lol.....

Isn't this a violation of the rules?

You seem to have a strong compulsion to troll such threads. If you actually discussed the topics then I would welcome a different opinion even if it is as astoundingly ignorant as yours. But I am not interested in having you make dozens of posts evading simple requests to clarify your position. There is no reason to be such a chickenshit and attempt to conceal your opinion.
 
no it's not a rule violation, it was a suggestion to prevent whining, but not an actual rule.
 
Well, if you like, I will make a fool of you here, pmp, and you can demonstrate your intellectual cowardice for us again.
 
Here, I will get the ball rolling...

In that thread I stated it blows a hole in the idea that evolution is sheer random chance. Instead we see evolution proceeding in repeatable ways based on environments that select for similar traits.

Also, though it was not a focus of the article, we see speciation (that event for which you refused to elaborate on a suspected mechanism) occurring in similar and repeatable ways. That is, it seems the lizards in the canopy became genetically isolated from those living on twigs, trunk and grass and they split into separate species.
 
Professor Baxter said:
Here, I will get the ball rolling...

In that thread I stated it blows a hole in the idea that evolution is sheer random chance. Instead we see evolution proceeding in repeatable ways based on environments that select for similar traits.

Also, though it was not a focus of the article, we see speciation (that event for which you refused to elaborate on a suspected mechanism) occurring in similar and repeatable ways. That is, it seems the lizards in the canopy became genetically isolated from those living on twigs, trunk and grass and they split into separate species.
Click to expand...

your article, though not enough to completely convince even the author, comments on similarities of evolutionary development between different types of cichlids experiencing identical environmental stresses.....that in itself is not surprising....what is surprising is to ignore the fact that those environmental stresses are totally random over the "lifetime" of a species.....

shit happens.....while it is happening, it is happening to everyone in the immediate vicinity........not only does this article not "blow a hole" in random chance, its clear even the author isn't completely convinced Gould didn't have it right.....
 
have you fools noticed who does the most thread banning?

its you cons dudes.

I have NEVER banned anyone from a thread.


Oh I correct myself I did ban one person once can you guess who it was?
 
evince said:
have you fools noticed who does the most thread banning?

its you cons dudes.

I have NEVER banned anyone from a thread.


Oh I correct myself I did ban one person once can you guess who it was?
Click to expand...

/shrugs...neither have I.....doesn't change the irony of someone banning another on the grounds that he was an "intellectual coward"......
 
well you are

and your a fake moralist too

the only person I have ever banned from a thread was myself
 
PostmodernProphet said:
your article, though not enough to completely convince even the author, comments on similarities of evolutionary development between different types of cichlids experiencing identical environmental stresses.....that in itself is not surprising....what is surprising is to ignore the fact that those environmental stresses are totally random over the "lifetime" of a species.....

shit happens.....while it is happening, it is happening to everyone in the immediate vicinity........not only does this article not "blow a hole" in random chance, its clear even the author isn't completely convinced Gould didn't have it right.....
Click to expand...

The environmental stresses are not totally random. The similar evolutionary steps in these different species is due to similar habitats.

Gould did not support your expression that evolution happened by sheer random chance, i.e., without causal links.

"In ordinary English, a random event is one without order, predictability or pattern. The word connotes disaggregation, falling apart, formless anarchy, and fear. Yet, ironically, the scientific sense of random conveys a precisely opposite set of associations. A phenomenon governed by chance yields maximal simplicity, order and predictability--at least in the long run. ... Thus, if you wish to understand patterns of long historical sequences, pray for randomness." Gould
 
Panda Hugger said:
I think PiMP should embrace his image as a thug gangsta. Work dem boes, make dat money
Click to expand...

I am not a thug gangsta.....I am the guy who is on the thug gangsta's payroll who shows up at the police interrogation room five minutes after the liberal "thought police" start trying to beat a confession out of one of my client's minions and tells them to either get a court order or shut the fuck up.......
 
Professor Baxter said:
The environmental stresses are not totally random.
Click to expand...

really?....who controls them.....or by "not totally" do you mean everything is random except that shady part over there we reserve for deniability's sake.....

The similar evolutionary steps in these different species is due to similar habitats.
Click to expand...

and is that not what I just said?......

Gould did not support your expression that evolution happened by sheer random chance, i.e., without causal links.
Click to expand...

lol....the games you play when you try to exclude me from the original thread.....THIS is the Gould quote from that OP and THIS is the Gould quote I was referring to...

Stephen Jay Gould famously said that if the tape of life could be rewound to the same starting point, it would replay with a very different outcome.
Click to expand...
 
I think we are to the point where I ask you......since everything in the vicinity of shit randomly happening is effected equally by the shit happening, how does their shared reaction blow away the argument that shit happens randomly?.......
 
or phrased differently, FIVE butterflies flapping their wings in Brazil is NOT climate change in Nantucket, even if one can "cause" a storm.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
really?....who controls them.....or by "not totally" do you mean everything is random except that shady part over there we reserve for deniability's sake.....

and is that not what I just said?......

lol....the games you play when you try to exclude me from the original thread.....THIS is the Gould quote from that OP and THIS is the Gould quote I was referring to...
Click to expand...

Gould did not agree with you that evolution happens by "sheer random chance" or at least what you seem to mean by that and the quote does not show that he did. But Gould is not an absolute or final authority either. He is just one that you find it easy to take out of context and ignore.

It is not who controls but what. Also, the control is not absolute just like the randomness is not. You are stuck on a false dichotomy. It is not all of one or all of the other. You insist on building your strawman on the idea that the randomness is the controlling and driving factor but it is the laws of nature, including the processes of selection, that seem to control and drive the process. The random mutations are just material. We know without any doubt that the mutations happen, we know that selection filters them and that speciation (macroevolution whether you label it correctly or not) happens (i.e., evolution is elevated to a fact in the common language).

It gives your childish mind a warm fuzzy to think that God controls everything, but then you evade the implications that that means God is also responsible for the bad that happens. As Attenborough put it...

I often get letters, quite frequently, from people who say how they like the programmes a lot, but I never give credit to the almighty power that created nature. To which I reply and say, "Well, it's funny that the people, when they say that this is evidence of the Almighty, always quote beautiful things. They always quote orchids and hummingbirds and butterflies and roses." But I always have to think too of a little boy sitting on the banks of a river in west Africa who has a worm boring through his eyeball, turning him blind before he's five years old. And I reply and say, "Well, presumably the God you speak about created the worm as well," and now, I find that baffling to credit a merciful God with that action. And therefore it seems to me safer to show things that I know to be truth, truthful and factual, and allow people to make up their own minds about the moralities of this thing, or indeed the theology of this thing.
 
Professor Baxter said:
Gould did not agree with you that evolution happens by "sheer random chance" or at least what you seem to mean by that and the quote does not show that he did. But Gould is not an absolute or final authority either. He is just one that you find it easy to take out of context and ignore.

It is not who controls but what. Also, the control is not absolute just like the randomness is not. You are stuck on a false dichotomy. It is not all of one or all of the other. You insist on building your strawman on the idea that the randomness is the controlling and driving factor but it is the laws of nature, including the processes of selection, that seem to control and drive the process. The random mutations are just material. We know without any doubt that the mutations happen, we know that selection filters them and that speciation (macroevolution whether you label it correctly or not) happens (i.e., evolution is elevated to a fact in the common language).
Click to expand...

so the problem isn't the randomness, but the sheerness......since you think you see what causes the change, and can (admittedly after the fact) "predict" the change you argue it isn't "sheer random chance".....I guess its visible random chance instead......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top