Are you guys insane?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-04-2012, 06:14 AM (This post was last modified: 27-04-2012 06:29 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Are you guys insane?
(27-04-2012 02:52 AM)Egor Wrote:  I had a lot more written, but I need to start changing my tone, so I edited it out. Besides, HOC reposted the most salient point.

To any of those still trying to live in a house that has crashed about their feet... best to build not on a foundation of sand. Attempting to hide behind "changing one's tone", is disingenuous, (obviously), and simply makes evident that said poster is incapable of making rational arguments. Also said poster has not, once again, even begun to address any, (even one) of the "salient" points. Stating that someone "got it wrong", is the mental equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I". But then we already know, that is the extent of, and usual level, that said poster stoops to, when corned by said poster's wackery. hoc is also a big boy. He can state in 3 words, that which takes me three pages, why deleting one's posts, after they are refuted, and then making someone else's post appear, out of context, is THE most cowardly, dishonest, thing anyone, could possibly do here. (No one is surprised, however).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
27-04-2012, 06:43 AM
RE: Are you guys insane?
I don't know about that. Some days my asshole quotient is probability one, others, not so much, so my tone changes. Then there's days with too many Gwynnies and I ain't got no tone at all. Only discordant cacophony. Big Grin

And if one writes merely to respond to the narrow focus of a single poster, one is surely likely to feel marginalized when said poster does not reply. I write for myself - get some complaints about comprehensibility - but there ain't no co-dependency/validation issues. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
27-04-2012, 07:17 AM
RE: Are you guys insane?
The most frustrating part for me is when they continue to ignore points when they do respond. That is, the main point is left untouched (ie mutation is not the mechanism by which evolution occurs) and they instead try to focus on the other points made, but those points can't be reasonably argued against without addressing the main point.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
27-04-2012, 07:26 AM
RE: Are you guys insane?
That kinda frustration for me is in trying to share the joys of science, cause it's cool as fuck, and it's like my Gwynnies in that I wanna see others get happy like I get happy. And science is good for ya, even when it's wrong. Wink

Theism gets the same kind of advocates, but it seems the root cause - god - is tainted with some nasty "believe or else" bs. So while I can sympathize with the drive of the Egors in the world, I can also understand treating them with intolerance as long as there's this undertone of hell going on. Ain't going to hell for failing biology. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
27-04-2012, 08:14 AM
RE: Are you guys insane?
(27-04-2012 06:43 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  And if one writes merely to respond to the narrow focus of a single poster, one is surely likely to feel marginalized when said poster does not reply. I write for myself - get some complaints about comprehensibility - but there ain't no co-dependency/validation issues. Tongue


"he who must not be named" is never the addressee. Since I'm not observing, (sic), one does not exist. Tongue My objects are the "guests", (in general).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
27-04-2012, 08:23 AM (This post was last modified: 27-04-2012 08:28 AM by houseofcantor.)
RE: Are you guys insane?
(27-04-2012 08:14 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  "he who must not be named" is never the addressee.

It's better that way. Angel
(27-04-2012 08:14 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:   Since I'm not observing, (sic), one does not exist. Tongue

I tried that line in a group of quantum furries, and they're like, "whadda mean, you're the only person on the forum?" Believers - seems whatever-the-fuck they believe, it causes a lack of vision. (I know this first hand - I don't see nuttin', there's Gwynnies aroundBig Grin )

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
27-04-2012, 11:48 AM
 
RE: Are you guys insane?
(27-04-2012 06:08 AM)robotworld Wrote:  Meet Euglena.

Euglena possess a red eyespot, an organelle composed of carotenoid pigment granules. It filters the sunlight that falls on a light-detecting structure at the base of the flagellum, allowing only certain wavelengths of light to reach it. As the cell rotates with respect to the light source, the eyespot partially blocks the source, permitting the Euglena to find the light and move toward it.

The base of the flagellum is the signal receptor. The entire flagellum has a use on its own even without the photosensitive cells.

Unfortunately, I have to confine my comments about protozoan consciousness to the organism I researched, which is P. caudatum. But I wonder how often Euglena reproduces? What I mean is I'll bet there are trillions of those creatures reproducing all the time. Funny how we ended up with an eye, but they didn't.

Quote: What are the four primary reasons?

Honestly, that's part of a publication I'm putting out later, so I don't want to get into it. I shouldn't have mentioned it to begin with at this point.

Quote:Thank you once again for your reply. I'll tone down on the metaphors and sarcasm.

Me, too. Hug


(27-04-2012 07:17 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The most frustrating part for me is when they continue to ignore points when they do respond. That is, the main point is left untouched (ie mutation is not the mechanism by which evolution occurs) and they instead try to focus on the other points made, but those points can't be reasonably argued against without addressing the main point.

I think we've been over this, haven't we? Let's see if I can help end it: I realize mutations are not the driving force of evolution, natural selection and reproduction are. But they are interrelated. Without the mutations, changes don't occur in the species. Without the proper mutations a species will die out if the environment changes beyond what it can tolerate.

And once again, let me reitterate, I am not really talking about evolution. I'm talking about what causes the mutations. On the one hand you can say chance causes them, but my argument is that chance alone wouldn't account for the evolution of species we see in the world.


(27-04-2012 06:43 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  And if one writes merely to respond to the narrow focus of a single poster, one is surely likely to feel marginalized when said poster does not reply. I write for myself - get some complaints about comprehensibility - but there ain't no co-dependency/validation issues. Tongue

House, I think you're insane. That's why I don't respond to you more often. I feel like I have to be cautious with what I say and filter my opinions with you and avoid things that might make you more disturbed, like I do with patients at work. Seriously, I think you have some weird issues given the photos of yourself on your Google profile and your obsession with Gwyneth Paltro. I'm not a psychiatrist, so I don't know what's wrong with you, but I find you are best just avoided--like a person pushing a shopping cart down the street.

I'm allowing myself to tell you this only this one time, so I'm not going to elaborate on it. It is interesting, however, to note a social phenomenon that has occurred in the modern age: Of all the things people can hide when socializing on the internet, in all the ways they can pretend, they can't really hide being left of center. A shopping cart with rattling wheels on the pavement is a shopping cart with rattling wheels--no matter where you encounter it.
Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2012, 12:16 PM
RE: Are you guys insane?
There is a lot of survivorship bias when discussing mutations and evolution. The fact that some species have mutated "properly" for their environment is not very impressive when you look at the failure rate (extinction). The insignificant mutations also seem to get discounted, while the more impressive ones are credited to a guiding force. Does anyone have a ratio of extinct to surviving species based on fossil record or other source?

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2012, 12:50 PM (This post was last modified: 27-04-2012 01:16 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Are you guys insane?
(27-04-2012 12:16 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  There is a lot of survivorship bias when discussing mutations and evolution. The fact that some species have mutated "properly" for their environment is not very impressive when you look at the failure rate (extinction). The insignificant mutations also seem to get discounted, while the more impressive ones are credited to a guiding force. Does anyone have a ratio of extinct to surviving species based on fossil record or other source?

Great question. Apparently, it's still being debated. Whatever it is, it's very high.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction
Of course, to figure that out, ya gotta know how many species presently exist. I seem to recall they think there are estimates of global species totals of anywhere from 5 to 15 million. If you need a single number to plug into a calculation, seems like 12-13 million is reasonable. New species, including mega-fauna, are being discovered every day so only an estimate is available. The consensus opinion on the current rate of extinctions is between 50 and 150 species per day. Due to exploding human population and an ever accelerating rate of natural habitat destruction, about 0.2 to 0.6 percent of Earth's species each year, become extinct every year. The "background" extinction rate is the "natural rate", before the accelerating rate caused by human activity is computed. It is thought to be 10,000 times greater. By the end of this century Homo Sapiens will have driven 50 to 75% of all species alive today extinct. Thankfully The Nature Conservancy, Missouri Botanical Garden, and World Wild Life Fund are working to preserve as much as possible before it's too late. See : "Biodiversity II: Understanding and Protecting Our Biological Resources" by Marjorie L. Reaka-Kudla, Don E. Wilson, and Edward O. Wilson ; "The Biodiversity Crises: Losing What Counts" by The American Museum of Natural History.
(27-04-2012 11:48 AM)Egor Wrote:  Funny how we ended up with an eye, but they didn't.
Honestly, that's part of a publication I'm putting out later, so I don't want to get into it. I shouldn't have mentioned it to begin with at this point.

House, I think you're insane. ..... I'm allowing myself to tell you this only this one time, so I'm not going to elaborate on it. Of all the things people can hide when socializing on the internet, in all the ways they can pretend, they can't really hide being left of center. A shopping cart with rattling wheels on the pavement is a shopping cart with rattling wheels--no matter where you encounter it.


Such ... breathtaking ... profundity.

It renders one speachless... heh heh, except ...
said poster has just refuted said poster, (itself). A few posts above, said poster said vision was useless. Now said poster wants to know why, said "useless" trait, is NOT shared by all said organisms. Then said poster tell someone else they are insane. Weeping The question of why the Euglena doesn't have an eye, is like asking why we don't have wings. Once again none of the questions have been answered, and once again evasion is attempted by a.) NOT answering the qustion at hand, and b.) an attempt to divert the attention from the fact the question is NOT being addressed to another irrelevant question. The pattern is very clear. And BTW Rahn 127, you totally nailed it ! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%...ger_effect

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
27-04-2012, 02:04 PM
 
RE: Are you guys insane?
(27-04-2012 12:50 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Such ... breathtaking ... profundity.

Thank you.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: