence (as I predicted).

I've said this before: you are taking the position of a fuckwit.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by zi ko, posted 10-04-2012 7:20 PM zi ko has taken no action

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 73 of 264 (675618)
10-13-2012 10:13 AM


I haven't read any of this thread since my last post but I bet Zi has ponied up exactly no evidence.

That's what happens when people aren't willing to do a simple lit review.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 78 of 264 (675653)
10-14-2012 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by zi ko
10-14-2012 6:00 AM


In the OP Iset the matters iwould like to discuss. Not the new Lamarckian Synthesis Theory.

So in thread called 'About the New Lemarkian Synthesis' you don't want the to talk about the 'New Lemarkian Synthesis'?

Priceless.

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by zi ko, posted 10-14-2012 6:00 AM zi ko has taken no action

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 91 of 264 (675985)
10-18-2012 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by zi ko
10-17-2012 8:27 AM


You are falling back to you original idea that there is intelligence or what you erroneously called empathy at work in directing evolution. Again.

You have have already admitted that you don't have any evidential support for this: it is just an idea you have had.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by zi ko, posted 10-17-2012 8:27 AM zi ko has taken no action

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 102 of 264 (676083)
10-19-2012 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by zi ko
10-19-2012 12:49 AM


Almost nil, as it is the evidence for random muations, to be fair.

Two points here:

1: You admit (again) to not having any evidence.

2: You ignore (again) the evidence of mutations (positive, neutral and negative with respect to fitness) being RANDOM!


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by zi ko, posted 10-19-2012 12:49 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by zi ko, posted 10-19-2012 9:21 AM Larni has taken no action

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 122 of 264 (676167)
10-20-2012 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by zi ko
10-20-2012 5:05 AM


Re: Please explain
I think the reason that you cannot make yourself understood is the words that you use do not have the meanings that you think they do and the evidence you relly on is not very convincing.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by zi ko, posted 10-20-2012 5:05 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by zi ko, posted 10-20-2012 6:20 AM Larni has taken no action

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 128 of 264 (676223)
10-20-2012 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by zi ko
10-20-2012 10:12 AM


You have not provided a rationale.

What you have provided is an idea that you cleave to. You like this idea: the same as you like the idea that empathy is part of a directive power in evolution.

The fact that you like it does not make it real. Evidence makes it real. You don't have any evidence. You have an unsupported belief.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Go to school.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by zi ko, posted 10-20-2012 10:12 AM zi ko has taken no action

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 132 of 264 (676253)
10-21-2012 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by zi ko
10-21-2012 1:49 AM


Re: Moderator Request
My idea that long standing epigenetic changes( for maybe thousand of ys) may pave the appearance of environmentally guided muations, is surely a heretical one, beyond the limits of current knowledge. But is this a lonely phenomenon in the history of science, in the face that there is not any evidence against it, as not work had been done on this particular issue? So many such suppositions are wildly discussed even on this forum.

It is not heretical. It is unevidenced.

You talk about environmentally 'guided' mutations. But the current theory that random mutations are taking place and the useful mutations are selected by the environment and conserved in the population seems very robust.

Unable as you are to point to a guiding force (you have tried intelligence and empathy in the past) what compelling reason is there to toss out our current understanding in favour I your current pet theory?

Imagine me leaning forwards in my chair, chin propped up in one hand, frowning slightly (but listening intently).


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by zi ko, posted 10-21-2012 1:49 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by zi ko, posted 10-21-2012 11:21 AM Larni has taken no action

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(2)
Message 140 of 264 (676362)
10-22-2012 12:47 PM


If all the participants and lurkers could find their way to my first post in this thread I will humbly claim victory.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by nwr, posted 10-22-2012 1:23 PM Larni has taken no action

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 170 of 264 (677021)
10-26-2012 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by zi ko
10-26-2012 9:47 AM


Re: Please explain
Did you understand herebedragons' question?

You need to establish (rather than assume) the 3 points.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by zi ko, posted 10-26-2012 9:47 AM zi ko has taken no action

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 182 of 264 (677946)
11-03-2012 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by zi ko
11-02-2012 10:59 PM


I bet you can't show why it is a mistake.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by zi ko, posted 11-02-2012 10:59 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by zi ko, posted 11-03-2012 8:35 PM Larni has replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 187 of 264 (678030)
11-04-2012 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by zi ko
11-03-2012 8:35 PM


Re: An obvious mistake.
You still think empathy guides evolution, don't you? After all these years you haven't given up on it, have you?

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

Edited by Larni, : I missed some punctuation.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by zi ko, posted 11-03-2012 8:35 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by zi ko, posted 11-04-2012 9:14 PM Larni has taken no action

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 207 of 264 (678343)
11-07-2012 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by zi ko
11-07-2012 6:55 AM


Re: The ubsurdity of "classic" elolution Theory.
What you appear to be saying is that you don't understand 'x' and maybe 'y' is explainition.

Just because you don't understand 'x' does not mandate that 'y' is true. It could be true but one can only judge based on the evidence.

Do you see, now?

Edited by Larni, : No reason given.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by zi ko, posted 11-07-2012 6:55 AM zi ko has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022