|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Forum: Darwnist Ideology | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
It may not be "nonexistant". I was looking at the recent NATURE mag DNA octahedra and can imagine a day when the lab meets this field of record. Of course you would have not a fourm but likely a whole webservice by then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: What kind of drivel is this, Syamsu? Of course a species can't evolve if they all die off. Is this supposed to falsify the ToE? The fact that scientists can say that a species did not have enough time to evolve to changing conditions speaks to their knowledge of natural selection, not the lack thereof. Extinction opens up new opportunities for other species, now that a niche is either gone or other species could not adapt to the changing conditions. Actually, the fact that scientists can say, with authority, that the species did not have time to adapt speaks AGAINST the hypermutation and hyperspeciation put forth by kind and ark supporters. Extinction actually speaks against some forms of creationism, but is well understood within evolutionary theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
But it's not really the point in science to describe in terms of theories that don't apply. When there is no natural selection, then the theory doesn't apply, as mostly it doesn't meaningfully apply with extinction, stasis etc. and the research in those areas is badly underdeveloped.
About 100 percent of organims that live and have ever lived aren't and won't be ancestors in any way to any new species, even assuming evolution theory is true. Of course the 100 percent is rounded of, but it's a very small number. You can look at a planet and confidently say the law of gravity applies to that planet, you can look at an organism and confidently say the theory of evolution doesn't apply to that organism, or the theory of origin of species through natural selection doesn't apply. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6476 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: How convenient...then I will assume you are simply a liar
quote: Easy enough..read any post by you in this or any other thread where you claim to provide an answer, data, or any kind of information as opposed to mere Syamsu says so assertions. Hypothesis that Syamsu is a liar confirmed.
quote: You must run along now and read "See Spot Run" in order to prepare yourself to read up on the ToE so that you stop making yourself look like a jackass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
I'm sure that eventually reliable quotes will turn up saying the field is underdeveloped, and then once again it's shown that it's just another case of you talking about you being the expert and the other person knowing nothing, as you always do, no matter what either you or the other person actually knows. Like with the book the selfish gene, where I was right about the content, and the other guy wrong, or about eugenics where you began to talk about the totally irrellevant vichy regime in France etc. etc.
regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
I am beginning to FINALLY read the OPERON book and seeing some history there it may be that S(syamsu) says so because he is USING (even if unawares) the difference of "instructive" modes of biology and what happened in biology after 'MONOD'. The issue for me IS the explanation of the 's" curve and I do not mean to spell for this guy but there is some bad marxist biology (that caused Haldane to NOT defend genetics much and Monod to rephrase his object from "adaptive enzyme" to "induced enzyme synthesis" that perhaps is what is operative for this poster. For my grandfather he had his own idea PRE-regulation or preemptor or termintor or ribsome arrest or 45BP per sec etc etc and it was only about stocihometry not structure except that which is not specious but of a species in kind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6476 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote:You sound like Nixon looking for the tapes...or all of those people who think Elvis is still alive. Since you admit you cannot produce the quotes yourself and still maintain that your arguments are based on fact (not what you wish will eventually turn up), I think I can conclude that you are a liar..and a pretty bad one at that. quote:...oh you mean that book you did not read (your own admission) and as a result ended up having your ass fed to you on a platter by mark24 and others because of your lame brained statements? quote: I am sure it will eventually turn out to be reliable when reliable quotes from the EvC turn up saying Syamsu is an ignoramus...ooops..looky here..they already exist (insert quote from any response from anyone in any thread where Syamsu has posted)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Yeah whatever. I just read Raup, of the dinosaur meteor theory, saying that the study of extinction was neglected. You have no clue.
Mark24 was wrong about what was in the book where I was right, he failed to notice that altruism was a limited exception according to Dawkins. I don't think Mark appreciates you bringing this up again and again. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5196 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Syamsu,
Mark24 was wrong about what was in the book where I was right, he failed to notice that altruism was a limited exception according to Dawkins. I don't think Mark appreciates you bringing this up again and again. Please reread the thread in question, I never said Dawkins claimed altruism was anything but an exception. I ASKED YOU TO SHOW THAT IT WAS! You didn't, so your arse was talking again. Right? Given your inability to read for context this error is hardly surprising. I do find it strange, however, that you thought catching me in a Dawkins related error was somehow a victory, but the X number of times you have been shown to know NOTHING about his writings isn't. A curious double standard. There are countless examples of your complete ignorance of the texts you are supposed to be familiar with, & nearly as many posts trying to get you to answer direct & relevant questions, so no, I don't mind Mammuthus reminding you about how your backside got handed to you on a platter again & again & again..... Mark [This message has been edited by mark24, 02-19-2004] "Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Natural selection shaped that organism before it went extinct, so up until the point the species went extinct natural selection did apply. Do you agree with this or not? How about an analogy, since you brought up gravity. If we launch a satellite and it escapes the pull of earth's gravity, can we say that earth's gravity never applied to that satellite? Of course not. Yes, there are dead ends in the tree of life, but that is missing the point of how we came to those dead ends. Could you please outline in what areas our understanding of extinction is underdeveloped. Could you give specific examples where we were surprised that extinction occurred, and were unable to explain it? I can't tell if you are saying that our inability to describe extinction is a refutation of the theory of evolution as a whole. Is this what you are getting at?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5873 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
If you're talking about Raup's popular press book Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck (WW Norton & Co, 1991), then you've completely missed the point of the whole book. Raup spends the bulk of the book discussing in very general terms what extinction is and what causes it. He then argues (very superficially IMO) against various theories (especially something of a strawman of Darwinian evolution ==> competition ==> extinction of the species that is less competitive), to finally argue in favor of his pet idea that species that go extinct are basically "unlucky". Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad theory - and is certainly not anti-ToE. On the contrary, although he tries (as usual with Raup) to make it sound like what he's writing is extraordinary in some way, his conclusions are pretty much mainstream evolutionary ecology (see especially his concluding chapter 11 "How to become extinct", ppg 181-193 in the 1992 paperback edition).
Extinction is a well-studied phenomenon. Causes may not be unequivocal, but the various ideas have at least some support. BTW: Raup isn't "of the dinosaur meteor theory". That would be Alvarez et al. In fact, Raup argues that meteors and other cataclysms are simply rare events that MAY mark the "first strike" (his term) that causes extinction in either widely distributed species OR cause cross-ecosystem collapse of numerous species. Again, he's arguing against a strawman of Darwinian selection. For some reason, he's gotten it into his head that Darwinian gradualism REQUIRES competition as the only means of species extinction. Which of course nobody but Raup apparently thinks is the case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6476 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
Hey Quetzal, don't cite chapters, page numbers and specific arguments..you will only confuse Syamsu since he believes reading a book is having walked by the bookstore once..maybe...or someone telling him they walked by a bookstore once.
Nice to see that mark24, Loudmouth and you further confirmed Sy's dishonesty and ignorance...though it a bit like shooting fish in a barrel.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5873 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Heh. Yeah, that was rather painfully obvious. The only way our Sy could have completely missed Raup's point was not to have read the book. Worse yet - I was actually really disappointed in the book and the way Raup cavalierly dismisses modern theories of extinction or hand waves away various bits of evidence supporting other theories (he HATES hyperdisease, btw ). Even for a popular press book, this one was pretty bad - superficial, obviously slanted, and presenting a straw man to make his theory look better. I honestly expected more from Raup. Maybe it was ghost-written?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
I see, so first you accuse me of quoting out of context for quoting that Dawkins says "we are born selfish" and that "altruism has to be learned" that genetic altruism is a limited special exception, and then you say that it's your personal theory that people aren't generally genetically selfish, that they are decisively genetically altruist through family kinselective genes. You confuse Dawkins opinion with your own.
I'm not wrong about Dawkins. I made a short criticism of it in terms of systemacy of knowledge, and although that criticism of mine may be shaky, it's the sort of investigation that is meaningful. (aside from criticizing it for it's ideological content). Nobody here who is supposedly always right about Dawkins, where I am supposedly always wrong and ignorant about Dawkins, knew how to answer that criticism of the selfish gene on points of systemacy of knowledge. The weakness of response surprised me, maybe I began to actually believe that people here actually think about what Dawkins wrote, like they imply they do. I must remind myself that the authorititive gibbering many people engage in here is mostly empty posing. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Which of Dawkins books have you read?
Didn't you already admit to having not read The Selfish Gene? If this is so, why on earth should we take anything you have to say about Dawkins as anything more meaningful than a cat walking across a keyboard?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024