Evolution for Drummachine

It was just a theoretical point we were arguing, what makes the earth not collapse under the weight of turtles. By the same token you don't understand me you would also not understand Quetzal's point about the earth collapsing under the weight of turtles.The situation in Nature is not always that mice are in a box (have limited resources) I'm sure you've seen the pictures of mice rampaging in Australia (although it's arguable of course that is nature or artificial)regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

By the same token you don't understand me you would also not understand Quetzal's point about the earth collapsing under the weight of turtles.

---

Does this mean you aren't going to answer?And, frankly, it is you who do not understand. Quetzal and I are arguing the same point and in damn near the same way. Quetzal used a real world example with turtles. I used a thought experiment with mice. Same principle-- natural selection at work.

quote:

---

The situation in Nature is not always that mice are in a box (have limited resources)

---

The EARTH as a whole is pretty damned closed. Except for radiation from the Sun-- ie. energy-- ALL of the resources are limited.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Quetzal didn't use a real world example he used a theoretical example where the earth would collapse under the weight of turtles etc.The rest of your argument is ridiculous IMO, I won't take it seriously.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I only dropped it for you as it became readily apparent you were unable to grasp the concept.I have little interest in speaking to an alleged scientist or anybody else who cannot distinguish between nuclear physics, the electron microscope, and evolution.Sorry.But if you wish to demonstrate from the fossil record the alleged progression of trilobyte to man, I and others will take it under advisement.

I don't think anyone within science believes that the trilobite is a direct evolutionary ancestor to man.But I understand what you're saying. You're presenting the Creationist position that there are gaps in the fossil record for most evolutionary progressions, including for man, and further that the gaps are large enough to cast doubt upon evolutionary theory.If we keep a narrow focus and stay with just the fossil issue, what is your theoretical model for explaining the fossil progression of the geologic column?--Percy

quote:

---

Quetzal didn't use a real world example he used a theoretical example where the earth would collapse under the weight of turtles etc.

---

Take the blinders off, bud. Then there is a discussion of what OUGHT to happen by your over-run-the-earth logic.And then there is a return to the real world.

quote:

---

The rest of your argument is ridiculous IMO, I won't take it seriously.

---

So ridiculous you can't point out the errors in it? Very cowardly....------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Read the thread, you don't know what you're talking about.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

What can I do but wait for Quetzal to comment?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

I'd like to request of members that when they encouter another member who seems either unwilling or unable to either grasp or address your points that you simply stop exchanging messages with this member. I know its frustrating when what seems a simple point is misunderstood or ignored, but after a while it becomes clear that progress simply isn't possible.If anyone feels administrative intervention would be helpful in furthering the discussion then please let me know via email to Admin.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

That my argument is consistent with the Creationist position is a coincedence. I prefer to focus on whether ToE is persuasive on its own, regardless of an alternative theory.However, before I could even attempt to explain the alleged progression in the fossil record, I would first have to ask the question, "How did the fossils get there in the first place?"In other words, what is the theory of fossilization which can adequately explain the presence of billions of fossils lying dormant in the earth's crust, some coagulating together in enigmic graveyards? And is said theory consistent with the rate and known mechanisms of fossilization today?Your invitation to explain the alleged progression assumes evolution, and I'd rather not assume anything (much less progression, of which I am uncertain whether you mean a progresssion of complexity or size) at this time before the foundational questions are answered. And if they cannot be answered, I am comfortable saying "I don't know".

quote:

---

I only dropped it for you as it became readily apparent you were unable to grasp the concept.

---

Yeah, right, that's why you dropped it. Uh huh.Anyhow, back to my point, which I have cut n pasted here, since you don't seem to want to reply in the other thread. I's more appropriate for it to be over here anyway:"Your insistance that macroevolution be observed in a human's lifetime (it takes much longer than that) is a silly, artificial demand, as I have pointed out. You completely ignore the fossil record.We have never directly observed an electron in real time, we have only inferred it by the tracks it made.To remain consistent, you must deny that electrons exist because we have never observed it directly.If you disallow the argument for Biology that macroevolution takes longer than a human lifetime, so must you disallow the argument that we cannot directly observe electrons because the human eye cannot see things that small.Sorry, you aren't allowed to belive electrons exist."I'm not holding my breath that you are really even capable of answering this point with anything other than sarcastic bombast, but hey, far be it from me to not chase you around with it until you either answer it (not holding the breath again) or you run off again.Cheers!

Dear Schraf,Months ago you has the opinion that someone who is not in the field of evolutionism is not allowed to say something about evolutionism. Here you talk about evolution and physics as if you are the expert. What happened?Best wishes,

In stead of waiting for Quetzal who will never post in this thread again I'm sure, You can in stead develop your argument on your own, about the earth and sun being similar to a shoebox or whatever.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Oh good grief. I almost never post on weekends, as you well know, Syamasu. Whether I respond to you or not any further on your topic derailment is another issue.If anyone has any substantive discussion to bring out on the OP topic - especially Drum, for whom the thread was originated - now would be a good time to do so. We are definitely losing sight of what this thread was intended to be.

I don't think it's a derailment when I show your, Taz, Schrafinator, John and Mammuthus formulation of Natural Selection to be in error and/or a mess. You even bring up the archaic "struggle for existence" in your definition of Natural Selection.I would also like to know if Drum thinks it is misleading for you to solely talk about scenario's of limited resources for Natural Selection in your original post, and not mention scenario's of plenty resources for Natural Selection. I would like to know if Drum thought that Natural Selection only applied to scenario's of limited resources where only a (small) part of the population reproduces.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu