Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 197 of 197
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: I think i can disprove Darwinian Natural Selection

  1. #101  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis

    In my paper I focused on the greater reproductive capability of the selected phenotype....
    Which is a very bad phrasing of the process of natural selection.



    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    In a normally growing population,
    A what?

    A normally growing population? What is that supposed to be? Most populations are effectively in stasis and limited by resources. There can be a flux in population size due to variability in the availability of resources, but one thing a population does not do is grow as a trend, unless it is under special circumstances. Such as is the case in the human population at the moment.




    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    you would expect that the frequencies of the variety of deleterious and near neutral alleles in the gene pool would remain fairly stable.
    Actually no. Population size does affect the frequency of deleterious/neutral mutations. End of your argument.



    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    But if you have a population growing, partly by selection,
    Complete nonsense. Selection diminishes growth. That's why it is called selection. As in a select group reproduces. The fact that not all individuals reproduces cuts down on the population growth. Try applying simple logic before you write down something.


    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    This is because growth is now uneven: there are "bursts" of selective growth among certain individuals as the beneficial allele goes down the road towards fixation.
    A process invented in your head?

    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    But the more a deleterious gene rises in frequency, the more likely it will
    pull down the frequency of the selected gene....this is known as "backgorund selection".
    Actually background selection is when a normal gene is linked to a detrimental one due to close proximity and is negatively selected against it because of this. Which is apparently very rare.

    You seem unable to apply logic. You make up random stuff. You misapply common definitions. I know what I would do if I would ever get to peer-review any of your writing.

    Reject.
    You like picking at points but not offering any counter-arguments.

    I never said population size had anything to do with the frequency of mutations.....well...the larger the size the more chance of de novo
    mutations occuring... I remarked that if a population that is growing
    relatively uniformly, the frequencies of deleterious alleles remain
    stable more or less.

    Your model of selection where a "select few" go on to reproduce
    is just crass....this leads to, as i stated in my paper, a reduction
    in genetic diversity, increases the chances of inbreeding ,and
    associated loss of fitness, and can lead to extinction due to the
    repeated fixation of slightly deleterious alleles by drift where small numbers are concerned.

    You obviously haven't seen a simulation for selection or else you
    would know what i was referring to when I mentioned bursts of
    growth due to selective activity.

    If you want me to send you my draft so you can read my theorem in
    its context, let me know. If you want to see the simulation I wrote
    , I will send it.

    If you cannot show some simple courtesy, then I suggest you stop
    ranting and actually bother to consider my arguments in full, rather
    than just trying to score points. Agreed?

    I think you have proven yourself to be just the sort of intolerant
    persecuter that I have come to find in so many of your "kind".
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    i don't need a counter argument. You are offering the counter argument to the theory of evolution/natural selection.

    My apologies if your points are all invalid. But I didn't make them up. Unlike you did.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
     

  3. #103  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Heliopolis,

    I see nothing in Spurious's post that is lacking in courtesy. He has responded, apparently, to my earlier request that the name calling stop. His observations about your hypothesis and remarks are either valid or expressed as opinions and are not ad hominems.

    Contrary to your claim, he has offered counter arguments: specific papers that, unlike your own references, appear to support his contention.

    If you spent a little less time in paranoiac whining about "intolerant persecuters of your 'kind'." and more effort honing your argument, you might make more of an advance.

    I ask you again, please stya exclusively with the facts.

    Thank you,

    Ophiolite
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Heliopolis,

    I see nothing in Spurious's post that is lacking in courtesy. He has responded, apparently, to my earlier request that the name calling stop. His observations about your hypothesis and remarks are either valid or expressed as opinions and are not ad hominems.

    Contrary to your claim, he has offered counter arguments: specific papers that, unlike your own references, appear to support his contention.

    If you spent a little less time in paranoiac whining about "intolerant persecuters of your 'kind'." and more effort honing your argument, you might make more of an advance.

    I ask you again, please stya exclusively with the facts.

    Thank you,

    Ophiolite
    Sorry, but how can he judge my theorem when he has not even read it?

    Anyone can quote-mine and use references to support their contentions.
    That is sheer sophistry. He doesn't have a clue about what I am referring to because he has misunderstood it. Hence, the references he uses are
    largely irrelevant. The articles I quoted refer to the problem of genetic linkage which I argue is understated and explain why in my draft.

    I have suggested to him that he reads the text of my draft to understand the points that I cannot articulate on this board in full. He refuses to do so.
    That is why he is showing the kind of intolerance that I have come to expect. If he did, he would understand.

    He has acussed me of "making random stuff up" and not being able
    to "apply logic".... yet he has deliberately, it seems, twisted my points
    and misquoted to try and refute them. That is discourteous as well as fallacious.
     

  5. #105  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    I sincerely doubt that seeing the simulation will change our minds. There have been thousands of such simulations run before which prove natural selection; yours is just varied to meet your criteria to prove your idea.

    With no disrespect (and I think this sounds a bit harsh) rubbish in rubbish out. You can get simulations to show anything, this is why objectivity in running such simulations is such a difficult task. Unless the simulation is a real case study based on actual organisms, I dont see the need to run a simulation when your hypothesis is still having issues.
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    i don't need a counter argument. You are offering the counter argument to the theory of evolution/natural selection.

    My apologies if your points are all invalid. But I didn't make them up. Unlike you did.

    Well, I didn't make up hitchhiking or background selection....what I did , though, is to join the dots and show how repeated hitchhiking at loci distant to the selected locus and background selection can curtail and even prevent the spread of an allele in a population.

    I have a simulation to prove it as well.....

    Hypothesis tested and verified....good science

    Natural selection: based on speculation , artifically controlled experiments,
    as well as few counter-arguments offered for the "evidence" for natural selection as the mechanism for evolution
    ....bad science....pseudo-science.

    THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR NATURAL SELECTION BRINGING AN ALLELE TO FIXATION IN A POPULATION OTHER THAN THROUGH MASS CULLING OF THE POPULATION.
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbie
    I sincerely doubt that seeing the simulation will change our minds. There have been thousands of such simulations run before which prove natural selection; yours is just varied to meet your criteria to prove your idea.

    With no disrespect (and I think this sounds a bit harsh) rubbish in rubbish out. You can get simulations to show anything, this is why objectivity in running such simulations is such a difficult task. Unless the simulation is a real case study based on actual organisms, I dont see the need to run a simulation when your hypothesis is still having issues.
    Yes, I agree that you can prove anything using a simulation.

    But my simulation should be a bench mark to test the robustness
    of natural selection. This is something Spurious Monkey cannot
    understand: The best theories require scenarios and conditions
    that test their effectiveness. If he were a true scientist he would
    welcome my findings as they could be used to test such
    robustness....but he is not interested...he has already made
    up his mind.


    All simulation so far have not factored in a realistic mutational load
    and so we just don't know how natural selection would work.
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Competition + Variation within species = Natural Selection

    Prove me wrong.
     

  9. #109  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    Yeah Im sorry heliopolis but you're really being contradictory. On the one hand you say natural selection is not proven (despite many simulations and a huge number of real examples to back it up) and on the other hand you claim that your single simulation is a tested and proven hypothesis (without any REAL evidence and still remaining in a very theoretical realm.

    Your simulation cannot be a test of the robustness of natural selection if it deliberately inputs data to disprove it. As I was referring to before, only simulations based on real examples of actual organisms are truly valid.
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Obviously
    Competition + Variation within species = Natural Selection

    Prove me wrong.

    No it doesn't...variation is not always inherited.

    Polygenic relationships mean that many things can happen.

    When you factor in drift, infertility, inbreeding, gene flow,
    changes in selective pressures, mutational loads, etc etc
    it is extremely uncommon for chance mutations in a lone
    individual to spread no matter how beneficial they are.

    Prof Joe Felsenstein, the world's no 1 expert in theoretical
    genetics, estimated that 1 in 50 beneficial alleles
    would ever make it to fixation ( assuming all are dominant).

    http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/...rs-ruin-i.html

    The geneticist J.B.S Haldane calculated that there were
    only 1667 possibly beneficial alleles substituted between
    our primate ancestor and homo sapiens.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane's_dilemma

    And he thought the timeline was 10 million years, not the
    5 million we know now.

    1667/50 is around 30.

    Most would have conferred resistance to disease rather
    than changes in brain size etc...

    Far two few to have resulted in SPECIATION.

    In other words, Natural selection is UTTERLY FLAWED!
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbie
    Yeah Im sorry heliopolis but you're really being contradictory. On the one hand you say natural selection is not proven (despite many simulations and a huge number of real examples to back it up) and on the other hand you claim that your single simulation is a tested and proven hypothesis (without any REAL evidence and still remaining in a very theoretical realm.

    Your simulation cannot be a test of the robustness of natural selection if it deliberately inputs data to disprove it. As I was referring to before, only simulations based on real examples of actual organisms are truly valid.
    What examples? Population fluctuations in moths?

    You claim that simulations for evolution by natural selection are NOT
    theoretical??!!!

    It was the Fisher-Muller genetical THEOREM of natural selection that
    won over the scientific community to the Darwinian model, 70 years
    after the publication of the Origin of Species.

    I do not input data to disprove...I input data that SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED but has not due to negligence or downright deceitfulness.
     

  12. #112  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    Sorry, but how can he judge my theorem when he has not even read it?
    It would be preferable if he read it, but knowing spurious's talents as I do, reading it will simply provide more opportunity for him to point out perceived fallacies in your approach.
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    Anyone can quote-mine and use references to support their contentions.
    That is sheer sophistry. He doesn't have a clue about what I am referring to because he has misunderstood it.
    The onus of communicating an idea (especially a novel idea) rests with the originator of the idea. If he has misunderstood it, then that is partly and primarily down to you, not down to him.
    I keep urging you to stop with the emotional references and stick to the facts: you continue to ignore the advice. Guess what that does to your credibility? Should that be a factor? Of course not? Are all of the forum readers human, with human foibles? Probably. So, does it become a factor? You betcha!
     

  13. #113  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    Sorry, but how can he judge my theorem when he has not even read it?
    It would be preferable if he read it, but knowing spurious's talents as I do, reading it will simply provide more opportunity for him to point out perceived fallacies in your approach.
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    Anyone can quote-mine and use references to support their contentions.
    That is sheer sophistry. He doesn't have a clue about what I am referring to because he has misunderstood it.
    The onus of communicating an idea (especially a novel idea) rests with the originator of the idea. If he has misunderstood it, then that is partly and primarily down to you, not down to him.
    I keep urging you to stop with the emotional references and stick to the facts: you continue to ignore the advice. Guess what that does to your credibility? Should that be a factor? Of course not? Are all of the forum readers human, with human foibles? Probably. So, does it become a factor? You betcha!
    I don't care if he picks points AFTER reading it....

    I admit I am not communicating my points well on this board ( which is why reading the draft is essential) and that there is a lot of confusion with many of the terms and concepts used. But all Spurious does is see a keyword and he hits the heresy detection button or accuses me of ignorance and stupidity. How can you reason with someone like that?

    If he were sure of his own position, he wouldn't be so defensive....which
    is what you accuse me of when i cry foul of prejudice and conspiracy.
     

  14. #114  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    I see the inability to construct a logical argument in this thread. Or present a case.




    But feel free to send the 'paper' if you want.

    spuriousmonkey (at) yahoo (dot) com
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    I see the inability to construct a logical argument in this thread. Or present a case.




    But feel free to send the 'paper' if you want.

    spuriousmonkey (at) yahoo (dot) com


    Thank you!
     

  16. #116  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    I can't wait!
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    I see the inability to construct a logical argument in this thread. Or present a case.




    But feel free to send the 'paper' if you want.

    spuriousmonkey (at) yahoo (dot) com

    Why don't you reply to my last point on Haldane and Felsenstein?

    I would love to know your viewpoint.
     

  18. #118  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    Why don't you send the paper.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
     

  19. #119 Paper 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    Why don't you send the paper.

    I already have...check your bulk folder maybe

    I'll resend now.
     

  20. #120  
    Forum Freshman Design's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    14
    Evolution is a concocted story first spawned by Darwin and then re-opinionated by hundreds of 'educated' people to justify that there is no existence of a God.

    What I love about this is that they get crappy when people provide scientific evidence to justify the existence of a Creator, like the Cambrian explosion, and than rant and rave about how that conflicts with their personal opinion of evolution.

    Don't get me wrong, I believe in micro-evolution, but macro-evolution is so flawed and open to controversy it is a waste of time even trying to validate it as a known fact, when it remains such a disputed and shoddy theory.

    Natural selection is just as shoddy, as it tries to link evolution together.

    Darwin suggested the beaks of finches changed due to natural selection linked with evolution, when in fact it could have just as easily been a product of micro-evolution.
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    Im sorry this is a SCIENCE forum, if you want to entertain ideas like that you'll have to go to some other forum for conspiracy theories.
     

  22. #122  
    Forum Freshman Design's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbie
    Im sorry this is a SCIENCE forum, if you want to entertain ideas like that you'll have to go to some other forum for conspiracy theories.
    If you are talking to me:

    If science can disprove something, just as much as it 'proves it', how is it not valid on a science forum? :wink:
     

  23. #123  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    It is not disproving evolution/natural selection in the way you're thinking, he's questioning a genetic detail.

    Macroevolution is the consequence of microevolution over a much longer period of time. If you're about to tell me the universe is 6,000 years old there is not a shred of scientific evidence for it & this will no longer be scientific discussion.
     

  24. #124  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Design
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbie
    Im sorry this is a SCIENCE forum, if you want to entertain ideas like that you'll have to go to some other forum for conspiracy theories.
    If you are talking to me:

    If science can disprove something, just as much as it 'proves it', how is it not valid on a science forum? :wink:

    They aren't interested: The Darwinists will do whatever it takes
    to manufacture and massage the evidence to support their ideology.

    By their own criteria, their account of evolution is based on
    untestable hypotheses and is thus pseudo-science.

    If they were true men of science, they would consider
    counter-arguments to natural selection and random mutation.
    That is the only way in which you can prove a theorem: by
    trying to disprove it. But they aren't interested....they just
    get defensive when creationists and ID proponents raise
    the questions that THEY should be asking.

    The point I have raised througout this thread is that in
    simulations for evolution they have not simulated for
    a realistic mutational load and ,until they do so, they
    cannot claim anything.
     

  25. #125  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    Heliopolis, what do you propose as the underlying mechanism for evolution if not natural selection.
    We know evolution happened. You are questioning how it happened.
     

  26. #126  
    Forum Freshman Design's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    14
    Okay, its just a simple misunderstanding, my apologies.

    Macroevolution is the consequence of microevolution over a much longer period of time. If you're about to tell me the universe is 6,000 years old there is not a shred of scientific evidence for it & this will no longer be scientific discussion.
    Macroevolution is one species becoming another completely different species.

    Microevolution is variation within a specie, but this doesn't result in the formation of a completely different specie - just some trait variations.

    But lets not get into an argument on definitions.

    I don't recall saying the universe being 6,000 years old.

    There is no evidence to suggest spontaneous life, as abiogenesis has been proven impossible to happen under the atmospheres conditions of the 'evolutionary period'. This makes both macroevolution and natural selection invalid scientifically, but you wont acccept that because you are to busy proving your own variation of macroevolution and rejecting creationists objections to the theory.

    And how has this stopped being a scientific discussion?

    They aren't interested: The Darwinists will do whatever it takes
    to manufacture and massage the evidence to support their ideology.

    By their own criteria, their account of evolution is based on
    untestable hypotheses and is thus pseudo-science.

    If they were true men of science, they would consider
    counter-arguments to natural selection and random mutation.
    That is the only way in which you can prove a theorem: by
    trying to disprove it. But they aren't interested....they just
    get defensive when creationists and ID proponents raise
    the questions that THEY should be asking.
    It is very sad to see that the scientific community will not even accept scientific evidence that is proven, but like to cling onto old, outdated speculations of very shoddy and disproven theories. But this is no surprise to me, because I have had these discussions with evolutionists before - and might I add, I didn't even make any reference to religion in this matter, just pure plain and simple scientific fact.

    The point I have raised througout this thread is that in
    simulations for evolution they have not simulated for
    a realistic mutational load and ,until they do so, they
    cannot claim anything.
    They also have no way of proving the very existence of the building blocks of life which paved the way organisms to evolve and go through natural selection and evolution.

    Heliopolis, what do you propose as the underlying mechanism for evolution if not natural selection.
    We know evolution happened. You are questioning how it happened.
    How do you know it happened?

    And what you are basically saying is: accept all theories because we know they happened.

    Without questioning a theory you can not prove a theory.
     

