14 Jun 2004 07:48:46 -0700 Christopher Green wrote:
(snipped)


No, it may have a much greater viability with a "bird gut dependency".
Seeds that require a pass through a digestive tract, or a fire, or a
freeze and thaw are generally also well protected and will survive
harsh conditions in dormancy. They will receive better dispersal or
germinate under better conditions, and so will end up with a greater
yield.

--
Chris Green

No, this is a flaw in Darwin Evolution theory. Your above is another example of "postdiction" of Darwin
Evolution. This particular flaw is that of "generalist" versus "specialist" and that when a plant or
animal becomes too specialist faces the quick road to extinction. If you look at the record of species
gone extinct it is replete with specialists, seldom any generalist.

Give you an example I recently encountered. I kept finding dug holes near a garage concrete slab and
determined to trap the culprit. Come to find out it was possums. Possums generally live in trees and
make their homes there, but in cold climates they have the habit of digging down deep under to survive
the winter. So they are generalists and have spread their domain. So by Darwin Evolution we can
understand that this generalizing of behaviour is a survival value and increases the range of the
species and the numbers of the species. But Darwin Evolution would be deaf dumb and silent and
postdiction as to why any animal or plant species (prunus tomentosa specializing to have its seed
germinate only if passed through bird gut). So no plant or animal would make a choice of going to be
specialized from that of generalized. So, Darwin Evolution is again a flawed theory which works okay in
large part but is flawed and frayed at all margins. It is an algorithm, a rule of thumb. The true
theory that replaces Darwin Evolution is what John Bell, the physicist called Superdeterminism. For you
cannot have a world where both Darwin Evolution and Superdeterminism co-exist.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.archimedesplutonium.com
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Archimedes Plutonium schreef
No, this is a flaw in Darwin Evolution theory. Your above is another
example of "postdiction" of Darwin Evolution. This particular flaw is that
of "generalist" versus "specialist" and that when a plant or animal becomes
too specialist faces the quick road to extinction. If you look at the record
of species gone extinct it is replete with specialists, seldom any
generalist.

+ + +
The keyword here is "too specialist".
Species can go extinct when they become "too generalist" also
+ + +

[...] So no plant or animal would make a choice of going to be specialized
from that of generalized.

+ + +
Lots of them do, for very good reasons. Specialists outcompete generalists,
as long as their specialty applies. This leads to increased chances of
survival.
+ + +

So, Darwin Evolution is again a flawed theory which works okay in
large part but is flawed and frayed at all margins. It is an algorithm, a
rule of thumb.

+ + +
As algorithms are something entirely different from rules of thumb, you may
want to choose which you mean?
+ + +

The true theory

+ + +
This is a contradiction in terms. Something either is true (seen from a
religious perspective) or a theory (a scientific law). A "true theory" is a
falsehood.
+ + +

that replaces Darwin Evolution is what John Bell, the physicist called
Superdeterminism. For you cannot have a world where both Darwin Evolution
and Superdeterminism co-exist.

+ + +
Allright, as I cannot have it, maybe you should have it?
PvR

Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message ...
14 Jun 2004 07:48:46 -0700 Christopher Green wrote:
(snipped)


No, it may have a much greater viability with a "bird gut dependency".
Seeds that require a pass through a digestive tract, or a fire, or a
freeze and thaw are generally also well protected and will survive
harsh conditions in dormancy. They will receive better dispersal or
germinate under better conditions, and so will end up with a greater
yield.

--
Chris Green

No, this is a flaw in Darwin Evolution theory. Your above is another example of "postdiction" of Darwin
Evolution. This particular flaw is that of "generalist" versus "specialist" and that when a plant or
animal becomes too specialist faces the quick road to extinction. If you look at the record of species
gone extinct it is replete with specialists, seldom any generalist.

That is merely silly. You know nothing of what you speak.

--
Chris Green

In sci.physics Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

14 Jun 2004 07:48:46 -0700 Christopher Green wrote:
(snipped)


No, it may have a much greater viability with a "bird gut dependency".
Seeds that require a pass through a digestive tract, or a fire, or a
freeze and thaw are generally also well protected and will survive
harsh conditions in dormancy. They will receive better dispersal or
germinate under better conditions, and so will end up with a greater
yield.

--
Chris Green

No, this is a flaw in Darwin Evolution theory. Your above is another example of "postdiction" of Darwin
Evolution. This particular flaw is that of "generalist" versus "specialist" and that when a plant or
animal becomes too specialist faces the quick road to extinction. If you look at the record of species
gone extinct it is replete with specialists, seldom any generalist.

However, evolution does not work to long-term species survival, but
comparative advantage between offspring.
If in the past a certian behaviour or characteristic has benefited the
species to go into being a specialist, then the species may become very
specialist indeed, and sensitive to the loss of whatever they specialise
in.

Evolution cannot look ahead, and wonder what happens if the Goobly tree
becomes extinct due to Dutch Goobly disease, and there are no
Gooblyberries to eat.

Are you just realizing that?

Archie has been posting crazy nonsense to this newsgroup for years. He is a
rather harmless kook and he makes an easy whipping boy because he is such a
misinformed delusional fool.

Archie is the poster boy for deviant de-evolution
"Are we not men? We are DEVO!"

"Christopher Green" wrote in message
om...
Archimedes Plutonium wrote in message
...
14 Jun 2004 07:48:46 -0700 Christopher Green wrote:
(snipped)


No, it may have a much greater viability with a "bird gut dependency".
Seeds that require a pass through a digestive tract, or a fire, or a
freeze and thaw are generally also well protected and will survive
harsh conditions in dormancy. They will receive better dispersal or
germinate under better conditions, and so will end up with a greater
yield.

--
Chris Green

No, this is a flaw in Darwin Evolution theory. Your above is another
example of "postdiction" of Darwin
Evolution. This particular flaw is that of "generalist" versus
"specialist" and that when a plant or
animal becomes too specialist faces the quick road to extinction. If you
look at the record of species
gone extinct it is replete with specialists, seldom any generalist.

That is merely silly. You know nothing of what you speak.

--
Chris Green

"Cereus-validus" wrote in message ...
Are you just realizing that?

No, I know it full well...

--
Chris Green

Tue, 15 Jun 2004 13:12:08 +0200 P van Rijckevorsel wrote:


Archimedes Plutonium schreef
No, this is a flaw in Darwin Evolution theory. Your above is another
example of "postdiction" of Darwin Evolution. This particular flaw is that
of "generalist" versus "specialist" and that when a plant or animal becomes
too specialist faces the quick road to extinction. If you look at the record
of species gone extinct it is replete with specialists, seldom any
generalist.

+ + +
The keyword here is "too specialist".
Species can go extinct when they become "too generalist" also
+ + +

[...] So no plant or animal would make a choice of going to be specialized
from that of generalized.

+ + +
Lots of them do, for very good reasons. Specialists outcompete generalists,
as long as their specialty applies. This leads to increased chances of
survival.
+ + +

May I interject environment into the above. It is the environment itself that
is forcing and shaping plant and animal species to go down a path of becoming
too specialist or too generalist. But then Darwin Evolution does not count the
"factor of environment". So Darwin Evolution is flawed on that account.





So, Darwin Evolution is again a flawed theory which works okay in
large part but is flawed and frayed at all margins. It is an algorithm, a
rule of thumb.

+ + +
As algorithms are something entirely different from rules of thumb, you may
want to choose which you mean?
+ + +


Well Ohms law is not a law of physics. It is a algorithm or rule of thumb. A
slide-ruler ( remember those old cumbersome instruments of the 1970s) is an
algorithm for finding a math answer but seldom gives you the precise and
accurate answer that a math computation gives.


The true theory

+ + +
This is a contradiction in terms. Something either is true (seen from a
religious perspective) or a theory (a scientific law). A "true theory" is a
falsehood.
+ + +

that replaces Darwin Evolution is what John Bell, the physicist called
Superdeterminism. For you cannot have a world where both Darwin Evolution
and Superdeterminism co-exist.

+ + +
Allright, as I cannot have it, maybe you should have it?
PvR

Let us not be focused on semantics of words, theory, true, false when we need
to focus on Darwin Evolution.

15 Jun 2004 15:56:21 GMT wrote:


However, evolution does not work to long-term species survival, but
comparative advantage between offspring.
If in the past a certian behaviour or characteristic has benefited the
species to go into being a specialist, then the species may become very
specialist indeed, and sensitive to the loss of whatever they specialise
in.

Evolution cannot look ahead, and wonder what happens if the Goobly tree
becomes extinct due to Dutch Goobly disease, and there are no
Gooblyberries to eat.

Same thing I told P van Rijckevorsel. The factor of "Environment" is missing in Darwin Evolution theory
which as a factor is probably more important than the other 4 factors of differential reproductive success,
geographical isolation, etc etc.

We do not expect Darwin Evolution to be hovering over ever species and moving its members along on the road
of greatest success.

But if a force of Environment is such that it moves a large number of species every year from becoming more
Specialist and losing its Generalist tendencies
(eg prunus tomentosa losing its ability of viable seeds unless passed through the gut of a bird).

Then, well, Darwin Evolution has a huge gap missing in that the Environment is shaping the future of species
more than the 4 factors espoused in Darwin Evolution.

And it is exactly a factor of Environment that the theory of Superdeterminism would say is more important
than the other 4 factors given by Darwin Evolution.

So why should any member of any species be seen as success or survival when the entire species is hurly
gurly burly roller coastering into extinction.

If Darwin Evolution is deaf dumb and silent about whether a species is becoming too specialist rather than
generalist, whilst Environment is dictating what species is made to be more specialist, well, obviously
there are huge holes and flaws and gaps in Darwin Evolution.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.archimedesplutonium.com
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Archimedes Plutonium schreef
May I interject environment into the above.

+ + +
You can interject it, but that does not make it relevant
+ + +

It is the environment itself that is forcing and shaping plant and animal
species

+ + +
There is quite a bit of literature on adaptation
+ + +

to go down a path of becoming too specialist or too generalist.

+ + +
The question of "too" is a different matter entirely
+ + +

But then Darwin Evolution does not count the "factor of environment".

+ + +
You must have the wrong Evolution Theory then
+ + +

So Darwin Evolution is flawed on that account.

+ + +
? ? ?
+ + +

+ + +
As algorithms are something entirely different from rules of thumb, you
may want to choose which you mean?
+ + +

Well Ohms law is not a law of physics. It is a algorithm or rule of thumb.
A slide-ruler ( remember those old cumbersome instruments of the 1970s) is
an algorithm for finding a math answer but seldom gives you the precise and
accurate answer that a math computation gives.

+ + +
Perhaps you should get somebody to introduce you to the concept of
"dictionary" and help you look up words?
+ + +

Let us not be focused on semantics of words, theory, true, false when we
need to focus on Darwin Evolution.

+ + +
That sounds like good advice. Maybe you should take it?
PvR

P van Rijckevorsel wrote:

Archimedes Plutonium schreef
May I interject environment into the above.

+ + +
You can interject it, but that does not make it relevant
+ + +

It is the environment itself that is forcing and shaping plant and animal
species

+ + +
There is quite a bit of literature on adaptation
+ + +

to go down a path of becoming too specialist or too generalist.

+ + +
The question of "too" is a different matter entirely
+ + +

But then Darwin Evolution does not count the "factor of environment".

+ + +
You must have the wrong Evolution Theory then
+ + +

So Darwin Evolution is flawed on that account.

+ + +
? ? ?
+ + +

+ + +
As algorithms are something entirely different from rules of thumb, you
may want to choose which you mean?
+ + +

Well Ohms law is not a law of physics. It is a algorithm or rule of thumb.
A slide-ruler ( remember those old cumbersome instruments of the 1970s) is
an algorithm for finding a math answer but seldom gives you the precise and
accurate answer that a math computation gives.

+ + +
Perhaps you should get somebody to introduce you to the concept of
"dictionary" and help you look up words?
+ + +

Let us not be focused on semantics of words, theory, true, false when we
need to focus on Darwin Evolution.

+ + +
That sounds like good advice. Maybe you should take it?
PvR

It is sad to see people in science who become unable to question their beliefs,
their understanding of theories. Who go on and quip and quip.

How PvR embraces Darwin Evolution as an absolute truth reminds me of the people
who embraced the theories before Darwin Evolution as the truth and who quiped
and attacked and defended the prevailing theories of their day. Never able to
engage in a discussion of the cracks and holes of the theory.

For example, the species Homo sapiens alone contradicts Darwin Evolution. We
can biotech and engineer species that is in blatant contradiction to all the 4
tenets of Darwin Evolution. Where a single species is determining what other
species will go extinct and what species will be propagated. In fact, there is
a moment in history where the human species transcended the tenets of Darwin
Evolution theory. That alone should raise the minds of so called scientists to
question the gaps, the cracks and the flaws of Darwin Evolution theory. Darwin
Evolution theory no longer applies to humanity. But I need minds sharper and
better than those of a quiping quipper of PvR to debate such.

And in the long run, I know I am correct and PvR is incorrect because I have a
physics experiment already done and established. The John Bell Inequality with
the Aspect experimental results. Superdeterminism won. Darwin Evolution is fake
and only needs time before it is trashcanned into the dustbins of history along
with Lamarkianism along with Bible Creationism along with the thousands of
other fake theories of science where millions of PvR types so proudly quipped
and defended.

It is sad that rigidity of mind is not more of a deterrant to those that enter
science fields as a profession. This is also for Chris Green, and moreso,
because I am guessing PvR is far older than Chris. It goes to show that in
science, the people who stay in science are governed more by the psychology of
wanting to be a member of a "group" rather than the quality of wanting to be
"logical and rational in thought". Science favors its members who are logical
and not so worried about being a member of a countryclub of Darwin believers.
Countryclub believers never change or create science for it requires the
ability to notice and see gaps and cracks in the existing theories. If Chris is
younger then there is some hope that he can grow out of his present
groupie-ship of Darwin.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.archimedesplutonium.com
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

A valuable and compassionate post, whether %100 percent accurate or
not. Perhaps it will forestall the snigerring somewhat. Thanks.

(Iris Cohen) wrote in message ...
Archie has been posting crazy nonsense to this newsgroup for years. He is a
rather harmless kook and he makes an easy whipping boy because he is such a
misinformed delusional fool.

Because this is a science group, I would like to explain "Archie" to those who
are new here. (If you want my credentials, I am a retired psychiatric social
worker). As far as I can deduce, he is a schizophrenic. In schizophrenia, the
neurotransmitter dopamine (& possibly others of less importance) is not
distributed normally in the brain. There is too much of it in some areas, which
causes delusions & hallucinations. There is often not enough of it in other
areas, which causes depression and lack of motivation. Schizophrenics have
great difficulty processing information both from within themselves & from the
outside world. This leads to distorted impressions and poor social skills. We
generally only hear about those schizophrenics who develop violent behavior,
which is a small percentage. The majority are harmless, albeit functioning on
the fringes.
Newer methods of physical diagnosis, like PET scans, have determined that parts
of the brains of schizophrenics use too little oxygen. There have long been
medicines, starting with Thorazine, which control the excess dopamine, reducing
psychotic symptoms, but only recently we have developed medicines like Abilify,
which also increase dopamine in the weak areas. However, medication has to be
accompanied by social sructure, counseling, and case management for these
people to function normally. Of course I have no way of knowing, but I suspect
Archie does not have any good family supports, and lives alone. In this modern
day & age, some of these people, especially those who are educated, have found
their way to the Internet & live in their own little world, which is more
comfortable than trying to navigate reality.
I strongly suspect that Archie's contact with plants is very fragmented &
sporadic. I think his farm and orchard are figments of his imagination. He sees
this or that tree in a park or nursery & asks questions. He also probably
frequents the library & reads up on gardening & evolution. However, his
disorder prevents him from integrating this knowledge or connecting any dots,
so he is left with his questions.
There are probably thousands of such people. It is a sad waste of human
potential, but there is nothing we can do except ignore him when he gets too
silly. The only other thing we can do is to pressure our legislators to enforce
adequate medical insurance for mental health treatment, and adequate community
mental health services. "A mind is a terrible thing to waste."


Iris,
Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40
"If we see light at the end of the tunnel, It's the light of the oncoming
train."
Robert Lowell (1917-1977)

On 16 Jun 2004 12:52:27 GMT, (Iris Cohen) wrote:

Archie has been posting crazy nonsense to this newsgroup for years. He is a
rather harmless kook and he makes an easy whipping boy because he is such a
misinformed delusional fool.

