|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: About New Lamarckian Synthesis Theory | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
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 (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024