rejoinder questions to break down Darwinism
Nando Ronteltap
Why do you require that the organisms share an environment when
obviously a difference between the organisms can make them inhabit a
different environment?
Why does your theory stop and start to apply at the apparition and
extinction of an alternative characteristic? Gravity theory doesn't
stop and start to apply like that.
Why doesn't Natural Selection much apply when the comet impacted the
earth, eventhough it produced massive change? Isn't your theory much
useless then?
Why can't you apply Natural Selection to a single unit of selection?
But nature is not red in tooth and claw really, nature is wet in penis
and vagina, right?
Why do you talk about the purpose of organisms, and the reason why
organisms exist? Don't you know science can't answer why questions,
just how questions?
Isn't everything in nature covered already with reproductive theory,
the theory that describes organisms in terms of their chance of future
reproduction?
What happens to the chances of reproduction during mating-season?
Nando
Boikat
Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>
> What do the things you differentiate have to do with each other?
They effect an organisms chances of survival and
chance at reproduction.
>
> Why do you require that the organisms share an environment when
> obviously a difference between the organisms can make them inhabit a
> different environment?
Because they just happen to occupy the same
environment. It's not a "requirement", its just
the way it happens.
>
> Why does your theory stop and start to apply at the apparition and
> extinction of an alternative characteristic? Gravity theory doesn't
> stop and start to apply like that.
Neither does evolution.
>
> Why doesn't Natural Selection much apply when the comet impacted the
> earth, eventhough it produced massive change? Isn't your theory much
> useless then?
>
Anything that changes the environment applies.
Your are attempting to confuse the "cause" of a
change in the environment with "a change in the
environment". NS predicts that as an environment
changes, species that inhabit that environment
will adapt through selective pressure to the
environment (Or yes, possible go extinct), but
does not address *the cause* of the change in the
environment.
> Why can't you apply Natural Selection to a single unit of selection?
>
Define a "single unit".
> But nature is not red in tooth and claw really, nature is wet in penis
> and vagina, right?
>
Does that turn you on, or something, or is this
another appeal to emotionalism?
> Why do you talk about the purpose of organisms, and the reason why
> organisms exist?
To confuse ignorant creationists into thinking
there is a "higher purpose".
> Don't you know science can't answer why questions,
> just how questions?
>
Because there is no "why".
> Isn't everything in nature covered already with reproductive theory,
> the theory that describes organisms in terms of their chance of future
> reproduction?
Something like "Natural Selection"?
>
> What happens to the chances of reproduction during mating-season?
The odds do not change, however, for species that
have "mating seasons", that is the time that an
organism is most likely to mate. The question
makes as much sense as asking if the odds of
getting heads or tails changes if you flip a coin
any time you want, or if you can only flip your
coin between the hours of 12 noon and 1 PM.
Boikat
Nando Ronteltap
>re title; In your dreams!
Actually all people outside of this forum I talk about it with, do not
accept a theory that stops and starts to apply, like natural selection
theory does.
>Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>>
>> What do the things you differentiate have to do with each other?
>
>They effect an organisms chances of survival and
>chance at reproduction.
What do the things you differentiate have to do with *each other*?
Do they effect each others chances of survival and chance at
reproduction?
>> Why do you require that the organisms share an environment when
>> obviously a difference between the organisms can make them inhabit a
>> different environment?
>
>Because they just happen to occupy the same
>environment. It's not a "requirement", its just
>the way it happens.
Hehehe, the innocent Darwinist.
Since you don't require them to be in the same environment, it follows
you can call something natural selection when organisms are in
completely separate environments. Of course, it just so happens that
Darwinists require them to be in the same envrionment to call the
event Natural Selection.
>> Why does your theory stop and start to apply at the apparition and
>> extinction of an alternative characteristic? Gravity theory doesn't
>> stop and start to apply like that.
>
>Neither does evolution.
Why does your theory of Natural Selection stop and start to apply?
>> Why doesn't Natural Selection much apply when the comet impacted the
>> earth, eventhough it produced massive change? Isn't your theory much
>> useless then?
>>
>Anything that changes the environment applies.
>Your are attempting to confuse the "cause" of a
>change in the environment with "a change in the
>environment". NS predicts that as an environment
>changes, species that inhabit that environment
>will adapt through selective pressure to the
>environment (Or yes, possible go extinct), but
>does not address *the cause* of the change in the
>environment.
Actually, Natural Selection doesn't deal with changes in the
environment that don't play on alternative phenotypes. A comet
impacts, and Darwinists don't see much of anything of interest to them
happening.
>> Why can't you apply Natural Selection to a single unit of selection?
>>
>
>Define a "single unit".
An organism, trait, breedingpair, population, or gene.
Just like Noah, a Darwinist needs two of everything.
So if it is an organism that is the unit, then you need 2 different
organisms, and if it's the trait, then you need 2 different traits
etc.
>> But nature is not red in tooth and claw really, nature is wet in penis
>> and vagina, right?
>>
>Does that turn you on, or something, or is this
>another appeal to emotionalism?
It's an appeal to lift out reproduction as defining of nature, in
stead of lifting out killing each other as defining of nature, like
Darwinists usualy do.
>> Why do you talk about the purpose of organisms, and the reason why
>> organisms exist?
>
>To confuse ignorant creationists into thinking
>there is a "higher purpose".
A Darwinist believes that his or her purpose, the reason why he or she
exist, is to put as many of their genes into the future generation as
possible. On any multiple choice test when asked a Darwinist will give
this answer about their purpose, and they will fail the course if they
don't.
>> Don't you know science can't answer why questions,
>> just how questions?
>>
>
>Because there is no "why".
I guess I should complement you in rejecting that bit of Darwinism
then.
>> Isn't everything in nature covered already with reproductive theory,
>> the theory that describes organisms in terms of their chance of future
>> reproduction?
>
>Something like "Natural Selection"?
Well, it has been rejected by learned Darwinists as much useless.
>> What happens to the chances of reproduction during mating-season?
>
>The odds do not change,
How undynamic.
> however, for species that
>have "mating seasons", that is the time that an
>organism is most likely to mate. The question
>makes as much sense as asking if the odds of
>getting heads or tails changes if you flip a coin
>any time you want, or if you can only flip your
>coin between the hours of 12 noon and 1 PM.
I would guess the odds of heads or tails wildly fluctuates when the
coin hits the ground, and similarly I believe the odds of reproduction
fluctuates much during mating season.
Nando
Termite of Temptation
> organisms exist? Don't you know science can't answer why questions,
> just how questions?
That's simply untrue. When we talk about the "purpose" of an organism, we
mean "the reason why it still exists", not "the motivation for that
organism".
Scientific Q : Why do rocks fall to the ground?
Scientific A : Because of gravity.
Perfectly simple.
Many people claim that science cannot answer "why are we here" and similar
questions, but the problem with asking such questions is that the answerer
ASSUMES that an answer exists. There might not be a "reason" for our
existence in the sense that you mean it, except that our ancestors were
better at survival and reproduction than their competitors.
This emotional appeal to our sense of importance and place in the universe
is part of most religions, and they make up nice answers to make everyone
feel better. I'm sure you have a great one. What has that got to do with
truth?
Duncan
--
If you refuse to sin, aren't you making a mockery of the crucifixion?
Boikat
>
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >re title; In your dreams!
>
> Actually all people outside of this forum I talk about it with, do not
> accept a theory that stops and starts to apply, like natural selection
> theory does.
Then their understanding of science is a low as
yours, on several counts.
>
> >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
> >>
> >> What do the things you differentiate have to do with each other?
> >
> >They effect an organisms chances of survival and
> >chance at reproduction.
>
> What do the things you differentiate have to do with *each other*?
They effect an organisms chances of survival and
chance at reproduction. I'm sorry if that is not
the answer you want to here.
>
> Do they effect each others chances of survival and chance at
> reproduction?
It's possible.
>
> >> Why do you require that the organisms share an environment when
> >> obviously a difference between the organisms can make them inhabit a
> >> different environment?
> >
> >Because they just happen to occupy the same
> >environment. It's not a "requirement", its just
> >the way it happens.
>
> Hehehe, the innocent Darwinist.
Hyuck hyuck, the ignorant creationist.
>
> Since you don't require them to be in the same environment, it follows
> you can call something natural selection when organisms are in
> completely separate environments. Of course, it just so happens that
> Darwinists require them to be in the same envrionment to call the
> event Natural Selection.
No, just for natural selection in that portion of
the population in the same environment. There is
not natural selection going on in two separate
environments *between those two separate
populations*, however, (within the separate
populations, NS is occurring.
>
> >> Why does your theory stop and start to apply at the apparition and
> >> extinction of an alternative characteristic? Gravity theory doesn't
> >> stop and start to apply like that.
> >
> >Neither does evolution.
>
> Why does your theory of Natural Selection stop and start to apply?
It doesn't.
>
> >> Why doesn't Natural Selection much apply when the comet impacted the
> >> earth, eventhough it produced massive change? Isn't your theory much
> >> useless then?
> >>
> >Anything that changes the environment applies.
> >Your are attempting to confuse the "cause" of a
> >change in the environment with "a change in the
> >environment". NS predicts that as an environment
> >changes, species that inhabit that environment
> >will adapt through selective pressure to the
> >environment (Or yes, possible go extinct), but
> >does not address *the cause* of the change in the
> >environment.
>
> Actually, Natural Selection doesn't deal with changes in the
> environment that don't play on alternative phenotypes.
Then it's irrelevant to NS, isn't it?
> A comet
> impacts, and Darwinists don't see much of anything of interest to them
> happening.
Your are really ignorant if you think that.
>
> >> Why can't you apply Natural Selection to a single unit of selection?
> >>
> >
> >Define a "single unit".
>
> An organism, trait, breedingpair, population, or gene.
In what context?
>
> Just like Noah, a Darwinist needs two of everything.
I don't need two paramecium.
>
> So if it is an organism that is the unit, then you need 2 different
> organisms, and if it's the trait, then you need 2 different traits
> etc.
Do you have a point?
>
> >> But nature is not red in tooth and claw really, nature is wet in penis
> >> and vagina, right?
> >>
> >Does that turn you on, or something, or is this
> >another appeal to emotionalism?
>
> It's an appeal to lift out reproduction as defining of nature, in
> stead of lifting out killing each other as defining of nature, like
> Darwinists usualy do.
NS deals both with "red in tooth and claws", and
with 'penis and vagina".
>
> >> Why do you talk about the purpose of organisms, and the reason why
> >> organisms exist?
> >
> >To confuse ignorant creationists into thinking
> >there is a "higher purpose".
>
> A Darwinist believes that his or her purpose, the reason why he or she
> exist, is to put as many of their genes into the future generation as
> possible.
No, "Darwinists" believe their 'purpose" is to
show how ignorant creationists are.
> On any multiple choice test when asked a Darwinist will give
> this answer about their purpose, and they will fail the course if they
> don't.
Depends upon the other choices on the test.
>
> >> Don't you know science can't answer why questions,
> >> just how questions?
> >>
> >
> >Because there is no "why".
>
> I guess I should complement you in rejecting that bit of Darwinism
> then.
There is no "why" in your attempted "higher
reasoning" or "grand plan" context.
>
> >> Isn't everything in nature covered already with reproductive theory,
> >> the theory that describes organisms in terms of their chance of future
> >> reproduction?
> >
> >Something like "Natural Selection"?
>
> Well, it has been rejected by learned Darwinists as much useless.
Name one.
>
> >> What happens to the chances of reproduction during mating-season?
> >
> >The odds do not change,
>
> How undynamic.
Was the answer too complex for you to understand?
>
> > however, for species that
> >have "mating seasons", that is the time that an
> >organism is most likely to mate. The question
> >makes as much sense as asking if the odds of
> >getting heads or tails changes if you flip a coin
> >any time you want, or if you can only flip your
> >coin between the hours of 12 noon and 1 PM.
>
> I would guess the odds of heads or tails wildly fluctuates when the
> coin hits the ground, and similarly I believe the odds of reproduction
> fluctuates much during mating season.
Does it make a difference to the odds of heads or
tails if you flip a coin any time you want, or
only between the hours of 12 noon and 1 PM? Yes,
or no? Or is the question too hard for you to
answer?
>
> Nando
Nando Ronteltap
>> Why do you talk about the purpose of organisms, and the reason why
>> organisms exist? Don't you know science can't answer why questions,
>> just how questions?
>
>That's simply untrue. When we talk about the "purpose" of an organism,
Darwinists do talk about the purpose of an organism, as can be
factually demonstrated.
Nando
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>re title; In your dreams!
>
>Actually all people outside of this forum I talk about it with, do not
>accept a theory that stops and starts to apply, like natural selection
>theory does.
gee kinda makes you wonder about creationism which applied only in the
past and is never seen today...anywhere. creationists themselves admit
evolution happens today. they dont say creation is taking place
ANYWHERE.
>
Adam Marczyk
news:a5umhtko7pd9j5fdr...@4ax.com...
> What do the things you differentiate have to do with each other?
>
> Why do you require that the organisms share an environment when
> obviously a difference between the organisms can make them inhabit a
> different environment?
>
> Why does your theory stop and start to apply at the apparition and
> extinction of an alternative characteristic? Gravity theory doesn't
> stop and start to apply like that.
Of course it does. Gravitational theory starts to apply when you get near
the gravity well of a massive body and stops applying when you move away
from it.
[snip]
--
And I want to conquer the world,
give all the idiots a brand new religion,
put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
promote equality in all of my decisions...
--Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
Nando Ronteltap
>Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:a5umhtko7pd9j5fdr...@4ax.com...
>> What do the things you differentiate have to do with each other?
>>
>> Why do you require that the organisms share an environment when
>> obviously a difference between the organisms can make them inhabit a
>> different environment?
>>
>> Why does your theory stop and start to apply at the apparition and
>> extinction of an alternative characteristic? Gravity theory doesn't
>> stop and start to apply like that.
>
>Of course it does. Gravitational theory starts to apply when you get near
>the gravity well of a massive body and stops applying when you move away
>from it.
Not actually true. There is gravity even in the absence of other
bodies. There is no natural selection in the absence of an alternative
phenotype.
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
>Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>> What do the things you differentiate have to do with *each other*?
>
>They effect an organisms chances of survival and
>chance at reproduction. I'm sorry if that is not
>the answer you want to here.
It's not an answer to the question. It's avoiding the "each other"
part in the question.
Nando
Dave Horn
"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8igiht06if4qlf8j3...@4ax.com...
>
> "Termite of Temptation" <n...@telling.com> wrote:
>
> >"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:m28ihtg3kr7iu766h...@4ax.com...
>
> >> "Dave Horn" <dave...@ns.home.com> wrote:
>
> >> >I think Nando is a closet anti-semite.
> >>
> >> Dave Horn is a Darwinist. I'm not an anti-semite,
> >> Dave Horn is just lying, as should be obvious.
> >
> >That's not really obvious at all. I'm more inclined to
> >side with Dave on this, having seen your earlier posts.
>
> When Dave says closet, it obviously means he has no
> evidence.
Nando has tried to decide the arguments of others in the past and he does so
here. He cannot make his points unless he can obfuscate and evade as he
does above. "Closet" does *not* mean that there is no evidence. While I
accept that the evidence is not all that compelling, there is still
evidence; and it's evidence that Nando is still avoiding.
> As with saying that you are "more inclined to side with
> Dave", means you don't have any evidence either.
And, of course, now Nando must decide whether the Termite has evidence,
either.
> You are just lying scumbags, and Darwinists.
I have challenged Nando already and more than once to demonstrate exactly
what the lies are supposed to be and he has failed to do so. Nando is left
with his virtiolic juvenile ranting. But this won't be settled with that.
Nando said that his readings of the Bible left him with the "quite normal
thoughts" that Jews are bad. When I had to point this out again recently in
an attempt to get Nando to explain, he said that I was lying. But I
provided his exact words (which he not only did not deny, but to which he
responded - even if he did not explain), demonstrating that there was no
lie. I challenged Nando to explain the lie and he ran from the discussion.
Now he's returned, trying to evade his previous claims by starting new (and
no doubt no-less-ignorant) threads as if the issue is settled.
It is not settled.
Nando has claimed lies but has not demonstrated lies.
Nando also has ducked away from his claim that the biology community at
large agrees with his assessment of the works of Darwin as a "revolting pile
of stinking shit." He's been challenged to support that, as well. Usually
he snips it out without noting it.
This one won't go away either.
[Snip]
Clfranck01
>Date: 6/4/01 11:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> Why does your theory stop and start to apply at the apparition and
>>> extinction of an alternative characteristic? Gravity theory doesn't
>>> stop and start to apply like that.
>>
>>Neither does evolution.
>
>Why does your theory of Natural Selection stop and start to apply?
Evolution has to explain why some creatures, such as
sharks, remain relatively unchanged over millions of
years. It needs to explain equilibrium as much as
change.
Some things do artificially stop and start, like organic
chemistry applying mostly to carbon. As was pointed
out in another thread a while back, some "laws" are in
fact generalizations over a small range of phenomenon.
Ohms law was an example that falls apart completely
with non-ohmic resistences. Certain economic laws
only apply in only a tiny fraction of all cases.
Evolution should function throughout the universe, in
cases where it applies, but it's not a force of nature
like gravity.
[...]
>Actually, Natural Selection doesn't deal with changes in the
>environment that don't play on alternative phenotypes. A comet
>impacts, and Darwinists don't see much of anything of interest to them
>happening
Mass extinctions are a *huge* part of evolution. We are
here, to a large degree, because of a mass extinction 65
million years ago.
Don't try and make NS and evolution do everything. It won't
tell you where the universe came from. It's up to chemistry
to figure out how life got started.
[...]
>>Define a "single unit".
>An organism, trait, breedingpair, population, or gene.
>
>Just like Noah, a Darwinist needs two of everything.
Natural selection can apply to cells or even viruses.
The AIDS virus keeps evolving.
>A Darwinist believes that his or her purpose, the reason why he or she
>exist, is to put as many of their genes into the future generation as
>possible.
That's not why I exist. Many see their own existence
as a totally self-defining thing. Science should work
for people, not define them. An economist may see my
existence as a money earning and spending unit.
Darwin has no monopoly on what things are seen as.
Craig Franck
clfra...@aol.com
Dover, NH
Dave Horn
Speaking of avoiding questions:
Where is the evidence that the biology community at large shares Nando's
opinion of Darwin's work as a "revolting pile of stinking shit?"
David Iain Greig
>What do the things you differentiate have to do with each other?
Congrats on the most Zen question I've ever seen on Usenet.
--D.
Sverker Johansson
Or at least the purpose of a trait of an organism - talking
about the purpose of whole organisms is rare.
But they don't mean what you think they mean - "purpose"
is commonly used in evolutionary writing as a shorthand
for "in what way does this trait enhance fitness".
"What is the purpose of our eyes?" "To see with."
is shorthand for.
"What selective advantage do people with eyes have over
people with no eyes?" "They can perceive light, which
enables them to detect objects at a distance, which
enhances survival in ways too numerous to list here."
This is a convenient way of speaking, and among people
who understand evolution, the risk of misunderstanding
is tiny.
--
Best regards, HLK, Physics
Sverker Johansson U of Jonkoping
----------------------------------------------
Definitions:
Micro-evolution: evolution for which the evidence is so
overwhelming that even the ICR can't deny it.
Macro-evolution: evolution which is only proven beyond
reasonable doubt, not beyond unreasonable doubt.
Clfranck01
>Date: 6/4/01 12:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>There is no natural selection in the absence of an alternative
>phenotype.
You could translate that statement into "There is no
natural choice in the absence of choice."
Some neo-Darwinists think natural selection is over
blown, and that a lot of evolution occurs because of
natural variations that don't offer any advantage, but
yet take hold in a population.
I don't see this as a major problem. In fact, this kind
of random radiation may explain how some species
almost anticipate changes in the environment. A
dozen different flavors of creature may reduce to one
that had an advantage in some future environment.
Louann Miller
>Evolution has to explain why some creatures, such as
>sharks, remain relatively unchanged over millions of
>years. It needs to explain equilibrium as much as
>change.
Well, we do see the same phenomenon in cultural evolution of human
tools. In the same room of my house I have a microwave oven which
needs several computer chips to operate, a major innovation on ovens
of even 30 years ago, and a steak knife which (minor materials changes
aside) works the same way as knives from the stone age. Some stuff
changes, some stuff doesn't need to.
Nando Ronteltap
That is because as a Darwinist, it makes your mind go round in a
circle. To define the relationship between each other you go from
comparison to competition to comparison to competition to comparison
to competition to comparison to competition to comparison to
competition to comparison to competition to comparison to competition
to comparison to competition to comparison to competition to
comparison to competition to comparison to competition to comparison
to competition to comparison to competition to comparison to
competition to comparison to competition to comparison to competition
to comparison to competition to comparison to competition to
comparison to competition to comparison to competition to comparison
to competition to comparison to competition to comparison to
competition to comparison to competition to comparison to competition
to comparison to competition to comparison to competition to
comparison to competition to comparison to competition to comparison
to competition to comparison to competition to comparison to
competition to comparison to competition to comparison to competition
to comparison to competition to comparison to competition to
comparison to competition to comparison to competition to comparison
to competition to comparison to competition to comparison to
competition to comparison to competition to comparison to competition
to comparison to competition to comparison to competition to
comparison to competition to comparison to competition to comparison
to competition to comparison to competition to comparison to
competition to comparison to competition to comparison to competition
to comparison to competition to comparison to competition to
comparison to competition to comparison to competition to comparison
to competition to comparison to competition to comparison to
competition to comparison to competition to comparison to competition
to comparison to competition to comparison to competition to
comparison to competition to comparison to competition to comparison
to competition to comparison to competition to comparison to
competition to comparison to competition to comparison to competition
to comparison to competition to comparison to competition to
comparison to competition to comparison to competition to comparison
to competition to comparison to competition to comparison to
competition to comparison to competition to comparison to competition
to comparison to competition to comparison to competition to
comparison to competition to comparison to competition to comparison
to competition to comparison to competition to comparison to
competition to comparison to competition to comparison to competition
to comparison to competition to comparison to competition to
comparison to competition to comparison to competition to comparison
to competition to comparison to competition to comparison to
competition to comparison to competition to comparison to competition
to comparison to competition to comparison to competition to
comparison to competition to comparison to competition to comparison
to competition to comparison to competition to comparison to
competition to comparison to competition to comparison to competition
to comparison to competition to comparison to competition to
comparison to competition to comparison to competition to comparison
to competition to comparison to competition to comparison to
competition to comparison to competition to comparison to competition
to comparison to competition to comparison to competition to
comparison to competition to comparison to competition to comparison
to competition to comparison to competition to comparison to
competition to comparison to competition to comparison to competition
to comparison to competition to comparison to competition to
comparison to competition to comparison to competition to comparison
to competition to comparison to competition to comparison to
competition to comparison to competition to comparison to competition
to comparison to competition to comparison to competition to
comparison to competition to comparison to competition to comparison
to competition to comparison to competition to comparison to
competition to comparison to competition to comparison to competition
to comparison to competition to comparison to competition to
comparison to competition to comparison to competition to comparison
to competition to comparison to competition to comparison to
competition to comparison to competition to comparison to competition
to comparison to competition to comparison to competition to
comparison to competition to comparison to competition to comparison
to competition to comparison to competition to comparison to
competition to comparison to competition to comparison to competition
to comparison to competition to comparison to competition to
comparison to competition to comparison to competition to comparison
to competition to comparison to competition to comparison to
competition to comparison to competition to comparison to competition
to comparison to competition to comparison to competition to
comparison to competition to comparison to competition to comparison
to competition to comparison to competition to comparison to
competition to comparison to competition to comparison to competition
to comparison to competition to comparison to competition to
comparison to competition to comparison to competition to comparison
to competition to comparison to competition to comparison to
competition to comparison to competition to comparison to competition
to comparison to competition to comparison to competition to
comparison to competition to comparison to competition to comparison
to competition to comparison to competition to comparison to
competition to comparison to competition to comparison to competition
to comparison to competition to comparison to competition to
comparison to competition to comparison to competition to comparison
to competition to comparison to competition to comparison to
competition to comparison to competition to comparison to competition
to comparison to competition to comparison to competition to
comparison to competition to comparison to competition to competition
to, Natural Selection is the TRUTH, praise Darwin.
Finally enlightnement by mental overload.....
Nando
Dave Horn
>
> gr...@ediacara.org (David Iain Greig) wrote:
>
> >Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>What do the things you differentiate have to do with
> >>each other?
> >
> >Congrats on the most Zen question I've ever seen on
> >Usenet.
>
> That is because as a Darwinist, it makes your mind go
> round in a circle.
It's amazing how often Nando tries to decide what something means to someone
else.
But what did it mean when he said his Bible readings gave him the "quite
normal thoughts" that Jews are bad?
Nando has twice referred to this and said it was a lie, but I proved from
his own words that this is what was said.
And what did Nando mean when he said that the biology community at large
agrees with his assessment of Darwin's work as a "revolting pile of stinking
shit?" Nando won't address that one at all, because it was, in fact, a lie.
[Snip remaining stupidity]
Nando Ronteltap
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the
microwave will almost certainly exterminate, and replace,
gas and electric ovens throughout the world. At the same time the
gourmet-sets, as Professor Wilkins has remarked, will
no doubt be exterminated. The break between a micro-oven and it's
nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between food
in a more warm state, as we may hope, even than Indian chillie, and
something out of McDonalds, instead of as now between coffe or tea and
the end.
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
>>From: Nando Ronteltap onan...@hotmail.com
>>Date: 6/4/01 12:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>
>>There is no natural selection in the absence of an alternative
>>phenotype.
>
>You could translate that statement into "There is no
>natural choice in the absence of choice."
No choice in the absence of options.
>Some neo-Darwinists think natural selection is over
>blown, and that a lot of evolution occurs because of
>natural variations that don't offer any advantage, but
>yet take hold in a population.
>
>I don't see this as a major problem. In fact, this kind
>of random radiation may explain how some species
>almost anticipate changes in the environment. A
>dozen different flavors of creature may reduce to one
>that had an advantage in some future environment.
I suppose one should actually observe what the factors are that make
an organism reproduce in the event. And then make statistical analysis
of how such an event turns out.
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
>But what did it mean when he said his Bible readings gave him the "quite
>normal thoughts" that Jews are bad?
Dave Horn is lying.
Nando
Dave Horn
>
> "Dave Horn" <dave...@ns.home.com> wrote:
[Unmarked snip - typical of Nando]
> >But what did it mean when he said his Bible readings
> >gave him the "quite normal thoughts" that Jews are bad?
>
> Dave Horn is lying.
Asked and answered - more than once. I have quoted Nando specifically and
directly and he has twice now said that I am lying.
But what...exactly...is the lie?
Nando won't say.
Nando is a closet anti-semite who views his readings from the Bible that the
Jews are bad as "quite normal thoughts," and I have theorized that this is
because Nando already harbors anti-semitic tendencies. Those with more
rational viewpoints would not tend to view the Jews as "bad" by an unbiased
reading of the Bible. I provided the specific quote from Nando, and here it
is again:
"Also when reading some passages in the Bible, the thought repeatedly occurs
to me that the Jews killed Christ, and that therefore Jews are bad.
Correction on these thoughts then follows, but still I think quite normal
thoughts like those are what racism in conjuction with Darwinism, and
anti-semitism in conjuction with Christianity, mainly stems from."
This is a direct quote.
Where's the lie?
Nando won't say.
I have asked what this alleged "correction" is supposed to be that takes
care of these "quite normal thoughts" and that, by implication, makes them,
well, not "normal." Nando has not replied.
All Nando can do is claim that there are lies.
Where are the lies?
And Nando has once again snipped away and failed to answer for his claim
that the biology community at large agrees with him that the works of Darwin
are a "revolting pile of stinking shit."
Now *there* was a lie.
Nando Ronteltap
quoted Nando
Nando won't
Nando is
Nando already
from Nando
Nando won't
Nando has
Nando can
Nando has
Nando
Adam Marczyk
Sure there is. If a species is poorly adapted to its environment all by
itself, it will die off. It doesn't have to be outcompeted by something
else. In the same sense that there's gravity even in the absence of other
bodies, there's always natural selection, even in the absence of options --
sometimes it just doesn't exert any noticeable amount of selection pressure.
Steven J.
> What do the things you differentiate have to do with each other?
>
can't, however, figure out what it is, or why I should care.
>
> Why do you require that the organisms share an environment when
> obviously a difference between the organisms can make them inhabit a
> different environment?
>
that "reproductive chance" is innate -- that a given organism has a
certain chance of reproducing in the same way it has a certain number
and color of eyes. This is simply not true. Organisms need certain
resources to survive and breed. Most of the time, there are many
other organisms trying to get these same resources, and there aren't
enough of the resources for all the organisms to get all they need.
There is, in other words, competition for resources.
Think of a football game. If I ask what a given team's chance of
winning is, surely you'll want to know who they're playing, and where?
These little facts make a big difference. Likewise, an organism does
not have a reproductive chance all by itself; it has a certain
reproductive chance in a certain environment, against certain
competition. With weaker, or no, competition, its chance goes way up;
against stronger competition, way down. In a different environment,
its adaptions may give it no chances at all, regardless of the
competition (e.g. a lion in the middle of the ocean, or the dinosaurs
in the case of the comet strike you bring up below).
>
> Why does your theory stop and start to apply at the apparition and
> extinction of an alternative characteristic? Gravity theory doesn't
> stop and start to apply like that.
>
I think you mean "appearance," not "apparition." Apparitions are
things like ghosts. And natural selection goes on wherever there
exist (a) hereditable differences between organisms within a species,
and (b) whenever resources needed to survive and reproduce are scarce
(i.e. organisms can produce more offspring than the environment can
support). When these conditions don't apply, natural selection
doesn't apply.
>
> Why doesn't Natural Selection much apply when the comet impacted the
> earth, eventhough it produced massive change? Isn't your theory much
> useless then?
>
Assuming you're right, why does that make natural selection theory
useless? Gravity theory doesn't explain which species or indiduals
will survive a comet impact, which doesn't make gravity theory
useless.
>
> Why can't you apply Natural Selection to a single unit of selection?
>
Selection implies a choice of one thing over another. "Natural"
selection implies that no conscious being actually MAKES that choice,
but there is still one thing which is "chosen" (in the sense that it
succeeds in passing on its genes), which implies that there must be
others which are *not* "chosen."
>
> But nature is not red in tooth and claw really, nature is wet in penis
> and vagina, right?
>
We were discussing Darwin, not Tennyson, Nando. Try to stay on topic.
>
> Why do you talk about the purpose of organisms, and the reason why
> organisms exist? Don't you know science can't answer why questions,
> just how questions?
>
Science can answer "why" questions in the sense of, "what physical
causes made this, rather than something else, happen?" For example,
"why is this chemical poisonous to mammals?" or "why does this snake
make this poison?"
>
> Isn't everything in nature covered already with reproductive theory,
> the theory that describes organisms in terms of their chance of future
> reproduction?
>
As noted, those chances don't exist, except in reference to particular
enviroments and particular competitors.
>
> What happens to the chances of reproduction during mating-season?
>
That depends.
>
> Nando
-- Steven J.
Nando Ronteltap
>> Not actually true. There is gravity even in the absence of other
>> bodies. There is no natural selection in the absence of an alternative
>> phenotype.
>
>Sure there is. If a species is poorly adapted to its environment all by
>itself, it will die off. It doesn't have to be outcompeted by something
>else. In the same sense that there's gravity even in the absence of other
>bodies, there's always natural selection, even in the absence of options --
>sometimes it just doesn't exert any noticeable amount of selection pressure.
You're mistaken according to Howard Hershey, John Wilkins etc. Natural
selection is defined as differential reproductive success. Making a
differentiation requires there to be an alternative. I'm not saying
that extinctions like that don't occur, I'm just saying they aren't
covered by Natural Selection theory.
What you are talking about is covered by reproductive theory.
Reproductive theory just describes a reproductive unit in terms of
it's chance of reproduction, in any given situation.
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
>Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<a5umhtko7pd9j5fdr...@4ax.com>...
>> What do the things you differentiate have to do with each other?
>>
>I'm sure you meant something by this question when you typed it. I
>can't, however, figure out what it is, or why I should care.
Differential reproductive success. What do the things you are
differentiating have to do with each other?
>> Why do you require that the organisms share an environment when
>> obviously a difference between the organisms can make them inhabit a
>> different environment?
>>
>Nando, your problem, as near as I can make it out, is that you think
>that "reproductive chance" is innate -- that a given organism has a
>certain chance of reproducing in the same way it has a certain number
>and color of eyes. This is simply not true. Organisms need certain
>resources to survive and breed. Most of the time, there are many
>other organisms trying to get these same resources, and there aren't
>enough of the resources for all the organisms to get all they need.
>There is, in other words, competition for resources.
Obviously, when resources are scarce then the reproductive chance of
reproductive units would get lower.
>Think of a football game. If I ask what a given team's chance of
>winning is, surely you'll want to know who they're playing, and where?
> These little facts make a big difference. Likewise, an organism does
>not have a reproductive chance all by itself; it has a certain
>reproductive chance in a certain environment,
Yes.
> against certain
>competition.
No, not neccessarily.
> With weaker, or no, competition,
Right, no competition. Competition is not required to be there for
reproductive theory to be applicable.
> its chance goes way up;
>against stronger competition, way down. In a different environment,
>its adaptions may give it no chances at all, regardless of the
>competition (e.g. a lion in the middle of the ocean, or the dinosaurs
>in the case of the comet strike you bring up below).
>>
>> Why does your theory stop and start to apply at the apparition and
>> extinction of an alternative characteristic? Gravity theory doesn't
>> stop and start to apply like that.
>>
>I think you mean "appearance," not "apparition." Apparitions are
>things like ghosts. And natural selection goes on wherever there
>exist (a) hereditable differences between organisms within a species,
>and (b) whenever resources needed to survive and reproduce are scarce
>(i.e. organisms can produce more offspring than the environment can
>support). When these conditions don't apply, natural selection
>doesn't apply.
Indeed, and when NS doesn't apply, then reproductive theory still does
apply. NS doesn't apply much at all, reproductive theory applies all
the time.
>> Why doesn't Natural Selection much apply when the comet impacted the
>> earth, eventhough it produced massive change? Isn't your theory much
>> useless then?
>>
>Assuming you're right, why does that make natural selection theory
>useless? Gravity theory doesn't explain which species or indiduals
>will survive a comet impact, which doesn't make gravity theory
>useless.
But gravity theory applies to all objects with mass. And reproductive
theory applies to all objects that... have a chance of reproduction.
Natural selection applies sometimes to objects that have a chance of
reproduction, and most times doesn't apply to objects that still have
a chance of reproduction.
>> Why can't you apply Natural Selection to a single unit of selection?
>>
>Selection implies a choice of one thing over another. "Natural"
>selection implies that no conscious being actually MAKES that choice,
>but there is still one thing which is "chosen" (in the sense that it
>succeeds in passing on its genes), which implies that there must be
>others which are *not* "chosen."
Indeed.
>> But nature is not red in tooth and claw really, nature is wet in penis
>> and vagina, right?
>>
>We were discussing Darwin, not Tennyson, Nando. Try to stay on topic.
Reproduction is the topic.
>> Why do you talk about the purpose of organisms, and the reason why
>> organisms exist? Don't you know science can't answer why questions,
>> just how questions?
>>
>Science can answer "why" questions in the sense of, "what physical
>causes made this, rather than something else, happen?" For example,
>"why is this chemical poisonous to mammals?" or "why does this snake
>make this poison?"
You can rephrase those questions into scientific ones. How does the
poison of this snake function in regards to the snake's reproductive
chance?
It would be unscientific to say that the snake makes poision to
reproduce. Reproduction must be described in terms of a chance
occurence, not a goal, for it to be science.
>> Isn't everything in nature covered already with reproductive theory,
>> the theory that describes organisms in terms of their chance of future
>> reproduction?
>>
>As noted, those chances don't exist, except in reference to particular
>enviroments and particular competitors.
The chances exist in respect to what influences it, and can be
statistically analyzed for situations.
>> What happens to the chances of reproduction during mating-season?
>>
>That depends.
They fluctuate much then.
Nando
Adam Marczyk
I'd rather not debate semantics. I maintain that if a single, poorly adapted
species dies off because of environmental conditions, even in the complete
absence of competition, this is still natural selection. But much like the
gravity example, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find an example of a
species that had no competition.
wilkins
Don't forget Darwin's own counter example - Chapter 3 of OoS
"I should premise that I use the term Struggle for Existence in a large
and metaphorical sense, including dependence of one being on another,
and including (which is more important) not only the life of the
individual, but success in leaving progeny. Two canine animals in atime
of dearth, may be truly said to struggle with each other which shall get
food and live. _But a plant on the edge of a desert is said to struggle
for life against the drought, though more properly it should be said to
be dependent on the moisture._ A plant which annually produces a
thousand seeds, of which on an average only one comes to maturity, may
be more truly said to struggle with the plants of the same and other
kinds which already clothe the ground. The missletoe is dependent on the
apple and a few other trees, but can only in a far-fetched sense be said
to struggle with these trees, for if too many of these parasites grow on
the same tree, it will languish and die. But several seedling
missletoes, growing close together on the same branch, may more truly be
said to struggle with each other. As the missletoe is disseminated by
birds, its existence depends on birds; and it may metaphorically be said
to struggle with other fruit-bearing plants, in order to tempt birds to
devour and thus disseminate its seeds rather than those of other plants.
In these several senses, which pass into each other, I use for
convenience sake the general term of struggle for existence. " Italics
added...
--
John Wilkins, Head, Communication Services, The Walter and Eliza Hall
Institute of Medical Research, Melbourne, Australia
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
Boikat
>
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>
> >> What do the things you differentiate have to do with *each other*?
> >
> >They effect an organisms chances of survival and
> >chance at reproduction. I'm sorry if that is not
> >the answer you want to here.
>
> It's not an answer to the question.
Yes, it did, but you are apparently too dense to
understand the answer, or your question is too
poorly phrased to communicate what you really
meant to ask.
> It's avoiding the "each other"
> part in the question.
No, you simply ignore that it takes place between
organisms of the same species in the same
environment. Now, I'm sure you are going to
attempt to make another "appeal to emotion" whiny
retort, about "red in tooth and claw" and "dog eat
dog" or your current favorite , "wet in penis and
vagina", and the "cruelty and impersonality", and
the evil that inspires, and how that doesn't leave
you feeling all warm and fuzzy and loved by the
mean ol' universe. So what? That's your hang-up.
Beside, I don't find it particularly problematic
that the universe doesn't love you. You're an
intellectually dishonest odious little prick.
What's to love?
Boikat
Boikat
In other words, if the conditions are not present
that allows for NS, it is no longer a active
process. So what? The organisms are still subject
to NS if a change in phenotypes arise that makes a
difference in that environment. Your criticism
makes as much sense as saying "If you have a large
quantity of hydrogen, under sufficient pressure,
nuclear fusion will occur. Remove the pressure,
and fusion stops. That means the laws of physics
no longer applies."
If that is roughly what you are claiming, then you
are an imbecile.
Boikat
Boikat
mind. His inability to grasp simple concepts has
cause him to blow a mental fuse.
Well, maybe it over loaded *you* mind.
Personally, most rational and functional minds can
hadle it (and also recognize your flippant remark
of "praise Darwin!" for what it is).
Boikat
Boikat
Prove it.
Boikat
Alan Barclay
Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the
>microwave will almost certainly exterminate, and replace,
>gas and electric ovens throughout the world. At the same time the
Within some enviroments, eg student dorms and similar locations where
space is limited and gormet dining is not expected, they have.
Boikat
much fun!
Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>
> "Dave Horn" <dave...@ns.home.com> wrote:
>
> quoted Nando
> Nando won't...
use his brain.
> Nando is...
an intellectual coward with delusions of grandeur.
> Nando already...
Shown that he lacks even the basic grasp of
science.
> from Nando...
..usually gibberish.
> Nando won't...
..use his brain.
> Nando has...
..shown he lacks even the most basic understanding
of science.
> Nando can...
..never stay in context.
> Nando has...
..no credibility.
Gee. This was fun.
Boikat
Steven J.
> stev...@altavista.com (Steven J.) wrote:
> >Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<a5umhtko7pd9j5fdr...@4ax.com>...
> >> What do the things you differentiate have to do with each other?
> >>
> >I'm sure you meant something by this question when you typed it. I
> >can't, however, figure out what it is, or why I should care.
>
> Differential reproductive success. What do the things you are
> differentiating have to do with each other?
>
mate of the same species, some resource), which they need if they are
to pass on their genes. They are different in that not all of them
get it at all, and some get more than others. They ones who get more,
tend to get more for a reason (i.e. not by mere luck), and sometimes
that reason can be passed on to their genes.
>
> >> Why do you require that the organisms share an environment when
> >> obviously a difference between the organisms can make them inhabit a
> >> different environment?
> >>
> >Nando, your problem, as near as I can make it out, is that you think
> >that "reproductive chance" is innate -- that a given organism has a
> >certain chance of reproducing in the same way it has a certain number
> >and color of eyes. This is simply not true. Organisms need certain
> >resources to survive and breed. Most of the time, there are many
> >other organisms trying to get these same resources, and there aren't
> >enough of the resources for all the organisms to get all they need.
> >There is, in other words, competition for resources.
>
> Obviously, when resources are scarce then the reproductive chance of
> reproductive units would get lower.
>
believe this; your beliefs have astonishingly little impact on reality
in this regard. Also, not all reproductive units have a low chance of
reproducing if resources become scarcer; the ones best adapted to the
new conditions may have an increased chance, because the competition
dies off.
>
> >Think of a football game. If I ask what a given team's chance of
> >winning is, surely you'll want to know who they're playing, and where?
> > These little facts make a big difference. Likewise, an organism does
> >not have a reproductive chance all by itself; it has a certain
> >reproductive chance in a certain environment,
>
> Yes.
>
> > against certain
> >competition.
>
> No, not neccessarily.
>
thousands laid by insects. Think just of the multiple kittens in a
litter, and the number of litters a cat may bear in a lifetime. If
all of them lived and reproduced, and all of their offspring lived and
reproduced...we'd be up to our eyelashes in cats, buried under and
ocean of sea turtles, with bugs packed up to lunar orbit, in a single
human generation. We aren't. Trust me on this, the competition is
certain, and necessary.
>
> > With weaker, or no, competition,
>
> Right, no competition. Competition is not required to be there for
> reproductive theory to be applicable.
>
it has effects. The competing organisms may not INTEND to compete, or
know they are competing -- a tree dropping seeds by the thousands is
setting in motion a competition by offspring who have no knowledge or
intentions at all, but they still compete for scarce resources. Why
is this hard to understand?
>
> > its chance goes way up;
> >against stronger competition, way down. In a different environment,
> >its adaptions may give it no chances at all, regardless of the
> >competition (e.g. a lion in the middle of the ocean, or the dinosaurs
> >in the case of the comet strike you bring up below).
> >>
> >> Why does your theory stop and start to apply at the apparition and
> >> extinction of an alternative characteristic? Gravity theory doesn't
> >> stop and start to apply like that.
> >>
> >I think you mean "appearance," not "apparition." Apparitions are
> >things like ghosts. And natural selection goes on wherever there
> >exist (a) hereditable differences between organisms within a species,
> >and (b) whenever resources needed to survive and reproduce are scarce
> >(i.e. organisms can produce more offspring than the environment can
> >support). When these conditions don't apply, natural selection
> >doesn't apply.
>
> Indeed, and when NS doesn't apply, then reproductive theory still does
> apply. NS doesn't apply much at all, reproductive theory applies all
> the time.
>
much reason to care if you WERE right -- natural selection exists, and
it explains adaption, whether it usually operates or not. How, if at
all, does "reproductive theory" explain adaptions?
>
> >> Why doesn't Natural Selection much apply when the comet impacted the
> >> earth, eventhough it produced massive change? Isn't your theory much
> >> useless then?
> >>
> >Assuming you're right, why does that make natural selection theory
> >useless? Gravity theory doesn't explain which species or indiduals
> >will survive a comet impact, which doesn't make gravity theory
> >useless.
>
> But gravity theory applies to all objects with mass. And reproductive
> theory applies to all objects that... have a chance of reproduction.
>
inheritable variations, and face a scarcity of resources. That's a
rather large collection of objects and circumstances.
>
> Natural selection applies sometimes to objects that have a chance of
> reproduction, and most times doesn't apply to objects that still have
> a chance of reproduction.
>
it would not count in the least against the validity and importance of
natural selection even if you were correct.
>
> >> Why can't you apply Natural Selection to a single unit of selection?
> >>
> >Selection implies a choice of one thing over another. "Natural"
> >selection implies that no conscious being actually MAKES that choice,
> >but there is still one thing which is "chosen" (in the sense that it
> >succeeds in passing on its genes), which implies that there must be
> >others which are *not* "chosen."
>
> Indeed.
>
> >> But nature is not red in tooth and claw really, nature is wet in penis
> >> and vagina, right?
> >>
> >We were discussing Darwin, not Tennyson, Nando. Try to stay on topic.
>
> Reproduction is the topic.
>
> >> Why do you talk about the purpose of organisms, and the reason why
> >> organisms exist? Don't you know science can't answer why questions,
> >> just how questions?
> >>
> >Science can answer "why" questions in the sense of, "what physical
> >causes made this, rather than something else, happen?" For example,
> >"why is this chemical poisonous to mammals?" or "why does this snake
> >make this poison?"
>
> You can rephrase those questions into scientific ones. How does the
> poison of this snake function in regards to the snake's reproductive
> chance?
>
something else eats you first. If a snake's saliva is mildly
poisonous, it can both get food (because prey is less likely to
escape), and fight off predators (because it can hurt them more
easily) better than others of its species who are less poisonous. In
a few generations, all snakes of that species are mildly poisonous,
because the poisonous ones have the most young, because they're better
fed and less likely to die young. Still, there will be variation in
how poisonous they are, and later there will be selection for stronger
poison....
>
> It would be unscientific to say that the snake makes poision to
> reproduce. Reproduction must be described in terms of a chance
> occurence, not a goal, for it to be science.
>
poison at all. It's a random variation, tossed up by mutations. The
poisonous snakes, though, have a BETTER chance of reproducing. "The
snake makes poison to reproduce" is shorthand for, "Being poisonous
increases the snake's chances of passing on its genes (including the
genes for poison production), relative to snakes of the same species
without the genes for poison production."
>
> >> Isn't everything in nature covered already with reproductive theory,
> >> the theory that describes organisms in terms of their chance of future
> >> reproduction?
> >>
> >As noted, those chances don't exist, except in reference to particular
> >enviroments and particular competitors.
>
> The chances exist in respect to what influences it, and can be
> statistically analyzed for situations.
>
>
> >> What happens to the chances of reproduction during mating-season?
> >>
> >That depends.
>
> They fluctuate much then.
>
happens in mating system. It needs to live to mating season -- a
feature that plays no part in mating may be absolutely essential to
living to mating season, and thus necessary to reproduction. Or, it
may not be NECESSARY, but it may increase the organisms chance of
living to mating season, or feeding its young later. Either of these
would increase its fitness (relative to conspecifics who lack the
trait) under natural selection.
>
> Nando
-- Steven J.
Nando Ronteltap
>> But gravity theory applies to all objects with mass. And reproductive
>> theory applies to all objects that... have a chance of reproduction.
>>
>And natural selection applies to all objects that reproduce, have
>inheritable variations, and face a scarcity of resources. That's a
>rather large collection of objects and circumstances.
It is a tiny fraction compared to what is covered with reproductive
theory.
>> Natural selection applies sometimes to objects that have a chance of
>> reproduction, and most times doesn't apply to objects that still have
>> a chance of reproduction.
>>
>Again, you say this, but I do not think you are correct to do so, and
>it would not count in the least against the validity and importance of
>natural selection even if you were correct.
Against the importance of it, it does. Relatively speaking it has
little importance. And also reproductive theory explains the same
things Natural Selection theory does in a different way. The
difference being that competitiors are just part of the environment in
respect to the reproductive unit, and not taken out for special note
in reproductive theory.
>> You can rephrase those questions into scientific ones. How does the
>> poison of this snake function in regards to the snake's reproductive
>> chance?
>>
>You can't reproduce if you don't eat.
Eating would tend to increase reproductive chance.
> You can't reproduce if
>something else eats you first.
Dying would realise reproductive chance to zero.
> If a snake's saliva is mildly
>poisonous, it can both get food (because prey is less likely to
>escape), and fight off predators (because it can hurt them more
>easily) better than others of its species who are less poisonous.
You assume the existence of these better then creatures, which simply
isn't neccesarily true. It probably is not true 99.99 percent of
cases.
> In
>a few generations, all snakes of that species are mildly poisonous,
>because the poisonous ones have the most young, because they're better
>fed and less likely to die young. Still, there will be variation in
>how poisonous they are, and later there will be selection for stronger
>poison....
Just so story.
>>
>> It would be unscientific to say that the snake makes poision to
>> reproduce. Reproduction must be described in terms of a chance
>> occurence, not a goal, for it to be science.
>>
>The snakes don't make poison for any goal; they don't CHOOSE to make
>poison at all. It's a random variation, tossed up by mutations. The
>poisonous snakes, though, have a BETTER chance of reproducing. "The
>snake makes poison to reproduce" is shorthand for, "Being poisonous
>increases the snake's chances of passing on its genes (including the
>genes for poison production), relative to snakes of the same species
>without the genes for poison production."
Which don't exist, and if they did, they might effectively inhabit
different environments. Just pointing out that Darwinism gives you all
kinds of assumptions of what is the case, which aren't neccesarily
true to fact.
>> The chances exist in respect to what influences it, and can be
>> statistically analyzed for situations.
>>
>Is this different from what I said?
Well yes, since lots of things that influence reproduction aren't
covered in Natural Selection, but are covered in reproductive theory.
As for instance the comet impact. And also competitors are not taken
out as special in the environment with reproductive theory. In short
competitors of the same specie, are classed together with competitors
of completely different species, in one environment, whereas you class
competitors of different species in the environment, and take out
competitors of the same specie for special note apart from the
environment.
>> They fluctuate much then.
>>
>Nando, an organism's chances of reproduction don't depend only on what
>happens in mating system. It needs to live to mating season -- a
>feature that plays no part in mating may be absolutely essential to
>living to mating season, and thus necessary to reproduction. Or, it
>may not be NECESSARY, but it may increase the organisms chance of
>living to mating season, or feeding its young later. Either of these
>would increase its fitness (relative to conspecifics who lack the
>trait) under natural selection.
I have not denied that outside of matingseason the chance of
reproduction can go up or down. (or be realised to zero)
I'm just guessing that the chance of reproduction wildly fluctuates in
mating season.
Nando
Dave Horn
>
> "Dave Horn" <dave...@ns.home.com> wrote:
Another unmarked snip here...
> quoted Nando
> Nando won't
> Nando is
> Nando already
> from Nando
> Nando won't
> Nando has
> Nando can
> Nando has
Let's add "Nando didn't."
Nando didn't tell us how there were lies he claims exist.
Nando didn't tell us the evidence for his claim that the biology community
at large agrees with his assessment of Darwin's work as a "revolting pile of
stinking shit."
Nando didn't explain why it is that he views "jews are bad" as "quite normal
thoughts" from reading the Bible, nor did he explain the alleged correction.
Gavin Tabor
Species don't get selected. Individuals get selected. The individual in
a species always has competition, if not from individuals in other
species then from individuals in its own species.
Gavin
>
> --
> And I want to conquer the world,
> give all the idiots a brand new religion,
> put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
> promote equality in all of my decisions...
> --Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World"
>
> To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
--
Dr. Gavin Tabor
School of Engineering and Computer Science
Department of Engineering
University of Exeter
John Wilkins
Why Nando, that's almost funny. Watch out, you'll develop a sense of
humour, and then a sense of perspective, and then you are on the road to
Darwinism...
Termite of Temptation
> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
> >Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> What do the things you differentiate have to do with each other?
> >>
> >> obviously a difference between the organisms can make them inhabit a
> >> different environment?
> >>
> >> extinction of an alternative characteristic? Gravity theory doesn't
> >> stop and start to apply like that.
> >
> >the gravity well of a massive body and stops applying when you move away
> >from it.
>
> bodies. There is no natural selection in the absence of an alternative
> phenotype.
No, if there was no mass in the universe, then there would be no gravity.
Simple. And besides, the laws of gravity do not operate at singularities,
hence the need for a quantum gravity explanation.
Duncan
--
"I never make stupid mistakes. Only very, very clever ones."
-- Doctor Who
Termite of Temptation
> "Termite of Temptation" <n...@telling.com> wrote:
>
> >> Why do you talk about the purpose of organisms, and the reason why
> >> organisms exist? Don't you know science can't answer why questions,
> >> just how questions?
> >
>
> Darwinists do talk about the purpose of an organism, as can be
> factually demonstrated.
Um, you snipped my actual answer, friend. "That's simply untrue" was
referring to the "why questions/how questions" contention. If you'd read the
rest of my comments, you might have got an explanation of the purpose thing.
Oh well.
Duncan
--
"'Love' is that condition in which the happiness of another person is
essential to your own."
-- Robert Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land
Huw
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >re title; In your dreams!
>
> Actually all people outside of this forum I talk about it with, do not
> accept a theory that stops and starts to apply, like natural selection
> theory does.
> >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
> >>
> >> What do the things you differentiate have to do with each other?
> >
> >chance at reproduction.
>
>
Same species, different phenotype.
> Do they effect each others chances of survival and chance at
> reproduction?
>
> >> Why do you require that the organisms share an environment when
> >> obviously a difference between the organisms can make them inhabit a
> >> different environment?
> >
> >Because they just happen to occupy the same
> >environment. It's not a "requirement", its just
> >the way it happens.
>
> Hehehe, the innocent Darwinist.
>
> Since you don't require them to be in the same environment, it follows
> you can call something natural selection when organisms are in
> completely separate environments. Of course, it just so happens that
> Darwinists require them to be in the same envrionment to call the
> event Natural Selection.
Natural selection acts on all species in all environments. It's just
helpful to think about one environment at a time for the sake of
clarity.
>
> >> Why does your theory stop and start to apply at the apparition and
> >> extinction of an alternative characteristic? Gravity theory doesn't
> >> stop and start to apply like that.
> >
> >Neither does evolution.
>
> Why does your theory of Natural Selection stop and start to apply?
It doesn't. And to save myself having to correct your assertion again,
it doesn't.
BTW, what happens to 'gravity' at a singularity?
>
> >> Why doesn't Natural Selection much apply when the comet impacted the
> >> earth, eventhough it produced massive change? Isn't your theory much
> >> useless then?
> >>
> >Anything that changes the environment applies.
> >Your are attempting to confuse the "cause" of a
> >change in the environment with "a change in the
> >environment". NS predicts that as an environment
> >changes, species that inhabit that environment
> >will adapt through selective pressure to the
> >environment (Or yes, possible go extinct), but
> >does not address *the cause* of the change in the
> >environment.
>
> Actually, Natural Selection doesn't deal with changes in the
> environment that don't play on alternative phenotypes. A comet
> impacts, and Darwinists don't see much of anything of interest to them
> happening.
Apart from mass extinctions, a plethora of new niches, an explosion of
body forms?
>
> >> Why can't you apply Natural Selection to a single unit of selection?
> >>
> >
> >Define a "single unit".
>
> An organism, trait, breedingpair, population, or gene.
An individual organism has a higher or lower chance of passing on its
genes
to the next generation. Natural selection acts on individuals,
favouring
those that are phenotypically fitter.
>
> Just like Noah, a Darwinist needs two of everything.
>
> So if it is an organism that is the unit, then you need 2 different
> organisms, and if it's the trait, then you need 2 different traits
> etc.
>
> >> But nature is not red in tooth and claw really, nature is wet in penis
> >> and vagina, right?
> >>
> >Does that turn you on, or something, or is this
> >another appeal to emotionalism?
>
> It's an appeal to lift out reproduction as defining of nature, in
> stead of lifting out killing each other as defining of nature, like
> Darwinists usualy do.
Predators kill their prey. This too is natural selection.
> >> Why do you talk about the purpose of organisms, and the reason why
> >> organisms exist?
> >
> >To confuse ignorant creationists into thinking
> >there is a "higher purpose".
>
> A Darwinist believes that his or her purpose, the reason why he or she
> exist, is to put as many of their genes into the future generation as
> possible. On any multiple choice test when asked a Darwinist will give
> this answer about their purpose, and they will fail the course if they
> don't.
>
This question is unlikely to come up as multiple choice. I might be
someone
who you'd characterize as a 'Darwinist', but I don't happen to believe
that
'my purpose' is to maximize the incidence of my genes in the future
H.Sapiens gene pool. I acknowledge it as an unconscious imperative for
all living things, but 'purpose' is a question about value, which has
nothing to do with genes.
> >> Don't you know science can't answer why questions,
> >> just how questions?
> >>
> >
> >Because there is no "why".
>
> I guess I should complement you in rejecting that bit of Darwinism
> then.
It appears you are pretty bad at imagining what 'Darwinists' think.
>
> >> Isn't everything in nature covered already with reproductive theory,
> >> the theory that describes organisms in terms of their chance of future
> >> reproduction?
> >
> >Something like "Natural Selection"?
>
> Well, it has been rejected by learned Darwinists as much useless.
Hello?
>
> >> What happens to the chances of reproduction during mating-season?
> >
> >The odds do not change,
>
> How undynamic.
>
> > however, for species that
> >have "mating seasons", that is the time that an
> >organism is most likely to mate. The question
> >makes as much sense as asking if the odds of
> >getting heads or tails changes if you flip a coin
> >any time you want, or if you can only flip your
> >coin between the hours of 12 noon and 1 PM.
>
> I would guess the odds of heads or tails wildly fluctuates when the
> coin hits the ground, and similarly I believe the odds of reproduction
> fluctuates much during mating season.
Semelparous species (like salmon) only get one shot. Their
reproductive
success appears to be determined on whether or not they swim out to
sea and
beef up, or hang around their local river (and remain small). The
larger
ones increase their possibility of mating (at the cost of survival at
sea),
whereas the smaller ones have a lower reproductive incidence, but then
they don't get exposed to high predation rates at sea.
The odds of mating vary depending on the species, environment,
phenotype,
predation pressure. I don't think you can generalize so wildly.
- Huw
>
> Nando
Huw
> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
> >Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> What do the things you differentiate have to do with each other?
> >>
> >> obviously a difference between the organisms can make them inhabit a
> >> different environment?
> >>
> >> extinction of an alternative characteristic? Gravity theory doesn't
> >> stop and start to apply like that.
> >
> >the gravity well of a massive body and stops applying when you move away
> >from it.
>
> Not actually true. There is gravity even in the absence of other
> bodies. There is no natural selection in the absence of an alternative
> phenotype.
>
Regarding the absence of alternative phenotypes, natural selection
still
acts, even if there is just one phenotype. The species can go extinct,
or, against all odds, survive. For such a small phenotype, you'd need
a small population where genetic drift would increase variation. If
the phenotype was resiliant enought to survive long enough, selection
can then act on the drift in the population.
Natural selection does seem to have a habit of reducing variation,
which is why some say evolution proceeds in spite of natural
selection.
Huw
> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
> >Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:a5umhtko7pd9j5fdr...@4ax.com...
> >> What do the things you differentiate have to do with each other?
> >>
> >> Why do you require that the organisms share an environment when
> >> obviously a difference between the organisms can make them inhabit a
> >> different environment?
> >>
> >> Why does your theory stop and start to apply at the apparition and
> >> extinction of an alternative characteristic? Gravity theory doesn't
> >> stop and start to apply like that.
> >
> >Of course it does. Gravitational theory starts to apply when you get near
> >the gravity well of a massive body and stops applying when you move away
> >from it.
>
> Not actually true. There is gravity even in the absence of other
> bodies. There is no natural selection in the absence of an alternative
> phenotype.
>
Oh and BTW, IIRC, the newtons universal law of gravitation requires
two mass related variables (M1,M2) as in:
F = G M1 M2/R^2
suggesting to me that two bodies seperated by a distance R are
required.
- Huw
Laurence A. Moran
Huw <huwc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Regarding the absence of alternative phenotypes, natural selection
>still acts, even if there is just one phenotype. The species can go
>extinct, or, against all odds, survive.
This is not natural selection.
>For such a small phenotype, you'd need
>a small population where genetic drift would increase variation.
Genetic drift does not increase variation.
>If the phenotype was resiliant enought to survive long enough,
>selection can then act on the drift in the population.
This makes no sense. You started with the assumption that there is just
one phenotype in the population.
>Natural selection does seem to have a habit of reducing variation,
>which is why some say evolution proceeds in spite of natural
>selection.
This is correct. Natural selection reduces variation in the population.
When the variation reaches zero, natural selection stops.
Larry Moran
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 4 Jun 2001 08:39:21 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>What do the things you differentiate have to do with each other?
They are allelic variants of the same species.
>Why do you require that the organisms share an environment when
>obviously a difference between the organisms can make them inhabit a
>different environment?
What you are missing here is that different "organisms" are members of
the same species (just different allelic variants). They will start
out in the same environment. If one allelic variant flourishes in a
different environment, and it can invade that environment, it will.
Any members of that allelic variant that stay in the old environment
will be selected against, so selection still occurs until you have two
separate groups in different environments.
>Why does your theory stop and start to apply at the apparition and
>extinction of an alternative characteristic? Gravity theory doesn't
>stop and start to apply like that.
But turbulence theory and avalanche theory do. Not all physical
systems are composed of continuously variable elements. Natural
selection requires things to be selected, if there are no traits to be
selected for (or against), nothing happens. No one judges quantum
mechanics by its dissimilarity to gravity, why should natural
selection be any different.
>Why doesn't Natural Selection much apply when the comet impacted the
>earth, eventhough it produced massive change? Isn't your theory much
>useless then?
Natural Selection is just _one_ mechanism of evolution. It is not
meant to describe every fate that can occur to a species. It doesn't
take a theory of allele replacement to realize that a species whose
home range is directly under the ground zero of a 1-10 km impactor is
extinct. (Not to mention the fate of all those in the range of the
molten ejecta, the firestorms and the tsunamis). For natural selection
to occur you need a species with at least two allelic variants to
select between, and a rate of environmental change that results in
differential survival of the allelic variants. If the environmental
change is too large, then both variants will go to extinction.
In the case of the impact, and the FimbuWinter that follows the
impact, the environmental change was so massive that most species went
extinct. For the remainder survival may have been mostly a matter of
luck. But in the survivor species natural selection would favor those
tolerant to cold, dark and low food levels.
To re-iterate, natural selection is _one_ mechanism of evolution, it
is not meant to describe all of evolution, or all possible biological
fates of organisms. Anymore than avalanche theory is meant to
comprehensibly describe all the shapes that sand dunes form.
>Why can't you apply Natural Selection to a single unit of selection?
What are you using as a definition of "single unit of selection"? A
single organism? A single allelic variant, A single population? A
single species?
>But nature is not red in tooth and claw really, nature is wet in penis
>and vagina, right?
For any given group of organisms, it _can_ be both, however, within a
species, the latter is more likely to obtain.
>Why do you talk about the purpose of organisms, and the reason why
>organisms exist? Don't you know science can't answer why questions,
>just how questions?
No one talks about "purpose" in scientific discourse. Some people
might use "purpose" in informal discourse as a shorthand for the
correct, non-teleolgical formulation, but what happens in informal
discourse is irrelevant to the real science.
>Isn't everything in nature covered already with reproductive theory,
>the theory that describes organisms in terms of their chance of future
>reproduction?
No. Can you tell a priori, which species will survive Fimbuwinter? You
can't.
>What happens to the chances of reproduction during mating-season?
Depends on what you mean by "chances of reproduction" and the species
in question. The answer is very different if you compare broadcast
fertilizing species with species that have hierarchical social
systems. What relevance this has to natural selection is beyond me.
>Nando
=====================================================
Ian Musgrave Peta O'Donohue,Jack Francis and Michael James Musgrave
reyn...@werple.mira.net.au http://werple.mira.net.au/~reynella/
Southern Sky Watch http://www.abc.net.au/science/space/default.htm
Nando Ronteltap
wrote:
>G'Day All
>Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
>
>On 4 Jun 2001 08:39:21 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>What do the things you differentiate have to do with each other?
>
>They are allelic variants of the same species.
What do the things you differentiate have to do with each other?
Repeat this question then Darwinism will break down.
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
>Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
>On 4 Jun 2001 08:39:21 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>>the theory that describes organisms in terms of their chance of future
>>reproduction?
>
>No. Can you tell a priori, which species will survive Fimbuwinter? You
>can't.
Since all organisms die anyway, that's not a very useful question.
However I can describe which will reproduce or not in terms of
reproductive chance.
>>What happens to the chances of reproduction during mating-season?
>
>Depends on what you mean by "chances of reproduction" and the species
>in question. The answer is very different if you compare broadcast
>fertilizing species with species that have hierarchical social
>systems. What relevance this has to natural selection is beyond me.
Absolutely nothing to do with natural selection, which is exactly the
point.
Nando
Boikat
And any moron that keeps asking, the same question
over and over again. That poses no problem to
"Darwinism".
Boikat
Boikat
>
> "Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue" <ian.musgr...@adelaide.edu.au>
> wrote:
> >G'Day All
> >Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
> >On 4 Jun 2001 08:39:21 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >>Isn't everything in nature covered already with reproductive theory,
> >>the theory that describes organisms in terms of their chance of future
> >>reproduction?
> >
> >No. Can you tell a priori, which species will survive Fimbuwinter? You
> >can't.
>
> Since all organisms die anyway, that's not a very useful question.
How do you know all organisms will die? The Earth
has been hit several times in the past by large
bodies, and not all organisms died.
> However I can describe which will reproduce or not in terms of
> reproductive chance.
In your loony toon reasoning, none of them will
reproduce, however, in reality, *if* there are
survivors, what is the "reproductive chance" of
the survivors reproducing. Please show your work.
>
> >>What happens to the chances of reproduction during mating-season?
> >
> >Depends on what you mean by "chances of reproduction" and the species
> >in question. The answer is very different if you compare broadcast
> >fertilizing species with species that have hierarchical social
> >systems. What relevance this has to natural selection is beyond me.
>
> Absolutely nothing to do with natural selection, which is exactly the
> point.
The organisms have to survive long enough to reach
"mating season", then live long enough to
reproduce during and after "mating season", so NS
is involved and relevant. That's so obvious, that
it's again obvious that you are not relating to
the real world, but are again attempting to
present your loony toon surrealistic version of
"NS" as fact.
Boikat
Steven J.
> "Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue" <ian.musgr...@adelaide.edu.au>
> wrote:
>
> >G'Day All
> >Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
> >
> >On 4 Jun 2001 08:39:21 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>What do the things you differentiate have to do with each other?
> >
> >They are allelic variants of the same species.
>
> What do the things you differentiate have to do with each other?
>
>
> Repeat this question then Darwinism will break down.
>
>
> Nando
-- Steven J.
Boikat
>
> Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<7gp1itgf5i1poor1e...@4ax.com>...
> > "Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue" <ian.musgr...@adelaide.edu.au>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >G'Day All
> > >Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
> > >
> > >On 4 Jun 2001 08:39:21 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com>
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >>What do the things you differentiate have to do with each other?
> > >
> > >They are allelic variants of the same species.
> >
> > What do the things you differentiate have to do with each other?
> >
> *sigh* Ice cream HAS no bones, Nando.
But both legs are one and the same, except for the
one that's slightly different.
> >
> > Repeat this question then Darwinism will break down.
> >
> Or Nando will, which might be even more amusing.
You say that as if it's something you expect to
happen in the future....
> >
> > Nando
>
> -- Steven J.
Boikat
Nando Ronteltap
>Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
>> >
>> >They are allelic variants of the same species.
>>
>> What do the things you differentiate have to do with each other?
>>
>*sigh* Ice cream HAS no bones, Nando.
>>
>> Repeat this question then Darwinism will break down.
>>
>Or Nando will, which might be even more amusing.
Whatever. You simply don't know what the things you are
differentiating have to do with each other, and you don't care. No
single person accepts Natural Selection theory when first presented
with reproductive theory, other then accepting NS as being a grotesk
misconception of reproductive theory.
Nando
Boikat
>
> stev...@altavista.com (Steven J.) wrote:
> >Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
> >> >>What do the things you differentiate have to do with each other?
> >> >
> >> >They are allelic variants of the same species.
> >>
> >> What do the things you differentiate have to do with each other?
> >>
> >*sigh* Ice cream HAS no bones, Nando.
> >>
> >> Repeat this question then Darwinism will break down.
> >>
> >Or Nando will, which might be even more amusing.
>
> Whatever. You simply don't know what the things you are
> differentiating have to do with each other, and you don't care.
You are the one who doesn't understand the simple
concepts that have been explained over nd over to
you. The "differentiating" is due to some
variations (differences) being more suitable in a
given environment.
> No
> single person accepts Natural Selection theory when first presented
> with reproductive theory, other then accepting NS as being a grotesk
> misconception of reproductive theory.
Maybe the "grotesk" is your misunderstanding, or
your problem of imagining your loony toon
surrealistic version of NS has anything to do with
reality.
Boikat
Nando Ronteltap
>Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>> Whatever. You simply don't know what the things you are
>> differentiating have to do with each other, and you don't care.
>
>You are the one who doesn't understand the simple
>concepts that have been explained over nd over to
>you. The "differentiating" is due to some
>variations (differences) being more suitable in a
>given environment.
This doesn't actually answer the question of what the things you are
differentiating have to do with each other. So.... what do the things
you are differentiating have to do with each other Darwinist?
>> No
>> single person accepts Natural Selection theory when first presented
>> with reproductive theory, other then accepting NS as being a grotesk
>> misconception of reproductive theory.
>
>Maybe the "grotesk" is your misunderstanding, or
>your problem of imagining your loony toon
>surrealistic version of NS has anything to do with
>reality.
Whatever. NS theory becomes redundant for people who have adopted
reproductive theory, and there's nothing much you can do about it. NS
describes very few cases which are already covered with reproductive
theory, but then using NS those cases are described in a nonsensical
way.
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
>Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>> "Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue" <ian.musgr...@adelaide.edu.au>
>> >No. Can you tell a priori, which species will survive Fimbuwinter? You
>> >can't.
>>
>> Since all organisms die anyway, that's not a very useful question.
>
>How do you know all organisms will die? The Earth
>has been hit several times in the past by large
>bodies, and not all organisms died.
You will die Boikat, all organisms die. memento mori.
>> However I can describe which will reproduce or not in terms of
>> reproductive chance.
>
>In your loony toon reasoning, none of them will
>reproduce, however, in reality, *if* there are
>survivors, what is the "reproductive chance" of
>the survivors reproducing. Please show your work.
The fumi winter would show as a downward selective pressure on the
reproductive chance of most organisms when making a reproductive
chance chart of those organisms, realising many organisms chance of
reproduction to zero. After things clear up, I guess reproductive
chance of survivors would increase significantly for an extended
period of time, over reproductive chance of same kinds of organisms
before the Fumi winter.
>> >Depends on what you mean by "chances of reproduction" and the species
>> >in question. The answer is very different if you compare broadcast
>> >fertilizing species with species that have hierarchical social
>> >systems. What relevance this has to natural selection is beyond me.
>>
>> Absolutely nothing to do with natural selection, which is exactly the
>> point.
>
>The organisms have to survive long enough to reach
>"mating season", then live long enough to
>reproduce during and after "mating season", so NS
>is involved and relevant. That's so obvious, that
>it's again obvious that you are not relating to
>the real world, but are again attempting to
>present your loony toon surrealistic version of
>"NS" as fact.
Then Ian Musgrave's understanding of NS is surrealistic and loonytoon.
Nando
Boikat
>
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>
> >> Whatever. You simply don't know what the things you are
> >> differentiating have to do with each other, and you don't care.
> >
> >You are the one who doesn't understand the simple
> >concepts that have been explained over nd over to
> >you. The "differentiating" is due to some
> >variations (differences) being more suitable in a
> >given environment.
>
> This doesn't actually answer the question of what the things you are
> differentiating have to do with each other.
Yes it does. If you do not think the answer is
adequate, I don't suppose you have the brain power
to explain *why* the answer is inadequate? Or is
"argument a la three year old" the best you can
do?
> So.... what do the things
> you are differentiating have to do with each other Darwinist?
What didn't you understand fundy?
>
> >> No
> >> single person accepts Natural Selection theory when first presented
> >> with reproductive theory, other then accepting NS as being a grotesk
> >> misconception of reproductive theory.
> >
> >Maybe the "grotesk" is your misunderstanding, or
> >your problem of imagining your loony toon
> >surrealistic version of NS has anything to do with
> >reality.
>
> Whatever. NS theory becomes redundant for people who have adopted
> reproductive theory, and there's nothing much you can do about it.
Maybe in your fantasy version of NS.
> NS
> describes very few cases which are already covered with reproductive
> theory, but then using NS those cases are described in a nonsensical
> way.
Again, only in your fantasy world. You have not
presented anything that poses a problem for NS
(And repeating your stupid question doesn't pose a
problem, other than the that the simple answer is
apparently beyond your grasp, which is *your*
problem) which is "better explained" by your
fantasy world version of "reproductive theory"
(Since whatever your version of "reproductive
theory" is, is probably just as distorted and
unrealistic as your loony toon surrealistic
version of Natural Selection.)
Boikat
>
> Nando
Boikat
>
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
> >> "Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue" <ian.musgr...@adelaide.edu.au>
>
> >> >No. Can you tell a priori, which species will survive Fimbuwinter? You
> >> >can't.
> >>
> >> Since all organisms die anyway, that's not a very useful question.
> >
> >How do you know all organisms will die? The Earth
> >has been hit several times in the past by large
> >bodies, and not all organisms died.
>
> You will die Boikat, all organisms die. memento mori.
You are an idiot. A specific circumstance was
being discussed, or did that pass right over your
head?
>
> >> However I can describe which will reproduce or not in terms of
> >> reproductive chance.
> >
> >In your loony toon reasoning, none of them will
> >reproduce, however, in reality, *if* there are
> >survivors, what is the "reproductive chance" of
> >the survivors reproducing. Please show your work.
>
> The fumi winter would show as a downward selective pressure on the
> reproductive chance of most organisms when making a reproductive
> chance chart of those organisms, realising many organisms chance of
> reproduction to zero. After things clear up, I guess reproductive
> chance of survivors would increase significantly for an extended
> period of time, over reproductive chance of same kinds of organisms
> before the Fumi winter.
So, how is this not part of natural selection?
>
> >> >Depends on what you mean by "chances of reproduction" and the species
> >> >in question. The answer is very different if you compare broadcast
> >> >fertilizing species with species that have hierarchical social
> >> >systems. What relevance this has to natural selection is beyond me.
> >>
> >> Absolutely nothing to do with natural selection, which is exactly the
> >> point.
> >
> >The organisms have to survive long enough to reach
> >"mating season", then live long enough to
> >reproduce during and after "mating season", so NS
> >is involved and relevant. That's so obvious, that
> >it's again obvious that you are not relating to
> >the real world, but are again attempting to
> >present your loony toon surrealistic version of
> >"NS" as fact.
>
> Then Ian Musgrave's understanding of NS is surrealistic and loonytoon.
No, just your interpretation of Ian's
understanding. What planet did you say you were
from? Pluto?
Boikat
>
> Nando
Nando Ronteltap
>Adam Marczyk <ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
>> I'd rather not debate semantics. I maintain that if a single, poorly adapted
>> species dies off because of environmental conditions, even in the complete
>> absence of competition, this is still natural selection. But much like the
>> gravity example, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find an example of a
>> species that had no competition.
>>
>Don't forget Darwin's own counter example - Chapter 3 of OoS
>
>"I should premise that I use the term Struggle for Existence in a large
>and metaphorical sense, including dependence of one being on another,
>and including (which is more important) not only the life of the
>individual, but success in leaving progeny. Two canine animals in atime
>of dearth, may be truly said to struggle with each other which shall get
>food and live. _But a plant on the edge of a desert is said to struggle
>for life against the drought, though more properly it should be said to
>be dependent on the moisture._ A plant which annually produces a
>thousand seeds, of which on an average only one comes to maturity, may
>be more truly said to struggle with the plants of the same and other
>kinds which already clothe the ground. The missletoe is dependent on the
>apple and a few other trees, but can only in a far-fetched sense be said
>to struggle with these trees, for if too many of these parasites grow on
>the same tree, it will languish and die. But several seedling
>missletoes, growing close together on the same branch, may more truly be
>said to struggle with each other. As the missletoe is disseminated by
>birds, its existence depends on birds; and it may metaphorically be said
>to struggle with other fruit-bearing plants, in order to tempt birds to
>devour and thus disseminate its seeds rather than those of other plants.
>In these several senses, which pass into each other, I use for
>convenience sake the general term of struggle for existence. " Italics
>added...
And this is then a revolting piece of stinking shit for as far as
abstract conceptual models go. One can go on for countless years
discussing and interpreting what Darwin actually meant by this. This
is what Darwinists usually do, and there are many Darwinists sects as
a consquence.
The principle "Struggle for Existence" could be more neatly applied to
things that well, come to exist or not. So it can be applied to the
chance of some planet forming, as well as the chance of heads turning
up, and the principle doesn't have to have focus on organisms at all.
There are many chances of things that might happen, but only a very
few chances actually get realised, hence a struggle for existence
among the different chances to be realised. A very neat literal and
fundamental description of the struggle for existence, from a chance
to existence point of view.
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
>> >You are the one who doesn't understand the simple
>> >concepts that have been explained over nd over to
>> >you. The "differentiating" is due to some
>> >variations (differences) being more suitable in a
>> >given environment.
>>
>> This doesn't actually answer the question of what the things you are
>> differentiating have to do with each other.
>
>Yes it does. If you do not think the answer is
>adequate, I don't suppose you have the brain power
>to explain *why* the answer is inadequate? Or is
>"argument a la three year old" the best you can
>do?
That one is more suitable doesn't necessarily mean they actually have
to influence each other at all in some direct or indirect way. So you
did not answer the question what the things you are differentiating
actually have to do with each other, you just answered that you are
differentiating them in terms of suitability to the environment.
Simply put, I ask you what do you have to do with the Eiffeltower, and
then you answer well the Eiffel tower is taller (taller in stead of
fitter/more suited) then you are.
Once again. What do the things you are differentiating have to do with
each other Darwinist?
Nando
Dave Horn
[Snip]
[repost]
"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pfonhtommna0q52je...@4ax.com...
>
> "Dave Horn" <dave...@ns.home.com> wrote:
[Unmarked snip - typical of Nando]
> >But what did it mean when he said his Bible readings
> >gave him the "quite normal thoughts" that Jews are bad?
>
> Dave Horn is lying.
Asked and answered - more than once. I have quoted Nando specifically and
directly and he has twice now said that I am lying.
But what...exactly...is the lie?
Nando won't say.
Nando is a closet anti-semite who views his readings from the Bible that the
Jews are bad as "quite normal thoughts," and I have theorized that this is
because Nando already harbors anti-semitic tendencies. Those with more
rational viewpoints would not tend to view the Jews as "bad" by an unbiased
reading of the Bible. I provided the specific quote from Nando, and here it
is again:
"Also when reading some passages in the Bible, the thought repeatedly occurs
to me that the Jews killed Christ, and that therefore Jews are bad.
Correction on these thoughts then follows, but still I think quite normal
thoughts like those are what racism in conjuction with Darwinism, and
anti-semitism in conjuction with Christianity, mainly stems from."
This is a direct quote.
Where's the lie?
Nando won't say.
I have asked what this alleged "correction" is supposed to be that takes
care of these "quite normal thoughts" and that, by implication, makes them,
well, not "normal." Nando has not replied.
All Nando can do is claim that there are lies.
Where are the lies?
And Nando has once again snipped away and failed to answer for his claim
that the biology community at large agrees with him that the works of Darwin
are a "revolting pile of stinking shit."
Now *there* was a lie.
[End repost]
[Repost]
"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Another unmarked snip here...
[End Repost]
And why did Nando post four reviews at the Amazon site with respect to works
by and about Darwin when he has never read those works?
Nando Ronteltap
>Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>> The fumi winter would show as a downward selective pressure on the
>> reproductive chance of most organisms when making a reproductive
>> chance chart of those organisms, realising many organisms chance of
>> reproduction to zero. After things clear up, I guess reproductive
>> chance of survivors would increase significantly for an extended
>> period of time, over reproductive chance of same kinds of organisms
>> before the Fumi winter.
>
>So, how is this not part of natural selection?
NS occurs only within a specie among organisms with a different
phenotype, and a reproductive success related to that phenotype.
Darwinists do not actually make reproductive chance charts, they make
relative frequency charts of how many there are relatively of an
organism with a particular phenotype, in respect to organisms with an
alternative phenotype.
>> Then Ian Musgrave's understanding of NS is surrealistic and loonytoon.
>
>No, just your interpretation of Ian's
>understanding. What planet did you say you were
>from? Pluto?
Hey it is Darwinists who are the best candidate to be aliens that have
come from another planet.
"If superior creatures from space ever visit earth, the first question
they will ask, in order to assess the level of our civilization, is:
'Have they discovered evolution yet?' Living organisms had existed on
earth, without ever knowing why, for over three thousand million years
before the truth finally dawned on one of them. His name was Charles
Darwin." (Dawkins, Selfish Genes)
Dawkins is a superior creature from outer space. He assesses the level
of civilization of people by them having accepted evolution theory or
not. He calls people who don't accept it liars and fools, and praises
experts of the theory into high heaven. Furthermore Darwinists have
done experiments on live human beings haven't they? They have also
been known to "abduct" the bones of many Australian Aboriginals. Also
the hairlock on Dawkins forehead absolutely proves he is a superior
creature. It all makes perfect sense, Darwinists are superior
creatures from outer space.
Nando
Dave Horn
[Snip]
> Also the hairlock on Dawkins forehead absolutely proves
> he is a superior creature. It all makes perfect sense, Darwinists
> are superior creatures from outer space.
And what are we to make of *this* specimen...?
Boikat
>
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
> >> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> >You are the one who doesn't understand the simple
> >> >concepts that have been explained over nd over to
> >> >you. The "differentiating" is due to some
> >> >variations (differences) being more suitable in a
> >> >given environment.
> >>
> >> This doesn't actually answer the question of what the things you are
> >> differentiating have to do with each other.
> >
> >Yes it does. If you do not think the answer is
> >adequate, I don't suppose you have the brain power
> >to explain *why* the answer is inadequate? Or is
> >"argument a la three year old" the best you can
> >do?
>
> That one is more suitable doesn't necessarily mean they actually have
> to influence each other at all in some direct or indirect way.
Nobody says they *have to*, but it's likely that
they will if they are individuals of the same
species which inhabit the same environment, occupy
the same ecosystem and compete for the same
resources in order to survive and to reproduce
successfully. Comet impacts, not withstanding.
> So you
> did not answer the question what the things you are differentiating
> actually have to do with each other, you just answered that you are
> differentiating them in terms of suitability to the environment.
And amongst themselves. You keep ignoring that
aspect, even though that's inherent in the
system..
> Simply put, I ask you what do you have to do with the Eiffeltower, and
> then you answer well the Eiffel tower is taller (taller in stead of
> fitter/more suited) then you are.
In other words, your complaint is too vague to be
of any use, since it cannot be answered
rationally, since it's an irrational question. I
see.
>
> Once again. What do the things you are differentiating have to do with
> each other Darwinist?
Argument a la three year old again. Why am I not
surprised?
Boikat
Boikat
>
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>
> >> The fumi winter would show as a downward selective pressure on the
> >> reproductive chance of most organisms when making a reproductive
> >> chance chart of those organisms, realising many organisms chance of
> >> reproduction to zero. After things clear up, I guess reproductive
> >> chance of survivors would increase significantly for an extended
> >> period of time, over reproductive chance of same kinds of organisms
> >> before the Fumi winter.
> >
> >So, how is this not part of natural selection?
>
> NS occurs only within a specie among organisms with a different
> phenotype, and a reproductive success related to that phenotype.
Yes, and...? You left something out
again...begins with the letters "e" "n" "v"......
>
> Darwinists do not actually make reproductive chance charts,
What makes you think they don't?
> they make
> relative frequency charts of how many there are relatively of an
> organism with a particular phenotype, in respect to organisms with an
> alternative phenotype.
Do they? And how does this *not* relate to
reproductive charts, if they chose to arrange the
data in such manner?
>
> >> Then Ian Musgrave's understanding of NS is surrealistic and loonytoon.
> >
> >No, just your interpretation of Ian's
> >understanding. What planet did you say you were
> >from? Pluto?
>
> Hey it is Darwinists who are the best candidate to be aliens that have
> come from another planet.
Yeah right, Pee Wee.
> "If superior creatures from space ever visit earth, the first question
> they will ask, in order to assess the level of our civilization, is:
> 'Have they discovered evolution yet?' Living organisms had existed on
> earth, without ever knowing why, for over three thousand million years
> before the truth finally dawned on one of them. His name was Charles
> Darwin." (Dawkins, Selfish Genes)
>
> Dawkins is a superior creature from outer space. He assesses the level
> of civilization of people by them having accepted evolution theory or
> not. He calls people who don't accept it liars and fools, and praises
> experts of the theory into high heaven. Furthermore Darwinists have
> done experiments on live human beings haven't they? They have also
> been known to "abduct" the bones of many Australian Aboriginals. Also
> the hairlock on Dawkins forehead absolutely proves he is a superior
> creature. It all makes perfect sense, Darwinists are superior
> creatures from outer space.
As someone once said "Any sufficiently advanced
technology will be indistinguishable from magic."
(Or something along those lines). I suppose the
same could be said to apply whenever a moron, such
as yourself, is confronted by a scientific theory
that is beyond your comprehension. You can't
comprehend it because of your stupidity (and your
religious biases, fears, and preconceived
notions), so it must be wrong, and to compensate
for your inadequacies, you attempt to pretend to
mimic the science, by creating your very own loony
toon surrealistic version of the theory, in order
to cover up your inadequacies
Boikat
Derek Stevenson
news:127ccf2e.01060...@posting.google.com...
> > Repeat this question then Darwinism will break down.
> >
> Or Nando will, which might be even more amusing.
"There is another theory which states that this has already happened." --
Douglas Adams
Derek Stevenson
> Whatever. You simply don't know what the things you are
> differentiating have to do with each other, and you don't care. No
> single person accepts Natural Selection theory when first presented
> with reproductive theory, other then accepting NS as being a grotesk
> misconception of reproductive theory.
Do they indicate their acceptance by smiling, nodding and backing slowly
away?
And are you explaining this to them in English, or in Dutch (or whatever
your first language happens to be)?
Derek Stevenson
> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >The organisms have to survive long enough to reach
> >"mating season", then live long enough to
> >reproduce during and after "mating season", so NS
> >is involved and relevant. That's so obvious, that
> >it's again obvious that you are not relating to
> >the real world, but are again attempting to
> >present your loony toon surrealistic version of
> >"NS" as fact.
>
> Then Ian Musgrave's understanding of NS is surrealistic and loonytoon.
For some reason, I can't help wondering how Bugs Bunny would respond to the
assertion that gravity affects you whether or not you realize you're out
there in thin air unsupported by anything.
Mitchell Coffey
Nando once wrote that he explained his theory of "reproductive chance"
to a number of people who'd understood it easily. These people, he
noted, didn't know much biology. Now, this was sometime ago, so maybe
by now he's found someone who both understood his theories and
understood the subject being discussed. But, I ask, if that were the
case, how would he know?
Mitchell Coffey
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 8 Jun 2001 10:52:37 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>"Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue" <ian.musgr...@adelaide.edu.au>
>wrote:
>
>>G'Day All
>>Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
>>
>>On 4 Jun 2001 08:39:21 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>What do the things you differentiate have to do with each other?
>>
>>They are allelic variants of the same species.
>
>What do the things you differentiate have to do with each other?
They are allelic variants of the same species. For example in peppered
moths the light form has the cc genotype and the dark form a cC or CC
genotype, where C and c are variants of a gene controling degree of
melanin expression. In S. typimurium, the AAA42 allele of the _rsPL_
gene (one of the ribosome components) is streptomycin sensitive, and
the AGA42 allele of the _rsPL_ gene is steptomycin resistant.
>Repeat this question then Darwinism will break down.
Repeat the answer and you may one day understand it. Better yet, go to
the actual literature on natural selection (and sexual selection and
neutral drift) and read something about it.
After all, natural selection is not an abstract philosophical
construction, its is something that we have seen both experimentally
and in the wild.
Cheers! Ian
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 9 Jun 2001 10:04:13 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>>> Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>> >You are the one who doesn't understand the simple
>>> >concepts that have been explained over nd over to
>>> >you. The "differentiating" is due to some
>>> >variations (differences) being more suitable in a
>>> >given environment.
>>>
>>> This doesn't actually answer the question of what the things you are
>>> differentiating have to do with each other.
>>
>>Yes it does. If you do not think the answer is
>>adequate, I don't suppose you have the brain power
>>to explain *why* the answer is inadequate? Or is
>>"argument a la three year old" the best you can
>>do?
>
>That one is more suitable doesn't necessarily mean they actually have
>to influence each other at all in some direct or indirect way.
No, they don't _necessarily_ have to influence each other. This has
been explained many times. All that's needed is differential
reproductive success.
>So you
>did not answer the question what the things you are differentiating
>actually have to do with each other, you just answered that you are
>differentiating them in terms of suitability to the environment.
That's exactly what they have to do with each other, they have
differnt reproductive successes in a given environment, no more, no
less.
>Simply put, I ask you what do you have to do with the Eiffeltower, and
>then you answer well the Eiffel tower is taller (taller in stead of
>fitter/more suited) then you are.
Well, the eifel tower is taller than he is (and also made of iron).
But in a gedanken experiment about tallness, in any population of
organisms tallness is varies between individuals, and the variation is
hereditable. Tall organsims tend to produce tall offspring, and short
organisms short offspring. In a population of species that eats, say,
leaves, with a mix of tall and short individuals, tall individuals
will be able to reach more leaves in the trees, and be better fed,
than short individuals. The better fed individuals leave more
offspring, and over time the population average gets taller.
>Once again. What do the things you are differentiating have to do with
>each other Darwinist?
They are allelic variants of the same species. You seem to want some
kind of physical conection between the alleic variants, but you don't
need that at all.
Cheers! Ian
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 9 Jun 2001 09:24:45 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>>> "Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue" <ian.musgr...@adelaide.edu.au>
>
>>> >No. Can you tell a priori, which species will survive Fimbuwinter? You
>>> >can't.
>>>
>>> Since all organisms die anyway, that's not a very useful question.
>>
>>How do you know all organisms will die? The Earth
>>has been hit several times in the past by large
>>bodies, and not all organisms died.
>
>You will die Boikat, all organisms die. memento mori.
Ah, that's not the question. The question is can reproductive theory
predict, a priori which _species_ will go extinct.
>>> However I can describe which will reproduce or not in terms of
>>> reproductive chance.
>>
>>In your loony toon reasoning, none of them will
>>reproduce, however, in reality, *if* there are
>>survivors, what is the "reproductive chance" of
>>the survivors reproducing. Please show your work.
>
>The fumi winter would show as a downward selective pressure on the
FimbuWinter please, get it right.
>reproductive chance of most organisms when making a reproductive
>chance chart of those organisms, realising many organisms chance of
>reproduction to zero.
So? How do you measure reproductive chance in any given species undeer
those conditions? Can you give a reason why mantiraptorans went
extinct, while similar sized mammals did not.
>After things clear up, I guess reproductive
>chance of survivors would increase significantly for an extended
>period of time, over reproductive chance of same kinds of organisms
>before the Fumi winter.
So? But why did _some_ species go extinct and others not? Your
"theory" can give you no information on this.
>>> >Depends on what you mean by "chances of reproduction" and the species
>>> >in question. The answer is very different if you compare broadcast
>>> >fertilizing species with species that have hierarchical social
>>> >systems. What relevance this has to natural selection is beyond me.
>>>
>>> Absolutely nothing to do with natural selection, which is exactly the
>>> point.
>>
>>The organisms have to survive long enough to reach
>>"mating season", then live long enough to
>>reproduce during and after "mating season", so NS
>>is involved and relevant. That's so obvious, that
>>it's again obvious that you are not relating to
>>the real world, but are again attempting to
>>present your loony toon surrealistic version of
>>"NS" as fact.
>
>Then Ian Musgrave's understanding of NS is surrealistic and loonytoon.
No, it all depends on what Nando means by "chances of reproduction",
as I asid, the answer is very different at differnt levels of
ogranisation and social system (and some organisms don't have a mating
season).
Natural selection occurs both in organsism that do, and those that do
not have mating seasons.
Cheers!
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 8 Jun 2001 10:57:33 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>"Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue" <ian.musgr...@adelaide.edu.au>
>wrote:
>>G'Day All
>>Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
>>On 4 Jun 2001 08:39:21 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>>Isn't everything in nature covered already with reproductive theory,
>>>the theory that describes organisms in terms of their chance of future
>>>reproduction?
>>
>>No. Can you tell a priori, which species will survive Fimbuwinter? You
>>can't.
>
>Since all organisms die anyway, that's not a very useful question.
No, go back and read the question again "Can you tell a priori which
_species_ will survive FimbuWinter". Your claim is that "reproductive
theory" covers what happens in nature better than Natural selection,
yet it faces exactly the same problem that NS faces when confronted
with an impact and the FimbuWinter that follows.
>However I can describe which will reproduce or not in terms of
>reproductive chance.
Really? a prioir? even a posterior? can you given a reason why small
mantiraptorans went extinct and similar sized mammals didn't from your
reproductive theory? (aside from they didn't reproduce - WHY didn't
they reproduce)
>>>What happens to the chances of reproduction during mating-season?
>>
>>Depends on what you mean by "chances of reproduction" and the species
>>in question. The answer is very different if you compare broadcast
>>fertilizing species with species that have hierarchical social
>>systems. What relevance this has to natural selection is beyond me.
>
>Absolutely nothing to do with natural selection, which is exactly the
>point.
Then it is an utterly obscure point.
Cheers! Ian
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 9 Jun 2001 05:43:50 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>stev...@altavista.com (Steven J.) wrote:
As the numebr of people you have presented with reproductive theory is
small, and all the biologists who have heard it say its nonsense, this
statement is incorrect.
Mitchell Coffey
> need that at all.
[snip]
I think he wants you to say that allelic variants beat each other up
for food, shelter and the best tickets. Then he can point out that,
since beating each other up is morally wrong, not only does it follow
that it doesn't happen, but you are immoral for believing that it
does.
Mitchell Coffey
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 13 Jun 2001 10:07:54 -0400, MitC...@aol.com (Mitchell Coffey)
wrote:
>"Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue" <ian.musgr...@adelaide.edu.au> wrote in message news:<0QcnOw6k4TjF=5fNVupA...@4ax.com>...
>> G'Day All
>> Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
>>
>> On 9 Jun 2001 10:04:13 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
[snip]
>> >Once again. What do the things you are differentiating have to do with
>> >each other Darwinist?
>>
>> They are allelic variants of the same species. You seem to want some
>> kind of physical conection between the allelic variants, but you don't
>> need that at all.
>[snip]
>
>I think he wants you to say that allelic variants beat each other up
>for food, shelter and the best tickets. Then he can point out that,
>since beating each other up is morally wrong, not only does it follow
>that it doesn't happen, but you are immoral for believing that it
>does.
Well, it can happen, but it doesn't _have_ to. For example peppered
moths, streptomycin resistant bacteria, nylon digesting bacteria, and
finch beak size in the galapagos.
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 13 Jun 2001 03:18:34 -0400, "Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue"
<ian.musgr...@adelaide.edu.au> wrote:
>G'Day All
>Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
>
>On 8 Jun 2001 10:52:37 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
[snip]
>>Repeat this question then Darwinism will break down.
>
>Repeat the answer and you may one day understand it. Better yet, go to
>the actual literature on natural selection (and sexual selection and
>neutral drift) and read something about it.
>
>After all, natural selection is not an abstract philosophical
>construction, its is something that we have seen both experimentally
>and in the wild.
The latest edition of Trends in Eclogy and Evolution (1 july, vol 16,
number 7) is entirely devoted to speciation. It might be worth while
reading it, there is lots of good meaty stuff in it.