  27. #127  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    regarding abiogenesis
    http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4

    Heliopolis is doing as any good scientist should do, subject himself to peer review and see what is made of his idea. If he is correct, there will be scientific consensus and he will be published etc.
    In the process, there is no need to say how stupid modern theories are and derive ideas like it being a conspiracy to pretend there's no God that's not scientific.

    Regarding how do I know evolution, there is evidence in chemistry, physics, geology, genetics, biochemistry, palaeontology and I'm sure plenty of other fields which are not coming to mind right now.

    I am saying to you accept all theories because we know they happened as you clearly know nothing about the fields which I have just mentioned above.
    Vague questions such as "How do you know it happened?" is reasonable evidence for that... scientific consensus anyone!?
     

  28. #128  
    Forum Freshman Design's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbie
    I suggest you watch this video.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t45wxUddOaM

    Just as valid.

    Regarding how do I know evolution, there is evidence in chemistry, physics, geology, genetics, biochemistry, palaeontology and I'm sure plenty of other fields which are not coming to mind right now.
    The same is in favor of ID.

    I am saying to you accept all theories because we know they happened as you clearly know nothing about the fields which I have just mentioned above.
    You clearly think you know it all. Idiocy galore.
     

  29. #129  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    No, not as valid, it is produced by the discovery institute, a political movement to promote intelligent design despite events like the Dover trials.
    Johnathan Wells is a suspect character too. He sets out to disprove evolution anyway for religious reasons, thats not objective as science should be, this has all been put to rest.

    I agree abiogenesis is a contentious issue & is not proven empirically, however the experiments at least indicate that it is possible without a God and furthermore has nothing to do with evolution.

    Quote:
    Regarding how do I know evolution, there is evidence in chemistry, physics, geology, genetics, biochemistry, palaeontology and I'm sure plenty of other fields which are not coming to mind right now.


    The same is in favor of ID.
    No, wrong. It has even been disproven in court. When is the last time Nature published something in favour of ID? It even has a subsection on evolution.

    I dont know it all, I know very little compared to others on this forum, hence if I know more than you...

    As for idiocy galore... no need to insult anyone.
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Design
    There is no evidence to suggest spontaneous life, as abiogenesis has been proven impossible to happen under the atmospheres conditions of the 'evolutionary period'. This makes both macroevolution and natural selection invalid scientifically, but you wont acccept that because you are to busy proving your own variation of macroevolution and rejecting creationists objections to the theory.
    Hahahaha! *GASP* HAHAHAHA!

    You're kidding right? Spontaneous life? You're not talking about a complex cell/life spontaneously popping out of nowhere are you, as in spontaneous generation? I hope not, but if so, then you're not talking about the current view on abiogenesis, which makes your argument completely irrelevant. Whatever the argument was to begin with that is. What do you mean by 'evolutionary period', are you talking about the primordial earth? I hope you have at least some scientific competence to discuss this subject :?

    "This makes both macroevolution and natural selection invalid scientifically"

    Why? Whilst abiogenesis postulates the origin of life, evolution explains how it evolves once it's allready there. The above statement makes no sense. Even if abiogenesis is proven to be wrong (lol), evolution will still remain as valid as ever.

    How do you suggest we solve these supposed "problems" anyhow? "God did it"?

    I saw you gave out a video. I'm going to watch the whole thing if you promise to watch the video I'm about to give you. And please, don't close your ears or anything, listen:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4
     

  31. #131  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    That's the same one I gave him, yeah he got back a bit too quickly to have watched it IMO.

    So that we can refine your lesson, which area on the video do you have problems with?
     

  32. #132  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbie
    That's the same one I gave him, yeah he got back a bit too quickly to have watched it IMO.
    I doubt he'll watch it.

    I'm watching his video now, which has people from the "Discovery Institute", lol. This will be interesting...
     

  33. #133  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbie
    Heliopolis, what do you propose as the underlying mechanism for evolution if not natural selection.
    We know evolution happened. You are questioning how it happened.
    I am convinced that no species can evolve without the same
    mutation occuring in all, and not in the lucky individual: Most
    variation is neutral, so it will not be selected. But if the same
    mutation is happening in all the members of a species, or those
    that will go on to form a new species, there is no selective
    difference.

    There is one such theory, molecular drive, that attempts to
    suggest just this: That all organisms make the necessary
    genetic changes in sync with one another, rather than having
    one chance mutation reach fixation in a population.

    There is also the theory of morphic resonance proposed by
    Professor Sheldrake: it claims that changes are due to the
    influence of fields that act on matter and shape it. In this
    sense, it is very akin to the Vitalist view of intelligent evolution.
    It offers the best explanation for ageing, decomposition and
    how plants can restore their true form when they inherit
    harmful genes.

    But both theories require rigorous testing and can probably
    only produce statistical results.

    But we shouldn't cling to natural selection ( or drift) just because
    we don't have an alternative...that is just stupid.

    Its better to hold up our hands and say...we just don't know..yet.
     

  34. #134  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    I agree with you regarding variations being neutral, this arguably has been the case for bacteria with antibiotic resistant genes. The selection drive may not become apparent immediately or for some time but when the environment shifts to become competitive for a characteristic, then the variations become relevant. Then the antibiotic resistant genes suddenly become relevant.

    Why would the same mutation happen in all members of a species (unless passed down in reproduction)? That makes no sense, it is ridiculously improbable.

    I have heard about morphic resonance but it was widely discredited as pseudoscience. It is a very inelegant theory compared to natural selection & raises more needless questions than it resolves. Despite this isnt it meant to be seen as a contributing factor to natural selection? It doesnt set out to disprove it.
     

  35. #135  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbie
    I agree with you regarding variations being neutral, this arguably has been the case for bacteria with antibiotic resistant genes. The selection drive may not become apparent immediately or for some time but when the environment shifts to become competitive for a characteristic, then the variations become relevant. Then the antibiotic resistant genes suddenly become relevant.

    Why would the same mutation happen in all members of a species (unless passed down in reproduction)? That makes no sense, it is ridiculously improbable.

    I have heard about morphic resonance but it was widely discredited as pseudoscience. It is a very inelegant theory compared to natural selection & raises more needless questions than it resolves. Despite this isnt it meant to be seen as a contributing factor to natural selection? It doesnt set out to disprove it.
    Well, the same mutation DOES happen in bacteria who have been observed to mutate when faced with adverse conditions. Bacteria
    can share genetic info using their plasmids but experiments have
    shown that they can repeat the same mutation , collectively, time
    and time again: This is known as the DIRECTED mutation in
    biology. Previously it was assumed that a chance mutation in one
    bacterium spread to a few others...they survived, the others didn't.
    This is now been proven to have bee incorrect.

    You really need to read up on this..it has been known for 20 years.
     

  36. #136  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    Yeah I know a lot about bacterial genetics I know the underlying mechanisms behind genetic exchanges etc. fine. Maybe I used a bad example, this does NOT happen in animals/plants any other phylum.

    You either need to give me references at this point or I'm out of here I'm getting quite sick of this discussion.

    I dont want to discuss this further and dont care how you may reply to this but I really think your theory is
    (i) ill defined
    (ii) confused in what it wants to prove/disprove
    (iii) verging on pseudoscientific assumptions
    (iv) lacking in previous evidence (whether to suggest it or the need for it) to back it up (although that remains to be seen if you do have references or not.)
     

  37. #137  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    213
    If an mutation causes you to be more likely to survive, you being more likely to survive is a factor that increases the chances of you reproducing and therefore passing on that mutation.

    How are you disproving that?
     

  38. #138  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Raymond K
    If an mutation causes you to be more likely to survive, you being more likely to survive is a factor that increases the chances of you reproducing and therefore passing on that mutation.

    How are you disproving that?
    Because as the mutation spreads in a population it will inevitably pick up unwanted delterious alleles and so undermine its road to fixation.
     

  39. #139  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbie
    Yeah I know a lot about bacterial genetics I know the underlying mechanisms behind genetic exchanges etc. fine. Maybe I used a bad example, this does NOT happen in animals/plants any other phylum.

    You either need to give me references at this point or I'm out of here I'm getting quite sick of this discussion.

    I dont want to discuss this further and dont care how you may reply to this but I really think your theory is
    (i) ill defined
    (ii) confused in what it wants to prove/disprove
    (iii) verging on pseudoscientific assumptions
    (iv) lacking in previous evidence (whether to suggest it or the need for it) to back it up (although that remains to be seen if you do have references or not.)

    http://jb.asm.org/cgi/reprint/177/4/1119.pdf
     

  40. #140  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard spuriousmonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,193
    Heliopolis:

    I read the first paragraph.

    You have no chance in hell in publishing anything in a peer-reviewed journal.

    Throughout, it employs the Darwinian principle that if a variant has a survival advantage, it will reproduce more relative to the rest of the population that does not have the useful trait. Natural Selection, however, does not have to confer greater reproductive success always: A resistance to a pathogen or to the destructive effects of a natural disaster can also promote a gene’s predominance in a population, although ,by surviving, it will go on to reproduce and so it becomes a tautology.
    This is so fucked up. Any scientist will laugh in your face if you try to publish that.

    First you describe natural selection in the most awkward manner possible. Then you make a false statement: "Natural selection doesn't have to confer greater reproductive success always". Indeed, similarly that natural selection selects favourable characteristics, it also selects against unfavourable ones. But that is not what you mean. You continue to describe a clear example of natural selection (resistance to a pathogen) and call label it as being not natural selection.

    Your article doesn't follow any scientific guidelines in structure or execution.

    You don't even describe your mathematical model! You only mention in what language you have written it. So what? Who cares. It could be anything. You need to publish the mathematical formulas that form the model.

    You have written a complete turd.

    Last sentence of manuscript.
    I leave it to the user to figure this out for his or her self.
    Are you taking a piss with science or what? They already figured you out in the first paragraph. It's a joke, the whole thing.
    "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

    - Arnaud Amalric

    http://spuriousforums.com/index.php
     

  41. #141  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    This is so fucked up. Any scientist will laugh in your face if you try to publish that.

    You have written a complete turd.
    I agree & have run out of patience.
     

  42. #142  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    Heliopolis:

    I read the first paragraph.

    You have no chance in hell in publishing anything in a peer-reviewed journal.

    Throughout, it employs the Darwinian principle that if a variant has a survival advantage, it will reproduce more relative to the rest of the population that does not have the useful trait. Natural Selection, however, does not have to confer greater reproductive success always: A resistance to a pathogen or to the destructive effects of a natural disaster can also promote a gene’s predominance in a population, although ,by surviving, it will go on to reproduce and so it becomes a tautology.
    This is so fucked up. Any scientist will laugh in your face if you try to publish that.

    First you describe natural selection in the most awkward manner possible. Then you make a false statement: "Natural selection doesn't have to confer greater reproductive success always". Indeed, similarly that natural selection selects favourable characteristics, it also selects against unfavourable ones. But that is not what you mean. You continue to describe a clear example of natural selection (resistance to a pathogen) and call label it as being not natural selection.

    Your article doesn't follow any scientific guidelines in structure or execution.

    You don't even describe your mathematical model! You only mention in what language you have written it. So what? Who cares. It could be anything. You need to publish the mathematical formulas that form the model.

    You have written a complete turd.

    Last sentence of manuscript.
    I leave it to the user to figure this out for his or her self.
    Are you taking a piss with science or what? They already figured you out in the first paragraph. It's a joke, the whole thing.

    It is intended to be a DRAFT! It has a long way to go...like running the simulation in full, getting results, analysis, evaluation and so on.

    And I point out that a mathematical model IS necessary and I am working on it...it is no easy task.

    You have completely misinterpreted what I wrote about natural selection.
    And I DID state resistance to a pathogen was evidence of selection...
    clearly English is not your first language.

    But YOU say that only a "select few" go on to reproduce ALWAYS and I dismiss that for the reasons I give.

    I focus purely on the more logical contention which is that a survival advantage will allow the phenoypte to reproduce more relative to the non-selected phenotypes....eg bigger claw means you get more food and so have more offspring.

    YOU MAKE NO MENTION OF THE SUBJECT OF GENETIC LINKAGE SO I ASSUME THAT YOU HAVE NOT READ THE ARTICLE OR CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF IT.

    I now know that you are NOT a research scientist at all.


    You know the more you condescend the more determined you make me destroy the theory of natural selection....1859-2009....and push you lot
    out of mainstream once and for all.

    150 years and over.
     

  43. #143  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbie
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    This is so fucked up. Any scientist will laugh in your face if you try to publish that.

    You have written a complete turd.
    I agree & have run out of patience.

    That is because neither of you have the patience or
    perhaps the ability to understand population genetics.
     

  44. #144  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbie
    Quote Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey
    This is so fucked up. Any scientist will laugh in your face if you try to publish that.

    You have written a complete turd.
    I agree & have run out of patience.


    Why don't you play with my simulation and see for yourself?
     

  45. #145  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    213
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    Quote Originally Posted by Raymond K
    If an mutation causes you to be more likely to survive, you being more likely to survive is a factor that increases the chances of you reproducing and therefore passing on that mutation.

    How are you disproving that?
    Because as the mutation spreads in a population it will inevitably pick up unwanted delterious alleles and so undermine its road to fixation.
    The mutation is part of the genetic material just as growing body parts is. Please explain what and how unwanted alleles will occur by a mutation spreading through a population.
     

  46. #146  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Raymond K
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    Quote Originally Posted by Raymond K
    If an mutation causes you to be more likely to survive, you being more likely to survive is a factor that increases the chances of you reproducing and therefore passing on that mutation.

    How are you disproving that?
    Because as the mutation spreads in a population it will inevitably pick up unwanted delterious alleles and so undermine its road to fixation.
    The mutation is part of the genetic material just as growing body parts is. Please explain what and how unwanted alleles will occur by a mutation spreading through a population.
    Its called Genetic Hitchhiking ( genetic linkage) whereby by virtue of being associated ( physically) with the selected locus, a hamrful gene goes on to reach fixation. In most cases recombination will prevent this from occuring

    I have looked at repeated hitchhiking: ie where recombination separates and then attached deleterious alleles to the selected locus and so , on the balance of probabilites, certain harmful genes rise in frequency.

    and I have a simulation to prove it.
     

  47. #147  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    You have completely misinterpreted what I wrote about natural selection.
    And I DID state resistance to a pathogen was evidence of selection...
    clearly English is not your first language..
    You are partly correct: I understand that English is not the native language of Spurious Monkey. However, I have rarely, if ever, had any difficulty understanding what he is saying. On the contrary, I often find his explanations lucid, concise and entertaining.
    English is my native language. I have read the relevant sentence several times. Here it is:
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    Natural Selection, however, does not have to confer greater reproductive success always: A resistance to a pathogen or to the destructive effects of a natural disaster can also promote a gene’s predominance in a population, although ,by surviving, it will go on to reproduce and so it becomes a tautology.
    I find this sentence to be clumsy and difficult to understand. Whatever your intention was, you actually infer that resistance to a pathogen is different from natural selection.
    1. Of course Natural Selection does not always confer greater reproductive success - for example, it increases the probability that the unfit will not reproduce and merely increases (not assures) the probability that the fit will successfully reproduce.
    2. Your sentence structure clearly sets up resistance to a pathogen as an alternative to Natural Selection.

    for your information, Spurious Monkey is either a research scientist, or one of the best online con men I have run across. (If he is the latter then he has been maintaining the persona without a break, across several forums, for several years.)

    You keep saying things like "I have a simulation to prove it", then state that "And I point out that a mathematical model IS necessary and I am working on it...it is no easy task."

    So where is the mathematical model. How can you have a simulation - based on a model - and not have that model. You are a programming/maths expert, so can you explain to a simple minded geologist how that is possible?

    Finally, I don't know how often I have to advise you about making statements like: "You know the more you condescend the more determined you make me destroy the theory of natural selection....1859-2009....and push you lot
    out of mainstream once and for all."

    Even if you are 100% correct - which I doubt - such apparently delusional, self righteous protestations will ensure that no one listens to you. The most important stance to take when you are declaring the rest of the world is wrong is one of humility. You need to try to present your facts in a clearer fashion, not get emotional (but by all means remain passionate) and accept that to overturn 150 years of theory is not an overnight proposition, or one that can be tackled in a half baked fashion.
     

  48. #148  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    You have completely misinterpreted what I wrote about natural selection.
    And I DID state resistance to a pathogen was evidence of selection...
    clearly English is not your first language..
    You are partly correct: I understand that English is not the native language of Spurious Monkey. However, I have rarely, if ever, had any difficulty understanding what he is saying. On the contrary, I often find his explanations lucid, concise and entertaining.
    English is my native language. I have read the relevant sentence several times. Here it is:
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    Natural Selection, however, does not have to confer greater reproductive success always: A resistance to a pathogen or to the destructive effects of a natural disaster can also promote a gene’s predominance in a population, although ,by surviving, it will go on to reproduce and so it becomes a tautology.
    I find this sentence to be clumsy and difficult to understand. Whatever your intention was, you actually infer that resistance to a pathogen is different from natural selection.
    1. Of course Natural Selection does not always confer greater reproductive success - for example, it increases the probability that the unfit will not reproduce and merely increases (not assures) the probability that the fit will successfully reproduce.
    2. Your sentence structure clearly sets up resistance to a pathogen as an alternative to Natural Selection.

    for your information, Spurious Monkey is either a research scientist, or one of the best online con men I have run across. (If he is the latter then he has been maintaining the persona without a break, across several forums, for several years.)

    You keep saying things like "I have a simulation to prove it", then state that "And I point out that a mathematical model IS necessary and I am working on it...it is no easy task."

    So where is the mathematical model. How can you have a simulation - based on a model - and not have that model. You are a programming/maths expert, so can you explain to a simple minded geologist how that is possible?

    Finally, I don't know how often I have to advise you about making statements like: "You know the more you condescend the more determined you make me destroy the theory of natural selection....1859-2009....and push you lot
    out of mainstream once and for all."

    Even if you are 100% correct - which I doubt - such apparently delusional, self righteous protestations will ensure that no one listens to you. The most important stance to take when you are declaring the rest of the world is wrong is one of humility. You need to try to present your facts in a clearer fashion, not get emotional (but by all means remain passionate) and accept that to overturn 150 years of theory is not an overnight proposition, or one that can be tackled in a half baked fashion.

    I do not have a mathematical model because it is way too complex
    at this stage. I could easily simplify it but that would not be the
    right thing to do.

    What I have is a simulation that does not require a mathematical
    model: it just computes : ie I pass the data in and the algorithm
    obeys the rules of inheritance.

    Let me clear up the natural selection issue.

    SPURIOUS believes that natural selection means only a "select few"
    go on to survive and reproduce. I argue against this , as most
    biologists do, on the grounds that it reduces genetic diversity and increases the chances of inbreeding and loss of fitness as well
    as extinction due to drift.

    What he has trouble understanding is that the usual model for
    natural selection means that the selected phenotype reproduces
    a little more than non-selected phenotypes, who do still survive
    and go on to reproduce.

    Eg: A gene variant confers greater fertility/fecundity when
    expressed. The rest of the population will still reproduce but
    less than the selected phenotypes.
     

  49. #149  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    SPURIOUS believes that natural selection means only a "select few" go on to survive and reproduce. I argue against this , as most biologists do, on the grounds that it reduces genetic diversity and increases the chances of inbreeding and loss of fitness as well
    as extinction due to drift.
    you seem to ignore the first part that makes up natural selection : first you need variation which arises from replication errors, and then differential survival and reproductive success decides the genetic make-up of the next generation

    it's the 2 together that make natural selection - one part increases variability, the other part differentially reduces it
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  50. #150  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    SPURIOUS believes that natural selection means only a "select few" go on to survive and reproduce. I argue against this , as most biologists do, on the grounds that it reduces genetic diversity and increases the chances of inbreeding and loss of fitness as well
    as extinction due to drift.
    you seem to ignore the first part that makes up natural selection : first you need variation which arises from replication errors, and then differential survival and reproductive success decides the genetic make-up of the next generation

    it's the 2 together that make natural selection - one part increases variability, the other part differentially reduces it
    You are missing the point: Yes there has to be variation for there
    to be a selectional difference.

    But what we are trying to establish is how Natural Selection results
    in speciation:

    1) Spurious claims that most of the population is culled and those
    that are the most able to adapt survive and go on to reproduce.

    2) Most biologists say that a survival advantage ( like the ability to
    gathermore food) results in greater reproductiveness and ,over time,
    the frequency of those variants with this trait becomes more
    and more.

    Number 1 is bogus for 3 reasons ( once again):

    i) Reduces genetic diversity and variation that may be useful later on
    ii) Reduces the population size and increases the chance of inbreeding
    and loss of fitness
    iii) The population is at risk from drift and the fixation of delterious alleles.
     

  51. #151  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    I do not have a mathematical model because it is way too complex
    at this stage. I could easily simplify it but that would not be the
    right thing to do.

    What I have is a simulation that does not require a mathematical
    model: it just computes : ie I pass the data in and the algorithm
    obeys the rules of inheritance.
    .
    Please explain to me the difference between the algorithm and the mathematical model.
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    SPURIOUS believes that natural selection means only a "select few" go on to survive and reproduce.
    Please indicate where he expresses this bizarre belief.
     

  52. #152  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    I do not have a mathematical model because it is way too complex
    at this stage. I could easily simplify it but that would not be the
    right thing to do.

    What I have is a simulation that does not require a mathematical
    model: it just computes : ie I pass the data in and the algorithm
    obeys the rules of inheritance.
    .
    Please explain to me the difference between the algorithm and the mathematical model.
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    SPURIOUS believes that natural selection means only a "select few" go on to survive and reproduce.
    Please indicate where he expresses this bizarre belief.
    Go to Page 8 on this thread:


    "Complete nonsense. Selection diminishes growth. That's why it is called selection. As in a select group reproduces. The fact that not all individuals reproduces cuts down on the population growth. Try applying simple logic before you write down something. "
     

  53. #153  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Still waiting for your response to: Please explain to me the difference between the algorithm and the mathematical model.

    Spurious Monkey stated
    "Complete nonsense. Selection diminishes growth. That's why it is called selection. As in a select group reproduces. The fact that not all individuals reproduces cuts down on the population growth. Try applying simple logic before you write down something. "

    This is quite different from your claim that he said 'only a "select few" go on to survive and reproduce.'

    The key difference is in the use of the word few, which completely alters the sense of the statement. There is nothing in Spurious's statement that declares, infers or implies few. I am not clear why you think that there is.
     

  54. #154  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Still waiting for your response to: Please explain to me the difference between the algorithm and the mathematical model.

    Spurious Monkey stated
    "Complete nonsense. Selection diminishes growth. That's why it is called selection. As in a select group reproduces. The fact that not all individuals reproduces cuts down on the population growth. Try applying simple logic before you write down something. "

    This is quite different from your claim that he said 'only a "select few" go on to survive and reproduce.'

    The key difference is in the use of the word few, which completely alters the sense of the statement. There is nothing in Spurious's statement that declares, infers or implies few. I am not clear why you think that there is.
    A "select group" means that only a "few" as opposed to the "many" survive.

    He has to ask the question of how the "select group" came to be more than just one variant other than through increased reproduction...and this
    is precisely why I stress that natural selection can only work if the selected phenotype increases in frequency due to a greater reproductive rate.

    He could mean that genetic drift creates more variants, but I doubt that.
     

  55. #155  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Still waiting for your response to: Please explain to me the difference between the algorithm and the mathematical model.

    Spurious Monkey stated
    "Complete nonsense. Selection diminishes growth. That's why it is called selection. As in a select group reproduces. The fact that not all individuals reproduces cuts down on the population growth. Try applying simple logic before you write down something. "

    This is quite different from your claim that he said 'only a "select few" go on to survive and reproduce.'

    The key difference is in the use of the word few, which completely alters the sense of the statement. There is nothing in Spurious's statement that declares, infers or implies few. I am not clear why you think that there is.
    An algorithm is just a sequence of logical conditions that are usually
    repeated using a looping system.

    It is basically a step-by-step set of procedures to process data.

    The mathematical model tries to describe what the algorithm does and to try and predict its effect.

    I am just using an algorithm and have only a rough idea how to express what it is doing mathematically.
     

  56. #156  
    Forum Freshman Tortuegenial's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    36
    I've been trying to follow this thread but it's hard, there are a few things that are unclear.
    Heliopolis can you please send me your paper (titimatzy@yahoo.fr). I am particularly interested in the data you have, also I think I read earlier that you did not explain how you carried out the simulation or experiment etc. if you haven't written already can you provide a clear Methods section.
    Thanks
     

  57. #157  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Tortuegenial
    I've been trying to follow this thread but it's hard, there are a few things that are unclear.
    Heliopolis can you please send me your paper (titimatzy@yahoo.fr). I am particularly interested in the data you have, also I think I read earlier that you did not explain how you carried out the simulation or experiment etc. if you haven't written already can you provide a clear Methods section.
    Thanks


    Sure, Ill send it on along with the simulation.

