Natural Selection: Fairy Tale
Jesse976
fairy tale? Does "natural selection" exist on Mars? If it were
real, as say gravity, certainly it does. Yet, everyone reading
this knows of the total absurdity of the suggestion. Does
"natural selection" operate on the moon?
I do not believe in Evolution nor do I consider that "natural
selection" is a competent mechanism to alter anything
substantially. In comparatively modern times, it was Blyth
then Wallace who formulated natural selection. The "synthesist"
Darwin appropriated their work and accounted Natural
Selection as the prime mover in Evolution. This was a
mistake, as Blyth properly showed that it was not competent
to form new species, only to conserve existing ones. SG
Mivart showed the same thing but with absolute finality
in his review of Darwin.
If I were to reject science and to believe again in Evolution,
I would discard Victorian notions of Malthus, Blyth, Wallace,
and Darwin. And, I would truly look for a REAL and prime
mover in Evolution. Just as Ernst Haeckel's botched notions
of Ontogeny, Embryology, and the Gastrea Theory hindered
science for decades, so has Natural Selection done the
same for Evolution. It is an atavistic appeal to the occultic
and just as bad for science as present day Dawkins talking
of "selfish genes", as bad as alchemists seeking to "explain"
science by referring to elements as "active and passive",
as absurd as talking of "the Aether", Caloric, ...
Send all AntiEvolution material to my address.
Matt Silberstein
from jess...@aol.com (Jesse976):
|Does Natural Selection exist, at all, or is it only a Victorian
|fairy tale? Does "natural selection" exist on Mars? If it were
|real, as say gravity, certainly it does. Yet, everyone reading
|this knows of the total absurdity of the suggestion. Does
|"natural selection" operate on the moon?
Ok, so Natural Selection is nonsense. What do you think about
differential reproductive success due, at least in part, to inherited
characteristics?
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Liberty is the mother, not the daughter, of order
Pierre Joseph Proudhon
Boikat
>
> Does Natural Selection exist, at all, or is it only a Victorian
> fairy tale?
Let's find out. Put a bullfrog in the middle of a
desert.
> Does "natural selection" exist on Mars?
Depends. Is there life on Mars? But we could
always send you to mars then have you open the
visor of your EVA suit.
> If it were
> real, as say gravity, certainly it does.
If there is life, yes.
> Yet, everyone reading
> this knows of the total absurdity of the suggestion.
Why would you say something based upon ignorance?
(Unless you know for a fact that there is no life
on mars.)
> Does
> "natural selection" operate on the moon?
There is no life on the moon that we know of
either. (contamination of lunar probes not
counting) But again, we could send you to the
moon, and once there, you could open the visor of
your EVA suit and tell us all about it. A
"GAAHhhhh..." will be taken as an indication that
natural selection works on the moon.
>
> I do not believe in Evolution
Why? It certainly doesn't have anything to do
with the evidence that supports it.
> nor do I consider that "natural
> selection" is a competent mechanism to alter anything
> substantially.
It's a filter. it only works on what's
available. It doesn't actually create anything,
it just sorts.
> In comparatively modern times, it was Blyth
> then Wallace who formulated natural selection. The "synthesist"
> Darwin appropriated their work and accounted Natural
> Selection as the prime mover in Evolution.
It's a very important part of the process, yes.
> This was a
> mistake, as Blyth properly showed that it was not competent
> to form new species, only to conserve existing ones.
Or remove them.
> SG
> Mivart showed the same thing but with absolute finality
> in his review of Darwin.
Your point?
>
> If I were to reject science and to believe again in Evolution,
If you've rejected evolution, you've rejected
science already, that is, if you ever understood
what science is to begin with.
> I would discard Victorian notions of Malthus, Blyth, Wallace,
> and Darwin. And, I would truly look for a REAL and prime
> mover in Evolution. Just as Ernst Haeckel's botched notions
> of Ontogeny, Embryology, and the Gastrea Theory hindered
> science for decades, so has Natural Selection done the
> same for Evolution. It is an atavistic appeal to the occultic
> and just as bad for science as present day Dawkins talking
> of "selfish genes", as bad as alchemists seeking to "explain"
> science by referring to elements as "active and passive",
> as absurd as talking of "the Aether", Caloric, ...
You clearly do not understand the difference
between the theory and the people.
>
> Send all AntiEvolution material to my address.
Yes, avoid all Pro evolution sites at all costs,
lest your bubble that holds your fantasy world
pops.
Boikat
Gyudon Z
>Does Natural Selection exist, at all, or is it only a Victorian
>fairy tale? Does "natural selection" exist on Mars? If it were
>real, as say gravity, certainly it does.
Natural selection presupposes life. If there is life on Mars, then yes, it
does.
>Yet, everyone reading
>this knows of the total absurdity of the suggestion.
What is absurd is the fact that you think you've made a valid point against
natural selection.
>Does
>"natural selection" operate on the moon?
Is it supposed to?
>I do not believe in Evolution nor do I consider that "natural
>selection" is a competent mechanism to alter anything
>substantially.
The whole 'peppered moth' business was lost on you, wasn't it?
> In comparatively modern times, it was Blyth
>then Wallace who formulated natural selection. The "synthesist"
>Darwin appropriated their work and accounted Natural
>Selection as the prime mover in Evolution. This was a
>mistake, as Blyth properly showed that it was not competent
>to form new species, only to conserve existing ones
What is evolution? The change in allele frequencies over time. Does natural
selection do this? Yes. Arguments ex strawman don't really cut it here.
>SG
>Mivart showed the same thing but with absolute finality
>in his review of Darwin.
Science doesn't really deal with absolutes, you know.
>If I were to reject science and to believe again in Evolution,
>I would discard Victorian notions of Malthus, Blyth, Wallace,
>and Darwin. And, I would truly look for a REAL and prime
>mover in Evolution.
>If I were to reject science and to believe again in Evolution,
>I would discard Victorian notions of Malthus, Blyth, Wallace,
>and Darwin. And, I would truly look for a REAL and prime
>mover in Evolution.
What the hell is a prime mover?> Just as Ernst Haeckel's botched notions
>of Ontogeny, Embryology, and the Gastrea Theory hindered
>science for decades, so has Natural Selection done the
>same for Evolution.
You've given us no evidence that natural selection is untrue.
>It is an atavistic appeal to the occultic
>and just as bad for science as present day Dawkins talking
>of "selfish genes",
Dawkins' point was that the function of any organism in nature is to survive
long enough to reproduce. What's wrong with that?
>as bad as alchemists seeking to "explain"
>science by referring to elements as "active and passive",
>as absurd as talking of "the Aether", Caloric, ...
We have rejected that in favor of better science. We rejected the book of
genesis for the same reason.
>Send all AntiEvolution material to my address.
Too afraid to read anything pro-evolution in case it would open up your closed
little mind, are you?
mel turner
jess...@aol.com wrote...
>
>Does Natural Selection exist, at all, or is it only a Victorian
>fairy tale?
1] Some antievolutionists like to argue that it's a tautologous
truism [that self evidently must exist]. 2] Victorian? Do visit
the 20th century some day...
>Does "natural selection" exist on Mars? If it were
>real, as say gravity, certainly it does.
If there are any imperfectly self-reproducing entities there, then
it exists.
>Yet, everyone reading
>this knows of the total absurdity of the suggestion.
Only absurd if the necessary conditions for it [the presence of
reproducing, varying life] are lacking there. The same
consideration would apply to gravity, etc., but the requirements
for gravity [presence of matter] are rather more basic.
> Does
>"natural selection" operate on the moon?
Is there any self-reproducing life there? If not, this is being
pretty silly.
Does "the water cycle" operate on the moon? Does "rainfall"? Does
'wind erosion' happen there? I guess those phenomena aren't "real"
either...
>I do not believe in Evolution nor do I consider that "natural
>selection" is a competent mechanism to alter anything
>substantially.
Nor does antievolutionist wishful thinking count for much. What
stops natural selection [why the quotes? the term's been around for
quite a while, by most standards...] from causing "substantial
alterations"? How do we define "substantial"?
>In comparatively modern times, it was Blyth
>then Wallace who formulated natural selection.
Comparatively modern times for you, perhaps. Mr. C. Darwin deserves
a mention as well.
>The "synthesist"
>Darwin appropriated their work and accounted Natural
>Selection as the prime mover in Evolution.
Why, that sneaky thief... ;-)
see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precursors/precurs7.html
>This was a
>mistake, as Blyth properly showed that it was not competent
>to form new species, only to conserve existing ones. SG
>Mivart showed the same thing but with absolute finality
>in his review of Darwin.
You're joking, right? So, you seem to think evolutionary biology
was nipped in the bud "with absolute finality" way back in the
nid-19th century. Odd that Darwin and subsequent generations of
biologists all seem to disagree [not that speciation-causing
changes need to be selected for. Genetic drift in isolated
populations is enough]
>If I were to reject science and to believe again in Evolution,
>I would discard Victorian notions of Malthus, Blyth, Wallace,
>and Darwin.
What? Discard Victorian notions? What ever would you be left with?
>And, I would truly look for a REAL and prime
>mover in Evolution. Just as Ernst Haeckel's botched notions
>of Ontogeny, Embryology, and the Gastrea Theory hindered
>science for decades, so has Natural Selection done the
>same for Evolution. It is an atavistic appeal to the occultic
>and just as bad for science as present day Dawkins talking
>of "selfish genes", as bad as alchemists seeking to "explain"
>science by referring to elements as "active and passive",
>as absurd as talking of "the Aether", Caloric, ...
The 'atavistic' writing style is a nice touch. [Who is this,
really?]
cheers
Mark VandeWettering
>
> Does Natural Selection exist, at all, or is it only a Victorian
> real, as say gravity, certainly it does. Yet, everyone reading
> this knows of the total absurdity of the suggestion.
It is absurd in the sense that if there is no biological organisms
on Mars, then it is absurd to say that natural selection is operating
on biological organisms on Mars.
Even logically, your argument is flawed. Many "real" things, like
say, McDonald's restaurants exist on the earth. The fact they may
not exist on Mars doesn't make them any less real.
> Does
> "natural selection" operate on the moon?
See above.
> I do not believe in Evolution nor do I consider that "natural
> selection" is a competent mechanism to alter anything
> substantially.
You are wrong.
> In comparatively modern times, it was Blyth
> then Wallace who formulated natural selection. The "synthesist"
> Darwin appropriated their work and accounted Natural
> Selection as the prime mover in Evolution. This was a
> mistake, as Blyth properly showed that it was not competent
> to form new species, only to conserve existing ones. SG
> Mivart showed the same thing but with absolute finality
> in his review of Darwin.
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE2/DarC.html
Wallace seemed to hold a rather curious view that evolution was
sufficient to establish the "lower" species, but that man was
somehow unexplainable by descent from these lower species. This
kind of hubris remains rather common. Mivart's opinion seemed
to be that there is more difference between apes and men than apes
and granite. Again, a curious view, motivated largely by philosophical
preconceptions I suspect.
> If I were to reject science and to believe again in Evolution,
> I would discard Victorian notions of Malthus, Blyth, Wallace,
> and Darwin. And, I would truly look for a REAL and prime
> mover in Evolution. Just as Ernst Haeckel's botched notions
> of Ontogeny, Embryology, and the Gastrea Theory hindered
> science for decades, so has Natural Selection done the
> same for Evolution. It is an atavistic appeal to the occultic
> and just as bad for science as present day Dawkins talking
> of "selfish genes", as bad as alchemists seeking to "explain"
> science by referring to elements as "active and passive",
> as absurd as talking of "the Aether", Caloric, ...
Well, what can I say to that...
Mark
>
> Send all AntiEvolution material to my address.
>
--
Mark T. VandeWettering Telescope Information (and more)
Email: <ma...@pixar.com> http://raytracer.org
sc...@home.com
>
>What is evolution? The change in allele frequencies over time.
> Does natural selection do this?
>
changes in allele frequencies. That would
happen with or without natural selection.
Regards,
Scott
Ken Cox
> Natural selection is not responsible for the
> changes in allele frequencies. That would
> happen with or without natural selection.
Thus, evolution occurs. Congratulations, you are finally
beginning to catch on. I suspected that continuous repetition
might overcome your... difficulties.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Matt Silberstein
sc...@home.com:
|In <20000524150819...@ng-md1.aol.com>, gyu...@aol.com (Gyudon Z) writes:
|>
| >What is evolution? The change in allele frequencies over time.
|> Does natural selection do this?
|>
|Natural selection is not responsible for the
|changes in allele frequencies. That would
|happen with or without natural selection.
Your ability to distort is impressive. Try this if you want some
accuracy: Natural Selection is not responsible for *all of* the
changes in allele frequencies. *Some* of the changes would happen with
or without selection. IOW, NS is *one* of the mechanisms but not the
*only* one. Gyudon was, of course, correct, you were wrong.
mgi...@my-deja.com
jess...@aol.com (Jesse976) wrote:
> Does Natural Selection exist, at all, or is it only a Victorian
> fairy tale?
I'd like to hear your definition of a fairy tale before commenting on
the rest. What would you say the properties of a fairy tale are? What
common elements are there?
[big snip]
Phil Richards
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Gyudon Z
Nonentity. I see why now.
>Natural selection is not responsible for the
>changes in allele frequencies. That would
>happen with or without natural selection.
It strikes me that natural selection is responsible for a great deal of the
changes in allele frequencies that cannot be attributed to random chance and
natural disasters--something related to the Hardy-Weinberg
hypothesis/theory/law (I don't know which it is).
Basically, if natural selection doesn't do it, what does?
Gyudon Z
>changes in allele frequencies. That would
>happen with or without natural selection.
Consider a population in which half the members carry a dominant gene that is
100% fatal before they have a chance to reproduce--clearly a selective
disadvantage. In the next generation, none of the population will have these
traits. This is natural selection in action.
Carlos Antunes
news:20000524121614...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
>
> I do not believe in Evolution nor do I consider that "natural
> selection" is a competent mechanism to alter anything
> substantially.
>
That's a right you have, to be wrong.
Anyway, if you want to be taken seriously, it would be nice for you to
explain WHY you do not believe in "natural selection". Otherwise, people
might think that you have an hidden agenda...
Regards,
Carlos Antunes.
sc...@home.com
>Hiero5ant warned me about you; he suggested your addition to the Unholy
>Nonentity. I see why now.
>
>>changes in allele frequencies. That would
>>happen with or without natural selection.
>
>changes in allele frequencies that cannot be attributed to random chance and
>natural disasters--something related to the Hardy-Weinberg
>hypothesis/theory/law (I don't know which it is).
>
>Basically, if natural selection doesn't do it, what does?
>
I don't immediately recall if this is the
same as the neutral theory or not.
Regards,
Scott
wf...@ptd.net
>
>If I were to reject science and to believe again in Evolution,
while jesse is a troll, this little contradiction is a key idea in
creationism. the problem is that no one has told the world's
scientists that we're being unscientific for accepting evolution.
>
jesse, unfortunately, isnt a good troll. his statements are too
rhetorical with none of the ruffles and flourishes of
creationism...like 'the SLOT disproves evolution'
Chris C.
> >
> One theory includes genetic drift.
>
> I don't immediately recall if this is the
> same as the neutral theory or not.
Evolution is a change from one generation to another. There are lots of
explanations(not mutually exclusive) for this fact. There is heredity,
natural selection, genetic drift, founders affect and others(actually I say
others cause I don't know anymore. Anybody got other mechanisms for
evolution?).
Chris C.
Johnny Bravo
>Does Natural Selection exist, at all, or is it only a Victorian
>fairy tale? Does "natural selection" exist on Mars? If it were
>real, as say gravity, certainly it does. Yet, everyone reading
>this knows of the total absurdity of the suggestion. Does
>"natural selection" operate on the moon?
Does photosynthesis operate on the moon? According to your
misapplication of logic, since there is currently no photosynthesis on
the moon it cannot exist on Earth.
Thanks for playing, please try again.
--
Best Wishes,
Johnny Bravo
BAAWA Knight, EAC - Temporal Adjustments Division
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all it's contents." - HPL
Steven Krise
>>>Natural selection is not responsible for the
>>>changes in allele frequencies. That would
>>>happen with or without natural selection.
>>
>>It strikes me that natural selection is responsible for a great deal
>>of the changes in allele frequencies that cannot be attributed to
>>random chance and natural disasters--something related to the
>>Hardy-Weinberg hypothesis/theory/law (I don't know which it is).
>>
>>
> One theory includes genetic drift.
>
> I don't immediately recall if this is the
> same as the neutral theory or not.
What is genetic drift, then? It was my understanding that
genetic drift occurs because certain alleles are culled from
the gene pool when individuals are selected against.
Or is genetic drift a term that refers to the fact that every
time DNA replicates there is a non-zero chance that a copying
error will occur and therefore, over time the contents of the
gene pool will change.
Could someone elaborate on what genetic drift is.
Thanks,
Steven
Matt Silberstein
Krise <skr...@attglobal.net>:
Genetic drift says that non-selected mutations can get fixed in a
population.
leonardo dasso
Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:392C4661...@research.bell-labs.com...
> sc...@home.com wrote:
> > Natural selection is not responsible for the
> > changes in allele frequencies. That would
> > happen with or without natural selection.
>
> beginning to catch on. I suspected that continuous repetition
> might overcome your... difficulties.
>
> --
> Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
>
What have they done with the real Scotthome? This is an impostor.
leo
Mark Isaak
>Natural selection is not responsible for the
>changes in allele frequencies. That would
>happen with or without natural selection.
Wind and water are not responsible for erosion. That would happen
with or without wind and water.
--
Mark Isaak atta @ best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"The commonest fallacy is to suppose that since the state of doubt
is accompanied by a feeling of uncertainty, knowledge arises when
this feeling gives way to one of assurance." - John Dewey
Floyd
Steven Krise wrote:
> sc...@home.com wrote:
> >>>Natural selection is not responsible for the
> >>>changes in allele frequencies. That would
> >>>happen with or without natural selection.
> >>
> >>It strikes me that natural selection is responsible for a great deal
> >>of the changes in allele frequencies that cannot be attributed to
> >>random chance and natural disasters--something related to the
> >>Hardy-Weinberg hypothesis/theory/law (I don't know which it is).
> >>
> >>Basically, if natural selection doesn't do it, what does?
> >>
> > One theory includes genetic drift.
> >
> > I don't immediately recall if this is the
> > same as the neutral theory or not.
not quite, but neutrality is related
>
>
> What is genetic drift, then? It was my understanding that
> genetic drift occurs because certain alleles are culled from
> the gene pool when individuals are selected against.
Nope. Technically, that's selection. Drift is a result of "random"
sampling.Think of it this way, if father has genotype Aa, mother has
genotype Aa,
we expect 25% of offspring to have AA, 25% to have aa, and 50% to have
Aa. However, "we don't always get what we expect" is probably the truest
statement I can think of. If, mom and dad have 4 kids, and by entirely
"random" chance, their kids are 2 AA's and 2 Aa's (no aa's) then the
distribution of the family's gene pool has changed, and the probability
of aa in the next generation is reduced to 1/16. (Obviously I'm using one
inbreeding family for conceptual convenience. In truth, this applies to
whole demes, not individual families, but it's the same idea.) The
expected
distribution of AA, Aa, and aa was formerly 25:50:25, but is now
56.25: 37.5: 6.25. In other words, it's the expected distribution of
genes
that is "drifting," rather than the genes themselves.
Another way this could happen is differential survival based on forces
other than selection. For example, say you have a field of mushrooms of
two varieties, brown and white. By purely random chance, your cow steps
on mostly white ones, not because she's trying to, and not because of any
properties of the mushrooms or the cow, just entirely by chance she steps
on more white than brown ones. The next generation will be "sampled"
from the survivors of this generation, but the sample will not be
completely
representative of the distribution of traits in the preceeding generation.
Founder effect is a type of genetic drift that has had a significant
impact
on human evolution. Founder effect happens when a non-random subset
of a population settles a new area and loses genetic contact to their
parent
population. For example, if a group of explorers, men and women, all went
over the hill into the next valley, and there was a higher percentage of
blue-
eyed people in the group of explorers than in the parent population that
they
left. Then that colony will have a higher frequency of blue eyes as it
grows
into a larger community, and consequently, any daughter colonies that
leave
from this group will also have a higher frequency of blue eyes than the
daughter colonies that bud off the first group.
Neutrality is a factor in this mainly because the effect will be most
noticable
with traits that are not increasing or decreasing for selective reasons.
That is,
although a certain amount of drift is likely to be happening in traits
that are under
selection, non-random effects of selection will obscure it. If the shade
of a pelt is
helpful in camoflage, for example, drift away from the local optimum will
be
"weeded out" relatively quickly. It will still happen, but any population
of rodents,
for example, that due to founder effect all have bright orange pelts will
most likely
go extinct pretty rapidly.
> Or is genetic drift a term that refers to the fact that every
> time DNA replicates there is a non-zero chance that a copying
> error will occur and therefore, over time the contents of the
> gene pool will change.
well, that's technically mutation. drift is more about sampling
error.However, if those copying errors are neutral, with respect to the
forces of selection, then yes, that's a form of drift.
>
>
> Could someone elaborate on what genetic drift is.
>
HTH -Floyd
sc...@home.com
>Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote in message
>news:392C4661...@research.bell-labs.com...
>> sc...@home.com wrote:
>> > Natural selection is not responsible for the
>> > changes in allele frequencies. That would
>> > happen with or without natural selection.
>>
>> Thus, evolution occurs. Congratulations, you are finally
>> beginning to catch on. I suspected that continuous repetition
>> might overcome your... difficulties.
>>
>
>What have they done with the real Scotthome?
>This is an impostor.
>leo
>
Why did it take an ignoramus like me to
point this simple fact out to him?
I'm still waiting for someone to correct
the poster who claimed that evolution
could occur because the sun shines
on the earth.
regards,
scott
Ken Cox
It didn't. Pretty much everyone else already knows that evolution
happens, and can happen even without natural selection; I certainly
did. Why you think saying such obvious things accomplishes something
I do not understand. Is it related to your memory problem, perhaps?
Do these things come as such an amazing surprise to you each time
you encounter them that you can't believe everyone else already
knows them?
> I'm still waiting for someone to correct
> the poster who claimed that evolution
> could occur because the sun shines
> on the earth.
Interesting. Your memory problem is intermittent; you can sometimes
remember that an exchange has happened, but still completely garble
the actual statements made.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Paul J Gans
>In <8gjp6r$1ui$1...@lure.pipex.net>, "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net> writes:
>>Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote in message
>>news:392C4661...@research.bell-labs.com...
>>> sc...@home.com wrote:
>>> > Natural selection is not responsible for the
>>> > changes in allele frequencies. That would
>>> > happen with or without natural selection.
>>>
>>> Thus, evolution occurs. Congratulations, you are finally
>>> beginning to catch on. I suspected that continuous repetition
>>> might overcome your... difficulties.
>>>
>>
>>What have they done with the real Scotthome?
>>This is an impostor.
>>leo
>>
>Why did it take an ignoramus like me to
>point this simple fact out to him?
>I'm still waiting for someone to correct
>the poster who claimed that evolution
>could occur because the sun shines
>on the earth.
If the earth existed in a dark and limitless void,
would evolution occur?
---- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
R Bishop
Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
>sc...@home.com wrote:
>> Why did it take an ignoramus like me to
>> point this simple fact out to him?
>
>It didn't. Pretty much everyone else already knows that evolution
>happens, and can happen even without natural selection; I certainly
>did. Why you think saying such obvious things accomplishes something
>I do not understand. Is it related to your memory problem, perhaps?
>Do these things come as such an amazing surprise to you each time
>you encounter them that you can't believe everyone else already
>knows them?
>
>
>> I'm still waiting for someone to correct
>> the poster who claimed that evolution
>> could occur because the sun shines
>> on the earth.
>
>Interesting. Your memory problem is intermittent; you can sometimes
>remember that an exchange has happened, but still completely garble
>the actual statements made.
>
I've been formulating my own hypothesis that most creationists were dropped
on their heads as babies.
The evidence is mounting.
>--
>Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
>
Sue
"Never trust anything that thinks for itself,
if you can't see where it keeps its brain."
J K Rowlings
Jesse976
Does photosynthesis operate on the moon? According to your
misapplication of logic, since there is currently no photosynthesis on
the moon it cannot exist on Earth.>
You believe that "natural selection"
is as palpable, then, as sunlight?
Surprising that it was only, then,
formulated by Blyth, who rightly
considered it so tenuous as to only
conserve species and not to alter
them. What did Blyth and Wallace
see (or, fail to) that clearly was
NOT as evident as sunbeams?
Gyudon Z
>is as palpable, then, as sunlight?
Natural selection and sunlight are both observable phenomena, unless you bury
your head in the sand.
>Surprising that it was only, then,
>formulated by Blyth, who rightly
>considered it so tenuous as to only
>conserve species and not to alter
>them.
I think science has advanced a little further than Blyth. He's not the only
biologist in existence, you know.
>What did Blyth and Wallace
>see (or, fail to) that clearly was
>NOT as evident as sunbeams?
Natural selection.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by jess...@aol.com (Jesse976):
>
> Does photosynthesis operate on the moon? According to your
>misapplication of logic, since there is currently no photosynthesis on
>the moon it cannot exist on Earth.>
>
>You believe that "natural selection"
>is as palpable, then, as sunlight?
>Surprising that it was only, then,
>formulated by Blyth, who rightly
>considered it so tenuous as to only
>conserve species and not to alter
>them. What did Blyth and Wallace
>see (or, fail to) that clearly was
>NOT as evident as sunbeams?
Your total failure to address the question and your pathetic
attempt to redirect are noted.
One more data point...
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness
to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
--H. L. Mencken
Martin Crisp
"R Bishop" <bis...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:8gkc8v$emr$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> In article <392D95D7...@research.bell-labs.com>,
> Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
>
> >sc...@home.com wrote:
[chop Scott & part of Ken]
> >Interesting. Your memory problem is intermittent; you can sometimes
> >remember that an exchange has happened, but still completely garble
> >the actual statements made.
> >
>
> I've been formulating my own hypothesis that most creationists were
dropped
> on their heads as babies.
Hmm, the only person I know who _was_ dropped on their head as a baby (by
her father, and she seems proud of the fact) is an air-headed new-ager (no,
emphasis, not redundancy). AFAIK she isn't a creationist, but that's
probably because it hasn't occurred to her.
Have Fun
Martin
Matt Silberstein
sc...@home.com:
[snip]
|I'm still waiting for someone to correct
|the poster who claimed that evolution
|could occur because the sun shines
|on the earth.
What correction do you recommend? A discussion of the difference
between necessary and sufficient causes? Is it possible that the
context was some foolish creationist thermodynamic argument? If so,
the comment was probably dead on correct.
Matt Silberstein
Crisp" <Spam....@tesseract.com.au>:
|
|"R Bishop" <bis...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
|news:8gkc8v$emr$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
[snip]
|> I've been formulating my own hypothesis that most creationists were
|dropped
|> on their heads as babies.
|
|Hmm, the only person I know who _was_ dropped on their head as a baby (by
|her father, and she seems proud of the fact) is an air-headed new-ager (no,
|emphasis, not redundancy). AFAIK she isn't a creationist, but that's
|probably because it hasn't occurred to her.
I knew a child who fell out a second story window onto his head when
about 3. He survived, but even at 4 was clearly a budding sociopath. I
am completely serious. If he does not have some external controls put
on him, we will hear about him some day.
Ken Cox
> I knew a child who fell out a second story window onto his head when
> about 3. He survived, but even at 4 was clearly a budding sociopath. I
> am completely serious. If he does not have some external controls put
> on him, we will hear about him some day.
There's an area of the forebrain that handles social interactions
and a lot of what we call morality. This has been determined from
two separate lines of research -- examination of accident victims
with damage to that area (and subsequent behavioral disorders); and
examination of people with such disorders, which often revealed
damage or malformation of the area. In many of the latter cases
the problem could be traced back to injuries in early life such as
you describe.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> Does photosynthesis operate on the moon? According to your
> misapplication of logic, since there is currently no photosynthesis on
> the moon it cannot exist on Earth.>
>
> You believe that "natural selection"
> is as palpable, then, as sunlight?
No. He is saying that the process of natural selection is as
palpable (or not) as the process of photosynthesis.
Is it *really* coming as a great shock to you that there is
no life on the Moon?
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
R Bishop
Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In talk.origins I read <392d...@derwent.nt.tas.gov.au> from "Martin
>Crisp" <Spam....@tesseract.com.au>:
>
>|
>|"R Bishop" <bis...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>|news:8gkc8v$emr$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>[snip]
>
>|> I've been formulating my own hypothesis that most creationists were
>|dropped
>|> on their heads as babies.
>|
>|Hmm, the only person I know who _was_ dropped on their head as a baby (by
>|her father, and she seems proud of the fact) is an air-headed new-ager (no,
>|emphasis, not redundancy). AFAIK she isn't a creationist, but that's
>|probably because it hasn't occurred to her.
>
>I knew a child who fell out a second story window onto his head when
>about 3. He survived, but even at 4 was clearly a budding sociopath. I
>am completely serious. If he does not have some external controls put
>on him, we will hear about him some day.
I have a niece who fell out of a very large tree, bouncing off several limbs
on the way down. She landed on her head, got up, rubbed it a bit and said
Ouch. She is perfectly normal (high IQ) in every way. Just goes to show
that some folks have harder head than others.
Sue
>
>
>
>--
>Matt Silberstein
>
>Liberty is the mother, not the daughter, of order
>
>Pierre Joseph Proudhon
>
"Never trust anything that thinks for itself,
WickedDyno
<bis...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
You never know what she might have been like if she DIDN'T fall out!
--
| Andrew Glasgow <am...@cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
WickedDyno
Martin Crisp
(in message <nuqris43vfo03ldc9...@4ax.com>):
> In talk.origins I read <392d...@derwent.nt.tas.gov.au> from "Martin
> Crisp" <Spam....@tesseract.com.au>:
>
>>
>> "R Bishop" <bis...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:8gkc8v$emr$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> [snip]
>
>>> I've been formulating my own hypothesis that most creationists were
>> dropped
>>> on their heads as babies.
>>
>> Hmm, the only person I know who _was_ dropped on their head as a baby (by
>> her father, and she seems proud of the fact) is an air-headed new-ager (no,
>> emphasis, not redundancy). AFAIK she isn't a creationist, but that's
>> probably because it hasn't occurred to her.
>
> I knew a child who fell out a second story window onto his head when
> about 3. He survived, but even at 4 was clearly a budding sociopath. I
Eeesshh! Nasty.
We had a close call with our youngest when she was 3. Little 'psychopath'
next door (age 6) lobbed a 3.5kg lump of rock (looks to be dolerite, not sure
though) over the back fence [would have been from a height of about 1.5m
above her, their block is slightly higher than ours and the fence is high],
the edge of it collected her about 2cm left of the crown of her head. A few
cm to the right and could well have been lights out. Fortunately not even
concussion, some shock though (and a nasty gash that was difficult for the
hospital to patch up).
> am completely serious. If he does not have some external controls put
> on him, we will hear about him some day.
I have the same feeling about the boys next door. Hopefully they'll grow out
of it. They remind me of my nephews, who haven't :-( [mind you I put a lot of
blame at their parents' door]
Have Fun
Martin
--
Kinky:
What I do that you wouldn't
Perverted:
What you do that I wouldn't
Jesse976
The only difference was that he invested
it in the personality of the goddess of Natural Selection, the agency of his
Intelligent Designer,
Natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every
variation, even the slightest; rejecting that
which is bad, preserving and adding up
all that is good. Origin of Species.
Notice that in Evolution, the appeal to the
mystical and occultic is FAR more radical
than any (other) known Religion. "Natural
Selection" intervenes BILLIONS of times
each day and in virtually every facet of the
natural world. And, notice further that the
revisionist Jones in his new ALMOST LIKE
A WHALE goes even farther off the deep
end than even Darwin dared --in praise and
anthropomorphism of "natural selection"
to the most extreme degree I have seen
since Darwin.
Just when Evolution had been trying so hard
to conceal the OCCULTIC mechanism of
its central tenet, too...
mel turner
jess...@aol.com wrote...
>Darwin clearly taught "Intelligent Design".
Except for the "intelligent" part.
And the "design", for that matter.
>The only difference was that he invested
>it in the personality of the goddess of Natural
Selection, the agency of his
>Intelligent Designer,
Which isn't a "goddess", or "intelligent", or alive, and has
no "personality".
Hint: are sieves also "intelligent designers"?
>Natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing,
throughout the world, every
>variation, even the slightest; rejecting that
>which is bad, preserving and adding up
>all that is good. Origin of Species.
Is that a quote? "Scrutinizing" is just an loose analogy.
The only "scrutinizing" is via processes of differential
reproductive success and interactions of organisms with their
environments.
>Notice that in Evolution, the appeal to the
>mystical and occultic is FAR more radical
>than any (other) known Religion.
Huh? Hard to 'notice' anything as silly as that.
"Natural
>Selection" intervenes BILLIONS of times
>each day
"Intervenes"? It's not intervention, it's just nature being
itself. [Does the sinister force of Gravity also "intervene"
zillions of times each day all over the universe?]
>and in virtually every facet of the
>natural world.
No, just the differential reproductive success of individual
organisms in breeding populations. The natural world also
includes rocks and stuff, remember?
>And, notice further that the
>revisionist Jones in his new ALMOST LIKE
>A WHALE goes even farther off the deep
>end than even Darwin dared --in praise and
>anthropomorphism of "natural selection"
Gotta quote? Never mind, it's doubtless more overreactions
to use of figurative language.
>to the most extreme degree I have seen
>since Darwin.
You're just being silly. Sheesh.
>Just when Evolution had been trying so hard
>to conceal the OCCULTIC mechanism of
>its central tenet, too...
Ooh, spooky. [cue "Twilight Zone" theme]
Foil hats go best shiny side out...
cheers
wf...@ptd.net
>Darwin clearly taught "Intelligent Design".
>
>The only difference was that he invested
>it in the personality of the goddess of Natural Selection, the agency of his
>Intelligent Designer,
creationists, due to a poverty of the imagination, and lack of
understanding, try to force fit alien concepts such as science into a
procrustean religious view of the world. that such a view is nonsense
is, well, just as logical as the rest of creationism.
>
>
>Notice that in Evolution, the appeal to the
>mystical and occultic is FAR more radical
>than any (other) known Religion. "Natural
>Selection" intervenes BILLIONS of times
>each day and in virtually every facet of the
>natural world
unfortunately for creationists, there are billions of atoms in the
world...to say the least. i guess to creationists, the laws of physics
are magic, too...
>
>Just when Evolution had been trying so hard
>to conceal the OCCULTIC mechanism of
>its central tenet, too...
>
even if this illiterate peasant is right, at least evolution has a
mechanism....creationism's mechanism is never stated by creationists.
Johnny Bravo
>Natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every
>variation, even the slightest; rejecting that
>which is bad, preserving and adding up
>all that is good. Origin of Species.
"And every second of every day the goddess of gravity is keeping
things from floating off into space."
Don't you realize how silly you sound?
<snip bullshit>
Next.
Ashland S Henderson
Jesse976 wrote in message <20000527231832...@ng-fy1.aol.com>...
>Darwin clearly taught "Intelligent Design".
Nope. Darwin clearly taught natural selection which is a process, not
a thing. It is also not intelligent though, like a series of sieves, it is
capable of sorting.
>The only difference was that he invested
>it in the personality of the goddess of Natural Selection, the agency of
his
>Intelligent Designer,
Personality is the kind of thing religions require. Natural selection is
a process. It is not alive, does not exist as a seperate entity, and is not
under anyones or any things control.
>Natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world,
every
>variation, even the slightest; rejecting that
>which is bad, preserving and adding up
>all that is good. Origin of Species.
You haven't actually read Darwin have you? Or anything else real
written about evolution? Natural selection doesn't scrutinize anything.
Creatures are born and go through life. Some of them are more
successful than others and produce more children. The children are
more like their parents than they are like other's of their race and,
over enough generations, might become a new species. It's a
racial or group thing rather than an individual thing, of course.
Natural selection is sort of like reality. Now and then you bump into
it and don't produce more children.
>Notice that in Evolution, the appeal to the
>mystical and occultic is FAR more radical
>than any (other) known Religion. "Natural
>Selection" intervenes BILLIONS of times
>each day and in virtually every facet of the
>natural world. And, notice further that the
>revisionist Jones in his new ALMOST LIKE
>A WHALE goes even farther off the deep
>end than even Darwin dared --in praise and
>anthropomorphism of "natural selection"
>to the most extreme degree I have seen
>since Darwin.
I don't think the words religion and natural selection mean what
you think they mean ;-} Natural selection intervenes no more than
some sort of goddess of gravity intervenes to keep the earth
together.
>Just when Evolution had been trying so hard
>to conceal the OCCULTIC mechanism of
>its central tenet, too...
Funny how only ignorant fanatical nut-cases can see that.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by jess...@aol.com (Jesse976):
>Darwin clearly taught "Intelligent Design".
No, he didn't. His writings invoke neither "intelligence"
nor "design" as agents of evolutionary change.
>
>The only difference was that he invested
>it in the personality of the goddess of Natural Selection, the agency of his
>Intelligent Designer,
Oh, so *that's* what you meant...
Well, if you assume that the "goddess of Natural Selection"
is a process which occurs spontaneously in any population
subject to modification and environmental pressure, and if
this process is neither guided from outside the process nor
sentient, and if it has no "personality" (not being an
entity), then OK, you're correct. IOW, you're incorrect.
>
>Natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every
>variation, even the slightest; rejecting that
>which is bad, preserving and adding up
>all that is good.
Except for the fact that the process is a natural one, and
the fact that not all which is "bad" gets rejected, and the
fact that not all which is "good" gets preserved, you're
correct. IOW, you're incorrect.
> Origin of Species.
Good first attempt. Did you have some sort of point?
>
>Notice that in Evolution, the appeal to the
>mystical and occultic is FAR more radical
>than any (other) known Religion. "Natural
>Selection" intervenes BILLIONS of times
>each day and in virtually every facet of the
>natural world.
