Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-10-2015, 10:03 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(12-10-2015 06:12 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  Chas, you risk of exploding in your back-strapped anger...

Is that all you've got? Consider

Sad. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
13-10-2015, 02:49 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Your parochial convictions, guys, look purely delicious. In the world of sex,
the idea of individual fitness is glaringly unscientific. Theorists might as
well try and abolish the Archimedes' principle or the corkscrew rule. Dark Ages
absurdity. You may go on in the same strain if you please, yet ignorance of law
is no excuse.
Accordingly, the theory built upon the ridiculous idea is false from beginning
to end. For decades, theorists were having fun and invented all the new sorts
of delusive Darwinian natural selection. So-called balancing NS, directional NS,
stabilizing NS, disruptive NS, and all that bosh. How many angels can dance on
the head of a pin?
The theory of speciation is hollow as well. They have suffered fiasco with the
allopatric speciation and know virtually nothing about the sympatry.
This is all the "solid residual" of the ocean-wide STE literature. “Pathetic.
That’s what it is. Pathetic”. This is how neo-darwinism looks in the eyes of
the thinking non-biologists. As George Bernard Shaw once has said, “Although I
cannot lay an egg, I am a very good judge of omelettes”. And while I can't carry
out a cis-trans test, I am quite competent judge of the dregs the STE theorists
are used to deftly sell to the venerable public.

P.S. This bearded madonna and cat here is rare jack... Why wouldn't you elect
him your gonfalonier?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2015, 05:47 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(13-10-2015 02:49 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  Your parochial convictions, guys, look purely delicious. In the world of sex,
the idea of individual fitness is glaringly unscientific. Theorists might as
well try and abolish the Archimedes' principle or the corkscrew rule. Dark Ages
absurdity. You may go on in the same strain if you please, yet ignorance of law
is no excuse.
Accordingly, the theory built upon the ridiculous idea is false from beginning
to end. For decades, theorists were having fun and invented all the new sorts
of delusive Darwinian natural selection. So-called balancing NS, directional NS,
stabilizing NS, disruptive NS, and all that bosh. How many angels can dance on
the head of a pin?
The theory of speciation is hollow as well. They have suffered fiasco with the
allopatric speciation and know virtually nothing about the sympatry.
This is all the "solid residual" of the ocean-wide STE literature. “Pathetic.
That’s what it is. Pathetic”. This is how neo-darwinism looks in the eyes of
the thinking non-biologists. As George Bernard Shaw once has said, “Although I
cannot lay an egg, I am a very good judge of omelettes”. And while I can't carry
out a cis-trans test, I am quite competent judge of the dregs the STE theorists
are used to deftly sell to the venerable public.

I suggest you go away and learn about evolution.

Your "understanding" of it is preciously wrong.

Quote:P.S. This bearded madonna and cat here is rare jack... Why wouldn't you elect
him your gonfalonier?

I speak for myself. Others apparently think you are too ignorant to even engage with.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
13-10-2015, 07:15 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(13-10-2015 02:49 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  In the world of sex,
the idea of individual fitness is glaringly unscientific.

In the world of basketball tournaments, the idea of individual player skill is glaringly unscientific.

(13-10-2015 02:49 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  The theory of speciation is hollow as well. They have suffered fiasco with the
allopatric speciation and know virtually nothing about the sympatry.

False on both counts, really.

And we're still waiting on some sort of point to be made.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
14-10-2015, 02:48 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Well, guys, one more conscientious attempt. Follow Unbeliever and his shifty
hands: he is badly eager to justify the idea of individual fitness and doesn't
strain at the open imposture. Yes, basketball players differ with their skills;
if anynobody objects? The thing is that you can't break the final score down to
the individual players - with all their skills. No way. Feel the difference.
In parallel, individuals surely differ with their viability, in the world of
sex. Yet viability doesn't mean fitness! Say, a pair of lively piggies is, for
some reason, infertile and so is biologically absolutely unfit. At that, mate
the same individuals with some other piggies, and the pairs may prove fertile
- and, therefore, quite fit. Comprenez-vous?
Sure, spry newsmen - and also their colleagues, the STE theorists - can easily
break a system result down by its subsystems. This is why both journalism and
neo-darwinism lie outwith sience. While good Unbeliever is either a pilferer or
a moron; you, guys, know better.
An asexual bacterium is a full-fledged unit of reproduction and, accordingly,
is endowed with the attribute of fitness. While sexually frustrated Unbeliever
is merely a half-unit, and so you can't reason upon his fitness. This is clear
even to a hedgehog...

In conclusion, an illuminative anecdote: once, a presentable conference of the
scientific elite sought to answer the question. Is an enzyme alive? Are viruses
alive? In the end, a solution seemed at hand: “The ability to reproduce - that
is the essence characteristic of life”. Yet, the ingenuous comment stalemated
the discussion right there: “Then one rabbit is dead. Two rabbits - a male and
female - are alive but either one alone is dead.” (Daniel Koshland. The Seven
Pillars of Life. The Nature of Life, 2010, p. 307).
Certainly, the line is stretched here too far, but the message is clear. In
science, they tend to consider individuals, in the world of sex, er, hardly
animate. Only fertile pairs are actually animate. That's our bizarre world...
So forget all the individual fitness humbug and ponder upon something sensible.
Once again, scientific knowledge is paradoxical, and it has nothing to do with
your common sense, guys.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2015, 03:01 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Blink

Shocking

Facepalm

No

So... another whole rambling post of.. nothing.

"I don't understand sex. (As well as a whole swag of other things) So evolution isn't happening!"

Thank you for a few pages of 'Argument from in-credulousness'.

Pro-tip?

What you do or do not understand? Is up to you to learn about.

Simply waving your hands in the air and going "Nope, too hard..." doesn't cut the mustard.

You should also, perhaps, think of using a different translator software. What ever you're pushing your original words through at the moment? Not doing you a world of good.

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2015, 03:12 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Dear Peebothuhul, no doubt, neo-darwinism is you absolute ceiling. Then let it be. Who cares?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2015, 03:25 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(14-10-2015 03:12 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  Dear Peebothuhul, no doubt, neo-darwinism is you absolute ceiling. Then let it be. Who cares?

*Sigh* Undecided

You're just not getting it.

I don't care about your thoughts on what ever the heck 'Neo-Darwinism' is.

Let alone having a 'Calling' for it.

Your posts have devolved into what is obviously something that's been punched through a language translator program, hence it's barely making sense.

If, and that's looking to be a really big 'If', you actually do have something to say/post? Please do so.

Other than showing a wonderful ignorance of both the subject and the language you're trying to show your disdain for said subject in you're not doing to well. No
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2015, 03:37 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
Peebothuhul, you badly bore me...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2015, 03:49 AM
RE: Is neo-darwinism a scientific theory?
(14-10-2015 03:37 AM)Vladimir Wrote:  Peebothuhul, you badly bore me...

I badly bore you?

Really?

What happened to the erudite linguist whom graced our screens with their earlier posts?

So.. are we actually going to get anything other than your evident lack of knowledge on the subject... or will we devolve further into yourself claiming our Mother's smell of Elderberries and our Father's being hamsters?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: