Valich, You really are tiresome. I haven't posted in a few days and you're still making the same mistakes as before... Fuck it then. First. A 'law' is just a 'theory'. A very trusted theory, but a theory nonetheless. Perhaps it's time you went back to school. Second. As has been stated to you repeatedly, nobody is trying to exempt the workings of evolution from the laws of thermodynamics. Rather, the objections are more that you seem to be trying to attribute to thermodynamics to some sort of causative role. 'The driving force' as you've stated on numerous occasions. It's this that is being objected to. Not that evolution must, in the end, obey physical law. Third. About the point you just made about people being kept alive unnaturally. This doesn't mean anything to evolution. Not many coma-victims having children. Nor does the physical accidents which caused the coma play any part in natural selection. Ophiolite very clearly explained to you that natural selection is still in effect for humans, it's only that the criteria for selection has changed. Those humans best adapted to the environment in which they find themselves still have the better chance of breeding and having their offspring reach sexual maturity themselves. Fact. What else? Meh. It'd be nice if the guys would go a little easier on you, but the fact is that you bring it on yourself by being so damn thickheaded and obstinate. And. By the way. "Trolling" is not about 'searching for knowledge'. Where you got that from is beyond me. I've already stated what a troll is but I guess you didn't read it. Or didn't understand. Or just are pretending not to. Maybe you really are a troll. As I said before, if you are then you are truly the most unique troll I've ever come across. Anyway. Fuck it. This is all becoming far too tedious to be useful. Good luck.
We have gone beyond the bounds of what is "natural" in Nature to recreate Nature in artificial and technological ways. "Natural Selection" as it is defined can no longer apply to humans. Both Darwin and Wallace referred to lif "that is the fittest." Wallace said: "From the effects of disease the most healthy escaped; from enemies, the strongest, the swiftest, or the most cunning; from famine, the best hunters or those with the best digestion or those with the best fit degestion; and so on." When Darwin read these words, he realized that Wallace had discovered the same theory of evolution that he did. It was only then, a decade ago after he reached his own same conclusions, that he knew it was time to publish his same theories with Wallace.
You're right you haven't posted in a while, nor have you read my post that clearly explained the basic processes and stages of scientific investigation and scientific experiments: where I very clearly explained the differences between a hypothesis, a theory, and a law. These are all basic premises taught in the very first lessons of every science 101 class. Have you ever taken any university science classes??? If so, then you would clearly know the differences, else you were asleep during the lessons.
>> trolling is not searching for knowledge. best read a book then. I thought online forums were there to encourage communication.... and for mining knowledge from that shared experience........ to again share and discuss. Boy have I got it wrong then.... seems trolling is disagreeing with the mods. Easy to brand, ain't it.
I told you before: you're posting do not seem to be at a doctorate level. If you do not understand the difference then "yes" indeed you definitely should return your PhD!
You brain dead turd. Are you going to open your noxious little mind and listen to what a diverse band of educated posters are telling you with a far higher level of control than I have any interest in maintaining. There is no fucking difference between a law and a theory that is worth spending more than the time taken to get a sociology degree. I have already explained to you that if you have been taught differently at school you need to demand a refund of your fees. You have no idea about anything other than a cute ability to google up quotes and research that contain some of the same terms that were used by your most recent detractor, then to apply them in a wholly irrelevant fashion. Your arrogance is offensive and wholly unwarranted. Too repeat an earlier remark, you really are a nasty piece of work. I have thoroughly enjoyed the last couple of days free of your posts. I now return you to Ignore status, but if it is of some comfort to you I shall remember you fondly each time I have a bowel movement. Edit: Just so every one is clear ,the above gentle remarks are targeted at valich not spuriousmonkey, who just happened to post while I was composing my small memo.
While I admit I am dumb, because I know how much that this there still is out there that I do not know, you should know that the most brilliant minds in history were those that dared to go agsinst the norm "mods" of common beliefs: Einstein, Newton, Galileo.
Why do you do that? Very weird... No. As a matter of fact I did read it. And I can only guess that you don't understand it (as usual.) Here's what you said: "When a theory is proven to be valid over-and-over again under all possible circumstances, both realistic and imaginable, it is only then that it is accepted in the scientific community to be a Law." The problem is that you seem to think a 'Law' is really that different from a theory. 'Theory' is as good as it gets. A 'law' is just a theory that is well-believed--i.e. it has loads of inductive evidence for, very little to none against. But, it's still just a theory. Inductivism fails to justify knowledge. Theory can never be justified so firmly that it becomes what I'd call a Law. Maybe you just come across wrong, but you seem to afford some mystical status to Law which it does not have. Now. I'm not advocating that physical laws are bullshit. Just that they're not as mystical as you seem to hold them. Anyway. That's all you have to say? Figures. Your whole nitpicking thing with 'natural' is sheer idiocy. Spurious has brought up termite mounds. Are they natural? (The question is rhetorical. Of course they're natural.) And just as termite mounds are 'natural' so too is everything done by man. We are 'natural' by definition. And we are incapable of escaping nature. If we perform an action that was once thought to be unnatural, then obviously we were wrong about it being unnatural. You seem to have some kind of 'back to nature' definition of natural. Very unrealistic. Meh. This sucks. I'm just curious. Does this mean anything to you? ΔG = ΔH - TΔS
Refer to my above posting. You're doing it again Ophiolite. Anytime you don't agree with someone our don't understand it, you resort to condescending criticism, vulgar use of language, and irrational thinking: all very non-objective, emotional and unscientific. The same applies to Invern's resort to the use of vulgarity.
>> What is it that drives the development of a complex feature (like wings) over a period of millions of years? >> it is in the eye of the creator of LIFE. Darwinian evolution is a simplistic theory that is fundamentally incorrect. After an major extinction event (ie 99% of living things are DEAD) [as has happened a number of times in the past] the rich array of life forms to fill all environmental niches is reformed in a very short while..... as if all the blue prints for all the extinct life forms have been recorded and passed on.. exact modification is a throw of the dice.... realising that the numbers on the dice are expected and catered for. No blueprint hanging in the sky, what happens is that the DNA has to potential to program any life form.... and it does this by design, to create a pyramid of supporting structures. So once an environment is made suitable for a "DNA" structure it is expressed, in a SHORT TIME, complete and integrated. Darwinian evolution is a SLOW process, and a whole pyramid of life forms forming in a short time is inconceivable..... In short, forget about DE and learn biochemistry.
You really don't get it do you valich. Your entire posture on these forums (or fora, if you prefer) has been to treat everything said ny just about everybody else with utter contempt and indifference. Condescending criticism is frankly an order of magnitude greater than what you deserve. The vulgarity of my language fails utterly to match the vulgarity of your spirit. The day upon which I consult you for examples of rational thinking is the day I will be admitted to a mental hospital. You are damn right I am emotional - I do this in the face of your pig ignorance, stubborness, intransigence, arrogance, - and these are your good points!
During the worst extinction event: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event Note...they mention the percentage of species that went extinct. There is no mention of the percentage of living beings that went extinct. The other extinction event number in the loss of 70% of species and less. So I think you got your figures from somewhere dubious.
Uri, I have to go to sleep now. Would you just select a range of insults and offensive remarks from any of my posts to vallich and apply them to yourself. I really don't have the motivation to dismiss your post in detail right now. [Please don't choose any of the really nasty ones, as I don't think you deserve them.] Once you've overome any emotional reaction to those remarks, can you point to the particular mechanism by which DNA creates this pyramid, and explain why the pyramid is a different shape and size after each extinction event.
Wrong. The mass extinction at the end of the Permian resulted in the disappearance of approximately 96% of the species on Earth at that time. Further, as you yourself suggested/admit we are now undergoing one of Earth's largest mass extinction, caused by man: the sixth extinction. Further, there is an unrecorded initial seventh mass extinction that resulted when the Earth's atmosphere became "polluted" by oxygen: killing off the majority of anaerobic prokaryotes. Those that survived found refuge in extreme environments: hot springs, underwater themal vents, volcanic activity. You guys are ALL redefining the "theory" of Natural Selection to suite your own esoteric needs and to justify your unyielding stagnated arguments. Darwin would never agree! Darwin came up with his theory of Natural Selection after reading Malthus's essay on human population: "If animals, like humans, outstripped food resources, then competition for scarce resources would result. Those with favorable adaptations would fare best, and new species incorporating these favored adaptations would survive." Then Darwin remarked: " Here then I had at last got a theory by which to work with." Darwin's theory infers that the infirm, disabled and sick would not have "favorable adaptations to survive." You're reinterpretating and changing his theory of Natural Selection. It no longer applies to humans because we allow the "unfit" with "adaptation unfavorable to survival" to survive.
Interestingly not only did you conveniently forget to read my entire post, you are also trying to correct me with wrong figures. The 95-96% estimate is on marine species. Not all species on earth. Which you could have read of course either in my post or on the linked page where the quote was from.
Valich, Organic life beneath the shoreless waves Was born and nurs'd in ocean's pearly caves; First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass, Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass; These, as successive generations bloom, New powers acquire and larger limbs assume; Whence countless groups of vegetation spring, And breathing realms of fin and feet and wing. --Erasmus Darwin, The Temple of Nature. Erasmus was Darwin's Granddaddy. Evolution was not Darwin's baby, just so you know. I know you've never said as much, but just making sure. Natural selection as a mechanism of evolution, yes. But even it was not really as unique as it's been made out to be. It was an idea whose time had come. Darwin just had the good fortune to find those finches which showed excellent documentary evidence. There are other animal species who do care for their elderly and infirm. Humans are hardly unique in this. What we are unique in is the extent to which we are able to care for not only them but for ourselves. This does not mean that we are not involved in a selection process. We are being selected for our environment just as always. Social failures do not breed for the most part. The socially fit survive. Humans that are well-adapted to their environment (civilization and its customs) breed. We are being selected for. Just because you have difficulty understanding 'natural' doesn't make it not so. Nor would Darwin holding your particular view of natural selection mean anything to the modern definition of the theory. People are often outstripped by their theories. Einstein is an excellent example of this. Your fallacy is an obvious one here. The appeal to authority: "But Darwin said..."
