Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-10-2015, 06:05 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
You are free to leave the party any moment you please.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2015, 06:43 AM (This post was last modified: 09-10-2015 06:51 AM by Banjo.)
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(09-10-2015 06:05 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  You are free to leave the party any moment you please.

From a guy with 21 posts! Big Grin

And minus 4 rep. Too funny. Big Grin

Actually, make that - 5. Smile

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
09-10-2015, 06:58 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Enjoy yourself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-10-2015, 08:46 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(09-10-2015 04:19 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  Have patience. Everything comes in due time.

If you have an actual point to make, I strongly suggest that you do it quickly.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
09-10-2015, 10:14 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(09-10-2015 04:12 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  English is my third ot fourth language. And still it is much more coherent than your native.

pfffff

You have no idea how hilariously wrong you are.

Regardless, as Momsurroundedbyboys says, this is pointless unless you make a point. You've done nothing so far but quote-mine the same tired snippets that are constantly trotted out by every creationist who decides to stop by, fail to understand the completely basic principles in play, and throw insults at everyone who points out how utterly, blatantly, inarguably wrong you are.

Your attempt to make an argument by attacking the opposition has failed. The only way this is going anywhere now is if you make an exceptionally strong argument for... whatever your own position is.

But you can't do that.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
09-10-2015, 11:11 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(09-10-2015 02:56 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  ---
The individual fitness is a phantom, in the world of sex, and Darwinian NS is
as well. The wicked irony of nature is that namely Darwinian natural selection
is lacking. Whereas other forms of NS, - that is, natural selection of alleles
and group selection - happily operate there. Anything you like - but for the very
Darwin's idea. That's the sporting life...
Still all this is only the thin edge to the wedge. The proper evolution begins
with speciation. And what does neo-darwinism know about speciation? At bottom,
near to nothing.
--

Hmm. Sounds like someone's got a hold of some sour grapes.

Nature finds a way.

Now, piss off. Drinking Beverage
***

Oh...

Welcome to the forum. Smile

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2015, 02:55 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
You see, guys, all this is not for common sense laymen. All the same you will
never realize what is the evolutionary meaning of having two parents - in place
of the sole. You will never know why are we, beloved, not like dandelions, and
what implications does this astonishing circumstance entail.
Why rack your brain in vain? Better have a six-pack of beer and watch some TV.
Relax. Take one of the countless neo-darwinist text-books - they were written
just for you. They contain ready answers, sort of, to all your questions...
Take no offense, nothing personal. My apologies, but I am to go on having done
with "modern synthesis".

Next in turn anecdotic affair takes place in connection with speciation issues.
Theorists state, in concert, that the principal part is played by the so-called
allopatric speciation. It is so clear and simple.
The trouble is that, in reality, allopatry is only responsible for a few basis
points of all speciation events. Nearly zero. While the overwhelming majority
of events is supported by another mode of speciation - by this sympatric. And
the gag is that theorists for so long time dully repudiated the very idea of
sympatry. They still repudiate...
The thing is that allopatric speciation entirely depends on the presence of
formidable geographic (spatial) barriers which securely segregate populations
and reproductively isolate one population from another. What matters here is a
a formidable barrier that inhibits the gene flow between the populations - and
not mere environmental dissimilarities. We shouldn't confuse these two entirely
different circumstances!
Now try and count formidable barriers present over the areal of local forest
ecosystem - or of the oceanic cay. What do you get - two or three barriers? I
am afraid, you will find no formidable barriers at all... At that, over a few
square miles of a subtropical rain forest, dozens thousand insect species (plus
spiders and ticks) exist - not to mention plants, fungi, amoebae, infusorium,
worms, molluscs, reptiles, amphibians, birds, mammals... Where are the spatial
barriers which secured the isolated uprise of all these innumerable species?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2015, 03:09 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(10-10-2015 02:55 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  You see, guys, all this is not for common sense laymen. All the same you will
never realize what is the evolutionary meaning of having two parents - in place
of the sole.

Sole? Do you mean the bottom of a shoe, or the fish?

[Image: Men-Shoes-Pu-Sole.jpg]
[Image: sole-dover-common]

Perhaps instead you meant our local star, Sol?

[Image: sol-660x595.jpg]

How about the capital of South Korea, Seoul?

[Image: 768.gif]

Or did you perhaps mean soul you stupid gibbering fuktard? Weeping


(10-10-2015 02:55 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  You will never know why are we, beloved, not like dandelions, and
what implications does this astonishing circumstance entail.
Why rack your brain in vain? Better have a six-pack of beer and watch some TV.
Relax. Take one of the countless neo-darwinist text-books - they were written
just for you. They contain ready answers, sort of, to all your questions...
Take no offense, nothing personal. My apologies, but I am to go on having done
with "modern synthesis".


[Image: 2f3640a3393b93b2fb5049e133de5addf3bef697...f0b0e8.jpg]


(10-10-2015 02:55 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  Next in turn anecdotic[sic] affair takes place in connection with speciation issues.
Theorists state, in concert, that the principal part is played by the so-called
allopatric speciation. It is so clear and simple.
The trouble is that, in reality, allopatry is only responsible for a few basis[sic]
points of all speciation events. Nearly zero. While the overwhelming majority
of events is supported by another mode of speciation - by this sympatric. And
the gag is that theorists for so long time dully repudiated the very idea of
sympatry. They still repudiate...
The thing is that allopatric speciation entirely depends on the presence of
formidable geographic (spatial) barriers which securely segregate populations
and reproductively isolate one population from another. What matters here is a
a formidable barrier that inhibits the gene flow between the populations - and
not mere environmental dissimilarities. We shouldn't confuse these two entirely
different circumstances!
Now try and count formidable barriers present over the areal of local forest
ecosystem - or of the oceanic cay. What do you get - two or three barriers? I
am afraid, you will find no formidable barriers at all... At that, over a few
square miles of a subtropical rain forest, dozens thousand insect species (plus
spiders and ticks) exist - not to mention plants, fungi, amoebae, infusorium[sic],
worms, molluscs[sic], reptiles, amphibians, birds, mammals... Where are the spatial
barriers which secured the isolated uprise[sic] of all these innumerable species?


You stupid, stupid, fuck...

[Image: citation_needed.jpg]

How in the flying fuck can you argue that *in fact* (but without providing a course or any source or citation) most speciation events are cause by a hard geographic divide, then turn around and claim it isn't true because there are not enough hard geographic divides. One of those two premises are not true, because they contradict one another you dumbass. Not only that, but we have no reason to take anything you've said as remotely credible because you haven't provided a credible source and you intersperse the rest of your bullshit with woo about souls, which also do not evidently exist.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
10-10-2015, 03:30 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
EvolutionKills, I had no doubt that you didn't know the meaning of the English word "sole". A shame.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-10-2015, 05:30 AM (This post was last modified: 10-10-2015 05:36 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(10-10-2015 03:30 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  EvolutionKills, I had no doubt that you didn't know the meaning of the English word "sole". A shame.

Oh for fucks sake you inbred dipshit.

I do know what "sole" means, you are just using that word in a context that makes zero fucking sense you stupid shithead. I assumed that you were trying to spell "soul" phonetically and fucked up, because "soul" is the only thing that almost makes any sense in that context. Once again, learn how to English motherfucker.

P.S. "phonetically" means that you tried to spell it like it sounds, meaning that you knew the sounds of the word you wanted to spell, but put down the wrong spelling and thus used the wrong word; because sole, soul, Sol, and Seoul are all pronounced identically, but all mean vastly different things. I put this here because I assume you're too stupid to use Google.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: