dilute micro
esse quam videri
Nah, I think I'll agree with Gould and the others that there aren't many transitional forms to be found.
Instead of wrestling soup why don't you go read up on fossils?
universal values?
- Thread starter gnuneo
- Start date
Nah, I think I'll agree with Gould and the others that there aren't many transitional forms to be found.
Instead of wrestling soup why don't you go read up on fossils?
Yeah, because all the info we get is from Gould. Nobody else has ever written about paleontology or fossil records or anything. We only have Gould. OOoooh and Gould was such a slippery character. Is it possible that the reaon you think this is because your creationist tomes tend to focus on Gould rather than say Simon Conway Morris?
"Gradualism" is a bit of a misnomer. Punctuated evolution is gradualist in the sense that evolutionary change takes place gradually over many generations - it is only punctuational when looked at over a geological timescale. Punctuated equilibrium is about large scale "macroevolutionary" trends and speciation. It is arguable that the long periods of stasis are the result of "internal" ie. structural and genetic factors, but I don't think that's the standard view.
Have a read of this paper.
Have a read of this paper.
Gorski, I've overhandled you. I've overindulged you. Go back to that first thread on evolutionary strategies. You'll find your post about Marx, Darwin and Malthus was not ignored. Fruitloop and Crispy replied and they nailed it in three or four very short posts. No fuss. I know this should be how I respond to you, but I make the mistake of trying to make you get it. This is why I don't pretend you understand when clearly don't. This is why I try to explain repeatedly and at length. This is why I am now telling you to go away and familiarise yourself with the basic ideas. I don't know why I want you to understand, but I do. So stop pissing me off with by flaunting your ignorance in my face.
You fucking kulak.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
No there are other paleontologist but they haven't found any more transitionals either.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
So by you I'm an 'idiot' and a 'moron' (and whatever else you've snuck in there) and yet I'm more familiar with this stuff than you.
No. Fuck you kulak. You've done this once too often. You fucking peasant.
I'm going to show what "impolite" means. Get those fucking potatos out of your ears. Cabbage for brains.
Come on mister philosopher king. Explain to me how you thought this was some sensible to say. Let's hear the wisdom.
Fucking jumped up kulak.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
As you read it you're failing to understand what's going on. It's a trick of zooming in onto the pe species while ignoring the parent species. This lets pe be described as gradual, only way different than darwinian gradualism.
But for non-critical thinkers like you - if Gould or Eldredge then simply say it's gradual and darwinian then you buy it and never bother to actually learn what's happening.
As you read it you're failing to understand what's going on. It's a trick of zooming in onto the pe species while ignoring the parent species. This lets pe be described as gradual, only way different than darwinian gradualism.
No it isn't.
dilute micro said:
I'm off to listen to a stuck record.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
dilute micro
esse quam videri
Answer me this Knotted - when you see Gould say one thing and turn around and say the exact opposite, doesn't that spark your curiosity?
I don't get how someone like you that has an interest in this stuff is willing to cover your eyes and ears and pretend. That's not critical thinking.
I don't get how someone like you that has an interest in this stuff is willing to cover your eyes and ears and pretend. That's not critical thinking.
Yes. So I read him carefully.
dilute micro said:
No that stuck record is more entertaining than you.
Actually the basic characteristic of life is not to expand. From basic ecology, it is to occupy a steady state equilibrium at the population determined by the first limiting unsubstitutable resource. Life expands until it reaches that limiting point - if it carries on expanding (say, by drawing down stocks of the limiting resource) it enters a phase of overshoot. Then, when the stock is exhausted, it finds itself at a population level higher than can be sustained by the underlying rate of replenishment of the resource. Then it experiences die-off until the population reverts to its sustainable level. (Yes, that is more or less the position we find ourselves today in relation to hydrocarbon).
From game theory, there is more than one set of rules that can give rise to stable equilibria (so called "Nash equilibria" - Nash was the mathematician popularised in the movie "Beautiful Mind" who worked out the maths of some of this). The golden rule gives rise to one. So does eating the male immediately after copulation. When you are picking one, you are making a moral judgement - the opposite process to hoping that a moral normative principle emerges from observing stable equilibria. You could argue that different rules give rise to different levels of satisfaction, but then you have to judge again - the female spider is perfectly satisfied with the arrangement (as are their human female equivalents).
So - no. You can't.
From game theory, there is more than one set of rules that can give rise to stable equilibria (so called "Nash equilibria" - Nash was the mathematician popularised in the movie "Beautiful Mind" who worked out the maths of some of this). The golden rule gives rise to one. So does eating the male immediately after copulation. When you are picking one, you are making a moral judgement - the opposite process to hoping that a moral normative principle emerges from observing stable equilibria. You could argue that different rules give rise to different levels of satisfaction, but then you have to judge again - the female spider is perfectly satisfied with the arrangement (as are their human female equivalents).
So - no. You can't.
The problem with a game theoretic approach is that people do not instinctively think in terms of rationally maximising their gains. I'm not sure if I can give any particular reason for why this is so, but it's surely clear that it is so. Otherwise gambling wouldn't exist.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
You've shown that you aren't curious at all. Instead you cover your eyes and ears, let loose with some insults, and then carry on believing whatever it is you believe. That's not critical thinking, knotted.
It's usually the case with discussions on this topic most people are 100% sure they have a good working knowledge of the whole thing but they don't. Then you're going to pretend, for instance, that you "read Gould carefully". Your ignorance in this thread says that's not true. All you read is talkorigin type stuff which is doesn't explore the faults or tell you the bad stuff. It's meant to sound good. Then you simply regurgitate it and are unable to actually talk about it.
Lets take a look at what you said earlier:
The quotes did support that - there are very few transitional fossils - which was the case I was making with IMR.
You have missed a major detail. This is because of what I said above. If you ignore criticisms of the subject you're not going to learn about it.
No other quotes are necessary, knotted.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
That's all this is about with you isn't it? Creationism vs Darwin.
Some of the best critiques of darwinism come from creationists, other good ones come from darwinists themselves. But what does that matter to you? If a creationist says anything about it you reject it out of hand. When I posted up Gould's quotes you didn't address the subject matter of what he said but attacked them from coming from a 'creationist' website - as if that was all you needed to dismiss the point of discussion.
I have no problem with any of the quotes you have shown me. Your problem is that you haven't managed to string an argument together and the fact that you think stasis is problematic because it explains a relative lack of transitional forms in the fossil record just shows that there is little point in trying to get you to think logically. It means you have yet to develop what Piaget called the formal operational stage of development. This is why there is little point in arguing with you over technical matters.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
Similar threads
