Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
flaw in Darwin Evolution grafted rootstock
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
flaw in Darwin Evolution grafted rootstock
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
flaw in Darwin Evolution grafted rootstock
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
flaw in Darwin Evolution grafted rootstock
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
flaw in Darwin Evolution grafted rootstock
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
flaw in Darwin Evolution grafted rootstock
"Cereus-validus" wrote in message ...
Are you just realizing that? No, I know it full well... -- Chris Green |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
flaw in Darwin Evolution grafted rootstock
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
flaw in Darwin Evolution grafted rootstock
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
flaw in Darwin Evolution grafted rootstock
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
flaw in Darwin Evolution grafted rootstock
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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
flaw in Brain
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
flaw in Brain
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
flaw in Brain
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) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
flaw in Brain
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) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
flaw in Brain
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) |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
whether grafted RockElm or rootstock SiberianElm and what roles theyplay | Plant Science | |||
Compounding replacing Darwin Evolution; NOVA show on tetrapods ofDevonian | Plant Science | |||
Compounding replacing Darwin Evolution; NOVA show on tetrapods of Devonian | Plant Science | |||
grafted rootstock | Plant Science | |||
(1) Layering and (2) seed dispersal [Was: grafted rootstock] | Plant Science |