Because this is a science group, I would like to explain "Archie" to those who
are new here. (If you want my credentials, I am a retired psychiatric social
worker). As far as I can deduce, he is a schizophrenic. In schizophrenia, the
neurotransmitter dopamine (& possibly others of less importance) is not
distributed normally in the brain. There is too much of it in some areas, which
causes delusions & hallucinations. There is often not enough of it in other
areas, which causes depression and lack of motivation. Schizophrenics have
great difficulty processing information both from within themselves & from the
outside world. This leads to distorted impressions and poor social skills. We
generally only hear about those schizophrenics who develop violent behavior,
which is a small percentage. The majority are harmless, albeit functioning on
the fringes.
Newer methods of physical diagnosis, like PET scans, have determined that parts
of the brains of schizophrenics use too little oxygen. There have long been
medicines, starting with Thorazine, which control the excess dopamine, reducing
psychotic symptoms, but only recently we have developed medicines like Abilify,
which also increase dopamine in the weak areas. However, medication has to be
accompanied by social sructure, counseling, and case management for these
people to function normally. Of course I have no way of knowing, but I suspect
Archie does not have any good family supports, and lives alone. In this modern
day & age, some of these people, especially those who are educated, have found
their way to the Internet & live in their own little world, which is more
comfortable than trying to navigate reality.
I strongly suspect that Archie's contact with plants is very fragmented &
sporadic. I think his farm and orchard are figments of his imagination. He sees
this or that tree in a park or nursery & asks questions. He also probably
frequents the library & reads up on gardening & evolution. However, his
disorder prevents him from integrating this knowledge or connecting any dots,
so he is left with his questions.
There are probably thousands of such people. It is a sad waste of human
potential, but there is nothing we can do except ignore him when he gets too
silly. The only other thing we can do is to pressure our legislators to enforce
adequate medical insurance for mental health treatment, and adequate community
mental health services. "A mind is a terrible thing to waste."


Iris,
Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40
"If we see light at the end of the tunnel, It's the light of the oncoming
train."
Robert Lowell (1917-1977)

All you say is quite so, but AP's correspondence suggests Asperger's
Syndrome much more strongly than schizophrenia to me. The delusions
that are the most characteristic symptoms of schizophrenia tend to be
bizarre or disturbing and disconnected from reality or reason, whereas
AP's are always founded on some partial understanding of a subject
reasoned doggedly to an absurd conclusion.

Carrying on about a subject (possibly for a few years, then carrying
on just as loquaciously about something else), while ignoring all the
social cues that cause "neurotypical" people to drop it and move on,
is suggestive of Asperger's. But of course no kind of mental disorder
can be diagnosed with any kind of assurance from writings alone.

You are quite right about the need for compassion and support of
mental health services.

--
Chris Green

All you say is quite so, but AP's correspondence suggests Asperger's
Syndrome much more strongly than schizophrenia to me.

Could be. I am not that familiar with Asperger's, except I understand it is a
mild form of autism. My granddaughter has ADHD, and some authorities believe
the two are distantly related.

But of course no kind of mental disorder can be diagnosed with any kind of
assurance from writings alone.

Of course. I admit I am guessing. The main point is that the poor fellow is not
all there, & we should ignore him when he gets silly, but not make fun of him.
Iris,
Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40
"If we see light at the end of the tunnel, It's the light of the oncoming
train."
Robert Lowell (1917-1977)

Yes, maybe one should show AP some compassion and sympathy but that dweeb
posted such nasty things when he decided I was on his shit list, I
personally find doing so absolutely impossible.

If AP doesn't want to be mocked, he should refrain from posting such asinine
and outrageously misinformed statements before doing the simplest Google
search to find the answers to his juvenile questions.

I pity the poor newbies to the group that actually take his incoherent
drivel seriously.


"Iris Cohen" wrote in message
...
All you say is quite so, but AP's correspondence suggests Asperger's
Syndrome much more strongly than schizophrenia to me.

Could be. I am not that familiar with Asperger's, except I understand it
is a
mild form of autism. My granddaughter has ADHD, and some authorities
believe
the two are distantly related.

But of course no kind of mental disorder can be diagnosed with any kind
of
assurance from writings alone.

Of course. I admit I am guessing. The main point is that the poor fellow
is not
all there, & we should ignore him when he gets silly, but not make fun of
him.
Iris,
Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40
"If we see light at the end of the tunnel, It's the light of the oncoming
train."
Robert Lowell (1917-1977)

Isn't this the date palm calling the ginkgo dioecious?

I love that line. Thanks.
Iris,
Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40
"If we see light at the end of the tunnel, It's the light of the oncoming
train."
Robert Lowell (1917-1977)