Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   About New Lamarckian Synthesis Theory
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 121 of 264 (676166)
10-20-2012 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Coyote
10-19-2012 11:21 PM


Re: Please explain
Sorry for not being able to be understood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Coyote, posted 10-19-2012 11:21 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Larni, posted 10-20-2012 5:28 AM zi ko has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
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 not replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 123 of 264 (676170)
10-20-2012 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Larni
10-20-2012 5:28 AM


Re: Please explain
Ha ha,ha. Rreally you think it is only that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Larni, posted 10-20-2012 5:28 AM Larni has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 124 of 264 (676171)
10-20-2012 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by zi ko
10-19-2012 9:58 PM


Hi Zi Ko,
Allow me to repeat myself word-for-word:
Evidence that mutations are random has been provided. You objected that evidence for randomness in mutations in unicellular organisms is not evidence for randomness in multicellular organisms, but now the onus for providing evidence is upon you because the replication mechanisms in the cells of both unicellular and multicellular organisms are pretty much the same.
You position makes little sense. To use an analogy, why would the sole photocopier of a small business be more likely to introduce random errors than a photocopier in a huge corporate headquarters where there are many other copiers?
So if you think the DNA copying process in a unicellular organisms can experience random errors while that in multicellular organisms cannot then you have to provide your evidence or at least a rationale. Taq is already asking you for this evidence, and I agree that you need to provide it.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by zi ko, posted 10-19-2012 9:58 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by zi ko, posted 10-20-2012 10:12 AM Admin has replied
 Message 174 by zi ko, posted 10-31-2012 12:26 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 264 (676172)
10-20-2012 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by zi ko
10-19-2012 10:57 PM


Re: Please explain
Nature does not prevent anything. What does not allow,
"Prevent" means the same thing as "does not allow", at least to the extend that "disallowing" requires that Nature prevent something.
Nature use them to show about the direction to next mutations.
You make statements like this, but then with a straight face claim not to be talking about nature as some sort of person or deity. How would Nature use something without being an entity capable of use?
Either there is a communication barrier here that you are unable to surmount, or your ideas make no sense.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
Well, you may still have time to register to vote. Even North Carolinians can still register for early voting. State Registration Deadlines

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by zi ko, posted 10-19-2012 10:57 PM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by zi ko, posted 10-20-2012 10:08 AM NoNukes has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 126 of 264 (676182)
10-20-2012 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by NoNukes
10-20-2012 8:30 AM


Re: Please explain
Prevent" means the same thing as "does not allow", at least to the extend that "disallowing" requires that Nature prevent something.
There is a fine differemce. "Prevent" something to happen.Here there is something had happened and nature does not allow it to get lost.
How would Nature use something without being an entity capable of use?
It is about the same as a microbe uses oxygen. Or C atoms use O to make CO2.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by NoNukes, posted 10-20-2012 8:30 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by NoNukes, posted 10-20-2012 5:15 PM zi ko has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 127 of 264 (676183)
10-20-2012 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Admin
10-20-2012 8:06 AM


you have to provide your evidence or at least a rationale.
I can provide only a rationale.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Admin, posted 10-20-2012 8:06 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Larni, posted 10-20-2012 3:08 PM zi ko has not replied
 Message 130 by Admin, posted 10-20-2012 5:28 PM zi ko has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
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 not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 264 (676229)
10-20-2012 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by zi ko
10-20-2012 10:08 AM


Re: Please explain
Or C atoms use O to make CO2.
We might make the statement above, but we would also recognize and accept that such statements are sloppy. If asked to explain we could talk about the chemistry and math involved between the bonding of carbon and oxygen atoms in such a way that we don't treat them as living beings. On the other hand microbes are living beings.
You admit that Nature is not a living being, so I am asking you to explain what "use" and "disallow" actually represent in non-anthropomorphic language. Can you do that?
"Prevent" something to happen.Here there is something had happened and nature does not allow it to get lost.
So how does nature 'prevent' it from getting lost? What role does economics and efficiency play in preventing it from getting lost?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
Well, you may still have time to register to vote. Even North Carolinians can still register for early voting. State Registration Deadlines

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by zi ko, posted 10-20-2012 10:08 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by zi ko, posted 10-21-2012 11:40 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 130 of 264 (676232)
10-20-2012 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by zi ko
10-20-2012 10:12 AM


Moderator Request
Hi Zi Ko,
I said that you have to provide your evidence or at least a rationale. That means you have to provide new evidence that makes your idea make sense, or you have to a rationale based on existing evidence. A rationale of "It's not impossible" is just an excuse to keep talking when you've got nothing. It's not based on any evidence.
Why don't you follow my suggestion from earlier in the thread and use the Time article to structure your arguments? It provided some pretty strong evidence and arguments, it was foolish to abandon it as quickly as you introduced it.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by zi ko, posted 10-20-2012 10:12 AM zi ko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by zi ko, posted 10-21-2012 1:49 AM Admin has replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 131 of 264 (676246)
10-21-2012 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Admin
10-20-2012 5:28 PM


Re: Moderator Request
Why don't you follow my suggestion from earlier in the thread and use the Time article to structure your arguments? It provided some pretty strong evidence and arguments, it was foolish to abandon it as quickly as you introduced it.
The Time article and many others of the kind had been shown on the OP. there was the legitimate argument by many, that though the inheritance of epigenetic changes for many generations is now wildly accepted, still there are not mutations that cause the epigenetic changes.So what can I offer in the discussion by repeating the same data and argunents?
...A rationale of "It's not impossible" is just an excuse to keep talking when you've got nothing. It's not based on any evidence.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Admin, posted 10-20-2012 5:28 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Larni, posted 10-21-2012 6:19 AM zi ko has replied
 Message 133 by Admin, posted 10-21-2012 8:03 AM zi ko has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
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 not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 133 of 264 (676255)
10-21-2012 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by zi ko
10-21-2012 1:49 AM


Re: Moderator Request
zi ko writes:
The Time article and many others of the kind had been shown on the OP. there was the legitimate argument by many, that though the inheritance of epigenetic changes for many generations is now wildly accepted, still there are not mutations that cause the epigenetic changes.So what can I offer in the discussion by repeating the same data and argunents?
I wasn't suggesting that you endlessly rehash the Time article. I was suggesting that you use it to structure your arguments. You first need a clearly worded central hypothesis for your ideas, such as:
"Epigenetic changes acquired during an organism's lifetime are heritable and therefore Lamarckian."
The Time article organized a set of well structured evidence and arguments around this hypothesis. By reminding people of these as context directs and by seeking out your own additional evidence and arguments, you should be able to eliminate the scatterbrained and scattershot qualities in your approach, and this should prove valuable in helping you advance your position.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

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 134 by zi ko, posted 10-21-2012 11:13 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 134 of 264 (676274)
10-21-2012 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Admin
10-21-2012 8:03 AM


Re: Moderator Request
You are right Percy. But I only wish to have an intelligent discussion here , not to convince anybody that i am right.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Admin, posted 10-21-2012 8:03 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
zi ko
Member (Idle past 3619 days)
Posts: 578
Joined: 01-18-2011


Message 135 of 264 (676275)
10-21-2012 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Larni
10-21-2012 6:19 AM


Re: Moderator Request
Most suppositions, as e.g random mutations in metazoa is, are unevidenced. You didn't bring a single evidence of your robust theory of evolution, concerning random mutations in metazoa, remember, in spite of 150 ys of intence research.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Larni, posted 10-21-2012 6:19 AM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Admin, posted 10-22-2012 9:01 AM zi ko 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