"Gravity" intervenes BILLIONS of times each day and in
virtually every facet of the natural world. "Fluid
Mechanics" intervenes BILLIONS of times each day and in
virtually every facet of the natural world. "Newton's Laws
of Motion" intervene BILLIONS of times each day and in
virtually every facet of the natural world. I could probably
add more. Are these "mystical and occultic (sic)"? If not,
why not?
<CrapSnip>
John M. Wendt
Jesse976 wrote:
>
> Darwin clearly taught "Intelligent Design".
No. He pointed out that scientists anthropomorphize, saying things like
"this was designed to...", even though they know that intelligence was
not necessarily involved.
>
> Natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every
> variation, even the slightest; rejecting that
> which is bad, preserving and adding up
> all that is good. Origin of Species.
It's not necessary to believe that. There is room for inefficiencies;
evolution is probabilistic rather than deterministic. There is room
e.g. for "junk DNA", presumably the result of once-functioning genes
that mutated to non-functionality. As long as there was another
functioning copy of that gene, the survival of the organism might not be
affected. The junk gene would continue to be copied in cell
generations, and in descendants, as long as it didn't get to be too much
of a drain on the organism's metabolism. They may have been the source
of some evolutionary novelty.
--
John Wendt
"Darwinism was the _beginning_ of evolutionary theory, not the end."
Mark Isaak
Jesse976 <jess...@aol.com> wrote:
>Notice that in Evolution, the appeal to the
>mystical and occultic is FAR more radical
>than any (other) known Religion. "Natural
>Selection" intervenes BILLIONS of times
>each day and in virtually every facet of the
>revisionist Jones in his new ALMOST LIKE
>A WHALE goes even farther off the deep
>end than even Darwin dared --in praise and
>anthropomorphism of "natural selection"
>to the most extreme degree I have seen
>since Darwin.
>
>to conceal the OCCULTIC mechanism of
>its central tenet, too...
A note on terminology: When something is observed to be extremely common,
it is generally not called "occultic". Natural selection lost any claim
to that label long before the millionth time it was observed.
Creation, on the other hand, is an ideal candidate for "OCCULTIC".
Matt Silberstein
from jess...@aol.com (Jesse976):
|Darwin clearly taught "Intelligent Design".
|
|The only difference was that he invested
|it in the personality of the goddess of Natural Selection, the agency of his
|Intelligent Designer,
As I have asked before, and you have ignored, do you have the same
views concerning differential reproductive success due to, at least in
part, genetically influenced features? If so, why? If not, how does
that differ from Natural Selection?
[snip]
Ken Cox
> jess...@aol.com wrote...
> >Darwin clearly taught "Intelligent Design".
>
> And the "design", for that matter.
So the statement is correct, by the "double negative" rule?
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> Just when Evolution had been trying so hard
> to conceal the OCCULTIC mechanism of
> its central tenet, too...
Occult: hidden; secret; concealed; unknown.
Are you *quite* sure that the above applies to a subject that is
published in books, textbooks, and journals that are available
through any library, and on the Web for that matter? After all,
you say you've read the _Origin_; are you now saying that you're
some sort of secret twelfth-level initiate into the Ancient and
Esoteric Order of Darwin?
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
leonardo dasso
Jesse976 <jess...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000527231832...@ng-fy1.aol.com...
> Darwin clearly taught "Intelligent Design".
>
> it in the personality of the goddess of Natural Selection, the agency of
his
> Intelligent Designer,
>
every
> variation, even the slightest; rejecting that
> which is bad, preserving and adding up
> all that is good. Origin of Species.
>
> mystical and occultic is FAR more radical
> than any (other) known Religion. "Natural
> Selection" intervenes BILLIONS of times
> each day and in virtually every facet of the
> natural world. And, notice further that the
> revisionist Jones in his new ALMOST LIKE
> A WHALE goes even farther off the deep
> end than even Darwin dared --in praise and
> anthropomorphism of "natural selection"
> to the most extreme degree I have seen
> since Darwin.
>
> to conceal the OCCULTIC mechanism of
> its central tenet, too...
>
How do you manage to type so well using your anal sphincter?
Amazing.
regards
leo
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com>:
>Jesse976 wrote:
>> Just when Evolution had been trying so hard
>> to conceal the OCCULTIC mechanism of
>> its central tenet, too...
>
>Occult: hidden; secret; concealed; unknown.
>
>Are you *quite* sure that the above applies to a subject that is
>published in books, textbooks, and journals that are available
>through any library, and on the Web for that matter? After all,
>you say you've read the _Origin_; are you now saying that you're
>some sort of secret twelfth-level initiate into the Ancient and
>Esoteric Order of Darwin?
Does that Order (not to be confused, of course, with the
scientific aspects of evolution) require one to shun
rational thought? If so, he's more likely a Founding Father.
John Wilkins
<k...@lucent.com> wrote:
|Jesse976 wrote:
|> Just when Evolution had been trying so hard
|> to conceal the OCCULTIC mechanism of
|> its central tenet, too...
|
|Occult: hidden; secret; concealed; unknown.
|
|Are you *quite* sure that the above applies to a subject that is
|published in books, textbooks, and journals that are available
|through any library, and on the Web for that matter? After all,
|you say you've read the _Origin_; are you now saying that you're
|some sort of secret twelfth-level initiate into the Ancient and
|Esoteric Order of Darwin?
It's called the Illuminati, and since you do not know this, you clearly
aren't a member of the Tenth Circle...
--
John Wilkins
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
Homo homini aut deus aut lupus - Erasmus of Rotterdam