    FYI: The paper is a descriptive one and not supposed
    to be an academic one which would be incomprehensible
    to most people.
     

  58. #158  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    A "select group" means that only a "few" as opposed to the "many" survive.
    the term "a select group" can mean a few, but doesn't have to : even if only half of a population is selected out, but the selection is non-random, that's selection in my book + it would change the genetic make-up of the population
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  59. #159  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    A "select group" means that only a "few" as opposed to the "many" survive.
    the term "a select group" can mean a few, but doesn't have to : even if only half of a population is selected out, but the selection is non-random, that's selection in my book + it would change the genetic make-up of the population

    Yes but if we are talking about genetic variation here, one has
    to be precise: A chance mutation occurs in a lone individual. How
    does it spread? Well, genetic drift could increase its frequency
    marginally but unless the phenotype can reproduce more than
    the others it will only be a tiny percentage of the population.
    Thus if it gets selected and the rest either don't survive or
    don't reproduce only a tiny "few" will remain.

    That is the obvious flaw in Spurious Monkey's argument: If
    you keep culling the population you risk the danger of
    small population size which any decent biologist will contend
    is very dangerous. Just do a wiki on "small population size".
     

  60. #160  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    the term "culling" implies random, non-selective dying of organisms
    the word "selection", however, implies non-random survival of the genes that promote survival and reproduction
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  61. #161  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    the term "culling" implies random, non-selective dying of organisms
    the word "selection", however, implies non-random survival of the genes that promote survival and reproduction
    ???

    Culling is very non-random. It is widely used to control
    populations and is used by breeders to weed out less
    fit stock.

    Let's not argue about semantics now: The Spurious argument
    is that about very few members get "selected".

    But this is not true: If I can gather more food and reproduce
    more as a result, you and everyone else will still survive and
    reproduce but not quite as effectively. Over time my genes
    become more frequent, at least, that is what the Darwinists
    would have us believe.

    The whole reason we are having this argument was that
    was the assumption I made for the purposes of running
    my simulation.
     

  62. #162  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    The Spurious argument
    is that about very few members get "selected"..
    No it is not. You must be aware of the simulations that have demonstrated that only a tiny advantage accruing to a particular phenotype will, over time, tend to lead to dominance of the associated genotype. Only a tiny differential in reproductive success is necessary for this to occur. you are erecting a strawman argument, so its demolition is irrelevant.
     

  63. #163  
    Forum Professor Obviously's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    No it is not. You must be aware of the simulations that have demonstrated that only a tiny advantage accruing to a particular phenotype will, over time, tend to lead to dominance of the associated genotype. Only a tiny differential in reproductive success is necessary for this to occur. you are erecting a strawman argument, so its demolition is irrelevant.
    Strawman, the foundational anti-evolutionist argument.
     

  64. #164  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    The Spurious argument
    is that about very few members get "selected"..
    No it is not. You must be aware of the simulations that have demonstrated that only a tiny advantage accruing to a particular phenotype will, over time, tend to lead to dominance of the associated genotype. Only a tiny differential in reproductive success is necessary for this to occur. you are erecting a strawman argument, so its demolition is irrelevant.

    Again you are missing the point.

    I am not disputing the point about reproductive success...my simulation
    shows that when there is constant selective pressure and no mutational or selectional load....this leads to fixation of the particular genotype.

    Spurious, however, claims that only a "select group" go on to survive and reproduce and the rest presumably die out.

    Can you see the difference?

    The first one contends that everyone survives and reproduces with some variants doing so more than others ,and thus become more dominant.

    The Spurious argument is that only a small portion survive and go on to reproduce.

    Nearly every biologist I have spoken to says that this would result in a massive reduction of genetic diversity, increases inbreeding and the chances of extinction due to drift.

    That is why Spurious is making no sense and is just dead wrong.
     

  65. #165  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    The Spurious argument is that only a small portion survive and go on to reproduce.
    He does not claim this. It is not true. You refuse to see this. Therefore, I see no point in continuing to discuss it with you.
     

  66. #166  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    The Spurious argument is that only a small portion survive and go on to reproduce.
    He does not claim this. It is not true. You refuse to see this. Therefore, I see no point in continuing to discuss it with you.
    The reason you can't debate this is because you don't understand what
    variation entails in relation to population.

    What is Spurious saying: that 62% survive and the rest don't?

    How did these selected variants manage to get to 62% resulting from a chance mutation in a single individual?

    It makes no sense.
     

  67. #167  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Evaporation
    I'd be interested to hear how you plan to disprove natural selection.
    In this, I am also interested.
    Same here, interested in how u disprove natural selection
     

  68. #168  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    The reason you can't debate this is because you don't understand what variation entails in relation to population.
    I can debate this, but I won't debate this.

    Why? Because you keep misrepresenting Spurious's claims. Even if Spurious were making these claims it would be irrelevant, since it would simply mean he was wrong. that would not make you right.
     

  69. #169  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis

    A "select group" means that only a "few" as opposed to the "many" survive.
    A select group does not mean a few.

    It means a subset, which is determined by fitness. A subset also does not mean a few. It means a subset, which means a portion (which does not mean a few) of the total.

    You do not understand some fundamental principles which is why I have largely abandoned your thread. That, and you never bothered to answer my original questions to you, way back on page one.
     

  70. #170  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis

    A "select group" means that only a "few" as opposed to the "many" survive.
    A select group does not mean a few.

    It means a subset, which is determined by fitness. A subset also does not mean a few. It means a subset, which means a portion (which does not mean a few) of the total.

    You do not understand some fundamental principles which is why I have largely abandoned your thread. That, and you never bothered to answer my original questions to you, way back on page one.
    <Sigh>

    You have to convince me that a particular variation in a population can become anything more than just a "few" other than through increased reproductive success or by some freaky chance due to drift.

    Spurious contended that selection did not entail a higher reproductive rate by certain variants.

    And to answer your question: NO! Natural selection is a destructive force
    and it not the cause of evolution.
     

  71. #171  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    The reason you can't debate this is because you don't understand what variation entails in relation to population.
    I can debate this, but I won't debate this.

    Why? Because you keep misrepresenting Spurious's claims. Even if Spurious were making these claims it would be irrelevant, since it would simply mean he was wrong. that would not make you right.

    Frankly, I don't think even Spurious knows what he claims.

    If he is wrong, it is disturbing that a "research scientist" is so out
    of line with fellow selection advocates.
     

  72. #172  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    And to answer your question: NO! Natural selection is a destructive force and it not the cause of evolution.
    and that's really all it boils down to, isn't it ? an unsupported assertion
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  73. #173  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisLee
    Quote Originally Posted by Evaporation
    I'd be interested to hear how you plan to disprove natural selection.
    In this, I am also interested.
    Same here, interested in how u disprove natural selection

    I disprove it the same way Fisher "proved" it with his fundamental
    theorem of genetics and natural selection.

    Fisher did not take into account the mutational and selectional loads
    for a population as well as the flip-side of recombination , namely
    repeatable genetic hitchhiking.

    From the feedback I am getting from many professors, there is
    panic about my findings. Natural selection will be off the shelves
    within a year ( 1859-2009)......R.I.P.
     

  74. #174  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    According to wikipedia
    Idiot is a word derived from the Greek ἰδιώτης, idiōtēs ("person lacking professional skill," "a private citizen," "individual"), from ἴδιος, idios ("private," "one's own").[1] In Latin the word idiota ("ordinary person, layman") preceded the Late Latin meaning "uneducated or ignorant person."[2] Its modern meaning and form dates back to Middle English around the year 1300, from the Old French idiote ("uneducated or ignorant person")
    Heliopolis, when it comes to this subject, you are an idiot.

    I have read your references on a different thread, none of it negates evolution, I have said that countless times, if you have indeed made a discovery it is not evidence against natural selection but a description of it at some level; to say so is ridiculous not be cause we are ignorant but because there is overwhelming evidence in its favour which exists in various forms. I may be wrong but I believe Richard Dawkins may cover some of the ideas you are expressing in his book The Selfish Gene which I would encourage you to read.

    The other propositions you make are completely ridiculous. Even if you're not, you sound like a creationist; you support pseudoscientific theories (if they're not, give me some real evidence which does not require an indescript communal force/telepathy or designer etc.)

    We have listened long enough, those of us who have read your paper see no conflict, or if we do, we see bad science at play. You have been uncompromising and ignorant to any feedback and many of us seem to suspect you have not done sufficient research into this area (or even sufficient knowledge in this area) before embarking on this paper. I wish you well, but with your incesant need to disprove natural selection without compromise, I do not see that being possible & may obscure any chances you have of being taken seriously.
     

  75. #175  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbie
    According to wikipedia
    Idiot is a word derived from the Greek ἰδιώτης, idiōtēs ("person lacking professional skill," "a private citizen," "individual"), from ἴδιος, idios ("private," "one's own").[1] In Latin the word idiota ("ordinary person, layman") preceded the Late Latin meaning "uneducated or ignorant person."[2] Its modern meaning and form dates back to Middle English around the year 1300, from the Old French idiote ("uneducated or ignorant person")
    Heliopolis, when it comes to this subject, you are an idiot.

    I have read your references on a different thread, none of it negates evolution, I have said that countless times, if you have indeed made a discovery it is not evidence against natural selection but a description of it at some level; to say so is ridiculous not be cause we are ignorant but because there is overwhelming evidence in its favour which exists in various forms. I may be wrong but I believe Richard Dawkins may cover some of the ideas you are expressing in his book The Selfish Gene which I would encourage you to read.

    The other propositions you make are completely ridiculous. Even if you're not, you sound like a creationist; you support pseudoscientific theories (if they're not, give me some real evidence which does not require an indescript communal force/telepathy or designer etc.)

    We have listened long enough, those of us who have read your paper see no conflict, or if we do, we see bad science at play. You have been uncompromising and ignorant to any feedback and many of us seem to suspect you have not done sufficient research into this area (or even sufficient knowledge in this area) before embarking on this paper. I wish you well, but with your incesant need to disprove natural selection without compromise, I do not see that being possible & may obscure any chances you have of being taken seriously.
    Actually I am an IDIOSYNCRATIC ICONOCLAST
    ( that is what my teacher at school called me).


    I think Dawkins is more an example of an idiot....his books verge on
    science fiction with unsupported and futile speculation of what might
    have been the case.

    According to Dawkins we are "throwaway survival machines" controlled by selfish genes who "aspire to immortality".

    Yeah, sounds very scientific to me.

    Btw, name me one research paper the man has had peer-reviewed?

    Anyway "They all laughed when Edison said he had recorded sound...but who who who, who has the last laugh now?!"
     

  76. #176  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    And to answer your question: NO! Natural selection is a destructive force and it not the cause of evolution.
    and that's really all it boils down to, isn't it ? an unsupported assertion
    Unsupported?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    There is countless evidence for natural selection being a
    destructive force! A multidude of species have gone
    extinct thanks to selective pressures of one form or
    another.


    THERE IS NO PROOF AT ALL THAT NATURAL SELECTION
    IS THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND EVOLUTION: NONE!

    If you can prove otherwise, I will gladly capitulate.
     

  77. #177  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    so if a person takes a piece of wood and carves a statue out of it, is he being destructive, or is it a creative act ? after all, all he does is to take bits of wood away
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  78. #178  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    so if a person takes a piece of wood and carves a statue out of it, is he being destructive, or is it a creative act ? after all, all he does is to take bits of wood away

    Er....the extinction of species is conceiveably a "creative act"?

    Oh, I guess it paves the way for new species to emerge, right!?

    LOL.

    And I always thought you were the smart one on this forum.
     

  79. #179  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    THERE IS NO PROOF AT ALL THAT NATURAL SELECTION
    IS THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND EVOLUTION: NONE!

    If you can prove otherwise, I will gladly capitulate.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...f/250169a0.pdf

    (Except you'll have to pay for it, but I think the title says it all.)

    and maybe take a look at this. In particular quote

    ...while natural selection is well documented at the whole-organism level, researchers consider biochemical proof of selection "the Holy Grail" of population genetics.

    "What has proven very difficult is to connect specific molecular changes to selection," Nordborg said.
    so look, I acknowledge your point of view, however refuse to accept your point of view that there is no evidence for it.

    Although old check out Dobzhansky and Levene Drosphila article.
    http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/33/6/537
     

  80. #180  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Robbie
    THERE IS NO PROOF AT ALL THAT NATURAL SELECTION
    IS THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND EVOLUTION: NONE!

    If you can prove otherwise, I will gladly capitulate.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...f/250169a0.pdf

    (Except you'll have to pay for it, but I think the title says it all.)

    and maybe take a look at this. In particular quote

    ...while natural selection is well documented at the whole-organism level, researchers consider biochemical proof of selection "the Holy Grail" of population genetics.

    "What has proven very difficult is to connect specific molecular changes to selection," Nordborg said.
    so look, I acknowledge your point of view, however refuse to accept your point of view that there is no evidence for it.

    Although old check out Dobzhansky and Levene Drosphila article.
    http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/33/6/537

    I will have a look at these articles.

    I hope they consider counter-arguments and weigh up the possibilities.

    Sometimes it seems scientists are willing to seize upon anything
    that has "the fingerprints of selection on it"

    And why should we pay for articles anyway?
     

  81. #181  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    I think Dawkins is more an example of an idiot....his books verge on science fiction with unsupported and futile speculation of what might have been the case.
    ......Btw, name me one research paper the man has had peer-reviewed?
    Sole author:
    Should doctors be Darwinian? Trans Med Soc Lond. 2002-2003;119:15-30.
    Bees are easily distracted. Science 165, 751. (1969)
    Selective neurone death as a possible memory mechanism. Nature 229, 118-119. (1971)
    Replicator selection and the extended phenotype. Zeitschrift fŸr Tierpsychologie 47, 61-76. (1978)
    In defense of selfish genes. Philosophy 56, 556-573 (1979)
    Twelve misunderstandings of kin selection. Zeitschrift fŸr Tierpsychologie 51, 184-200. (1979)
    Defining sociobiology. Nature 280, 427-428. (1979)
    Opportunity costs of inbreeding. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol.6, No.1, pp.105-106 (1983)
    Adaptationism was always predictive and needed no defense. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol.6, No.3, pp.360-361 (1983)
    Co-Author
    Dawkins, R. & Dawkins, M. Decisions and the uncertainty of behaviour. Behaviour 45, 83-103. (1973)
    Dawkins, R. & Carlisle, T. R. Parental investment, mate desertion and a fallacy. Nature 161, 131-133. (1976)
    Dawkins, R. & Krebs, J. R. Animal signals: information or manipulation? In Behavioural Ecology (eds J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davies), pp. 282--309. (Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications. 1978)
    Dawkins, R. & Krebs, J.R. Arms races between and within species. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B, 205: 489-511 (1979)
    Dawkins, R. & H. Jane Brockman, Joint Nesting in a Digger Wasp as an Evolutionarily Stable Preadaptation to Social Life, Behaviour, 71, pp. 203-245 (1979).

    Will that do, or would you like more?
     

  82. #182  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    I think Dawkins is more an example of an idiot....his books verge on science fiction with unsupported and futile speculation of what might have been the case.
    ......Btw, name me one research paper the man has had peer-reviewed?
    Sole author:
    Should doctors be Darwinian? Trans Med Soc Lond. 2002-2003;119:15-30.
    Bees are easily distracted. Science 165, 751. (1969)
    Selective neurone death as a possible memory mechanism. Nature 229, 118-119. (1971)
    Replicator selection and the extended phenotype. Zeitschrift fŸr Tierpsychologie 47, 61-76. (1978)
    In defense of selfish genes. Philosophy 56, 556-573 (1979)
    Twelve misunderstandings of kin selection. Zeitschrift fŸr Tierpsychologie 51, 184-200. (1979)
    Defining sociobiology. Nature 280, 427-428. (1979)
    Opportunity costs of inbreeding. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol.6, No.1, pp.105-106 (1983)
    Adaptationism was always predictive and needed no defense. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol.6, No.3, pp.360-361 (1983)
    Co-Author
    Dawkins, R. & Dawkins, M. Decisions and the uncertainty of behaviour. Behaviour 45, 83-103. (1973)
    Dawkins, R. & Carlisle, T. R. Parental investment, mate desertion and a fallacy. Nature 161, 131-133. (1976)
    Dawkins, R. & Krebs, J. R. Animal signals: information or manipulation? In Behavioural Ecology (eds J. R. Krebs & N. B. Davies), pp. 282--309. (Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications. 1978)
    Dawkins, R. & Krebs, J.R. Arms races between and within species. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B, 205: 489-511 (1979)
    Dawkins, R. & H. Jane Brockman, Joint Nesting in a Digger Wasp as an Evolutionarily Stable Preadaptation to Social Life, Behaviour, 71, pp. 203-245 (1979).

    Will that do, or would you like more?

    The question I asked was not supposed to be rhetorical, so thanks for this.

    From what I can see, it is quite paltry...when you compare his publications to Professor Sanford and Professor Sheldrake, both anti-Darwinists who have authored over 150 papers between themselves, I think you get the distinct impression that Dawkins is a failed scientist turned sensationalist writer.
     

  83. #183  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    From what I can see, it is quite paltry.
    It is a select few.
     

  84. #184  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    From what I can see, it is quite paltry.
    It is a select few.

    Btw, is it true that Dawkins' Kenyan parents were supporters of colonial apartheid? Is this perhaps where he gets his love of "natural selection" from and fetes scientists like James Watson who claims black people are inferior?
     

  85. #185  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis

    From what I can see, it is quite paltry...when you compare his publications to Professor Sanford and Professor Sheldrake, both anti-Darwinists who have authored over 150 papers between themselves, I think you get the distinct impression that Dawkins is a failed scientist turned sensationalist writer.
    So you are judging the validity of Dawkins' research on the amount of papers published? By the way, he is one of most evolutionary biologists that support natural selection, so even if what you say is correct (probably not), it does not prove a thing. Also, can you cite some of the peer review journals where the 150+ papers of Professor Sanford and Professor Sheldrake were published?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  86. #186  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    From what I can see, it is quite paltry.
    It is a select few.

    Btw, is it true that Dawkins' Kenyan parents were supporters of colonial apartheid? Is this perhaps where he gets his love of "natural selection" from and fetes scientists like James Watson who claims black people are inferior?
    Have you EVER even read any of his stuff? You are crossing the line here. Wildly throwing accusations around like that? Man you really are something.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  87. #187  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    HEliopolis, I rather expect you will pay as little attention to my next remarks as you have to all the others I and fellow posters have made concerning your logic.
    You said :
    name me one research paper the man [Dawkins] has had peer-reviewed?
    . Can you read that? Name one paper.

    I responded with a list of fourteen and asked if you would like more. (There ar emore you know.) But you change the rules and respond:
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    From what I can see, it [the number of published papers] is quite paltry....
    So what. You asked for one paper, I gave you fourteen, a part of his work. Your response: to attack him as an individual.

    What am I seeing here?
    1. You erect irrelevant strawman arguments.
    2. You change the rules of the discussion as we go along.
    3. You insert irrelevant ad hominems.
    4. You misinterpret - either from ignorance or deliberately - the positions of others.
    5. You appear to believe that disproving one hypothesis, will automatically prove another.

    None of these activities are a part of the scientific method. They are a part of pseudoscience. Yet you would have us believe we should treat your hypothesis seriously when everything about your presentation of it screams out 'fraud', or 'fool'.

    Again, if you wish to be considered seriously stop with the self fulfilling prophecy of claiming that the Darwinists will reject you. Let others decide whether your idea is the revolution you believe it to be. If you are correct the idea will win out in the end.
     

  88. #188  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    From what I can see, it is quite paltry.
    It is a select few.

    Btw, is it true that Dawkins' Kenyan parents were supporters of colonial apartheid? Is this perhaps where he gets his love of "natural selection" from and fetes scientists like James Watson who claims black people are inferior?
    Have you EVER even read any of his stuff? You are crossing the line here. Wildly throwing accusations around like that? Man you really are something.
    Being a Afrikaaner, you probably support such racism.
     

  89. #189  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    you've just crossed the line from covert to overt ad-hominem
    you don't hit someone over the head because they don't agree with you
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  90. #190  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    HEliopolis, I rather expect you will pay as little attention to my next remarks as you have to all the others I and fellow posters have made concerning your logic.
    You said :
    name me one research paper the man [Dawkins] has had peer-reviewed?
    . Can you read that? Name one paper.

    I responded with a list of fourteen and asked if you would like more. (There ar emore you know.) But you change the rules and respond:
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    From what I can see, it [the number of published papers] is quite paltry....
    So what. You asked for one paper, I gave you fourteen, a part of his work. Your response: to attack him as an individual.

    What am I seeing here?
    1. You erect irrelevant strawman arguments.
    2. You change the rules of the discussion as we go along.
    3. You insert irrelevant ad hominems.
    4. You misinterpret - either from ignorance or deliberately - the positions of others.
    5. You appear to believe that disproving one hypothesis, will automatically prove another.

    None of these activities are a part of the scientific method. They are a part of pseudoscience. Yet you would have us believe we should treat your hypothesis seriously when everything about your presentation of it screams out 'fraud', or 'fool'.

    Again, if you wish to be considered seriously stop with the self fulfilling prophecy of claiming that the Darwinists will reject you. Let others decide whether your idea is the revolution you believe it to be. If you are correct the idea will win out in the end.

    Scientists are never divorced from prejudice and their instinctive inclinations.

    The list of papers and the subject they cover you provided is rather pathetic. The "extended phenotype" is the only one worth mentioning.

    If you compare Dawkins with his contemporaries, he is a minor league player, if that.

    As for "ad hominem"....I asked a simple question: I suspect he is a white supremacist given his background.
     

  91. #191  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    As for "ad hominem"....I asked a simple question: I suspect he is a white supremacist given his background.
    i don't see a question mark
    besides, you don't even attack someone for his background, but for an assumed background - bad form, imo
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
     

  92. #192  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    From what I can see, it is quite paltry.
    It is a select few.

    Btw, is it true that Dawkins' Kenyan parents were supporters of colonial apartheid? Is this perhaps where he gets his love of "natural selection" from and fetes scientists like James Watson who claims black people are inferior?
    Have you EVER even read any of his stuff? You are crossing the line here. Wildly throwing accusations around like that? Man you really are something.
    Being a Afrikaaner, you probably support such racism.
    And all Germans are Nazi’s? Think what you wish, I couldn't care less, but be aware you have lost the last bit of credibility you had on this forum my friend :wink:
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  93. #193  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    What a bizarre turn this bizarre thread has taken.
     

  94. #194  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    From what I can see, it is quite paltry.
    It is a select few.

    Btw, is it true that Dawkins' Kenyan parents were supporters of colonial apartheid? Is this perhaps where he gets his love of "natural selection" from and fetes scientists like James Watson who claims black people are inferior?
    Have you EVER even read any of his stuff? You are crossing the line here. Wildly throwing accusations around like that? Man you really are something.
    Being a Afrikaaner, you probably support such racism.
    Think what you wish, I couldn't care less, but be aware you have lost the last bit of credibility you had on this forum my friend :wink:
    Yeah, yeah we all know what you lot down there really think...you can't fool me.
     

  95. #195  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    As for "ad hominem"....I asked a simple question: I suspect he is a white supremacist given his background.
    i don't see a question mark
    besides, you don't even attack someone for his background, but for an assumed background - bad form, imo

    Join the dots.....Dawkins befriends racists and fascists like
    James Watson. His theory of "memetics" was proposed by the
    Nazis and their theory of the "master race".

    Dawkins is just an apologist for Atheisto-Fascism.
     

  96. #196  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by Heliopolis
    As for "ad hominem"....I asked a simple question: I suspect he is a white supremacist given his background.
    i don't see a question mark
    besides, you don't even attack someone for his background, but for an assumed background - bad form, imo

    Dawkins supports EUGENICS

    http://lifesite.net/ldn/2006/nov/06112103.html

    Your Nazi idol is exposed!

    The Nazis justified genocide on the basis of "natural selection".

    I have even seen a film where they place a scorpion and a snake
    in a cage to see who wins.
     

  97. #197  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Heliopolis, pay attention. You haven't been up until now.

    1. Your posts are now entirely off topic instead of just partly off topic. amazing when we consider it is your topic.
    2. Your disregard for logic is lamentable.
    3. I am locking this thread, since it seems nothing of value will come from it. (I shall consider well reasoned arguments fro reopening it, via pm, from any and all members.)
    4. I suggest you take a long hard look at the reception you have had and why you have had it.

    Thank you
    Ophiolite
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •