|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: About New Lamarckian Synthesis Theory | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Sorry for not being able to be understood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
Ha ha,ha. Rreally you think it is only that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
you have to provide your evidence or at least a rationale.
I can provide only a rationale.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
You are right Percy. But I only wish to have an intelligent discussion here , not to convince anybody that i am right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zi ko Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 578 Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024