MarkDuffy
Diamond Member
I was wondering where you had gone.
Thankx for confirming my very first scientific conclusion from the OP.
This is a joke thread
Evolutionary Thoery is about as useful as an art museum
- Thread starter RandomPoster
- Start date
I was wondering where you had gone.
Thankx for confirming my very first scientific conclusion from the OP.
This is a joke thread
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
I have a Ph.D., shit fer brains.
You watch MSLSD and think that makes your 3rd grade education superior.
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
Reality confuses you? You must be a Communist....
Three facts;
Evolution is a proven fact.
Evolution has nothing to do with biology per se
Education should be privatized
What part can you not grasp?
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
That is not socialism, stupid.
Socialism is the government controlling the means of production. Cooperative schools are the opposite of socialism.
Ignorance is the foundation of leftism. You and your fellow dolts are Communists precisely because you are ignorant and lack any actual education.
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
Good god but you're fucking stupid.
No wonder you're a leftist pile of shit.
Evolution of a storm has to do with the progression of a species to a more effective organism?
You have no idea what evolution means, you repeat at rote what you think the party wants you to say.
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
Why do you make shit up? If facts are sufficient to defeat ignorance, why do you fabricate tales that have utterly no bearing in reality?
The war on science is perpetrated by ignorant fools who believe that "consensus" to dogma is the basis of science rather than diligent research and falsification of hypothesis.
Have any of you Communists actually finished elementary school? Clearly not.
I don't slap any label on anything. The people who developed Evolutionary computation put the label on it. They did it because THEY developed it based on the biological theory of evolution. MIT Press Journals. It has practical applications and gets consistent results Evolutionary Computation in Practice
So since you will feel almost certainly, that you know better then people at MIT. Feel free to dispute, real world results with faith.
-One last thing, explain why after all the proof science has given, the burden of proof is still completely on the scientific community? You know its like having a puzzle consisting of 10000 pieces and we (evolutionists) have 9999 pieces in place showing a clear picture of a canary. While you (creationists) claim since there is 1 piece missing the picture is just as likely that of an elephant.
MIT Press Journals I didn't realise MIT is known for it's evolutionary scientists.
MarkDuffy
Diamond Member
I accept your surrender
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
LOL. OK, Mr. Phd, here is the definition of evolution;
Good god but you're fucking stupid.
No wonder you're a leftist pile of shit.
Evolution of a storm has to do with the progression of a species to a more effective organism?
You have no idea what evolution means, you repeat at rote what you think the party wants you to say.
Definition of EVOLUTION
Definition of evolution
ne of a set of prescribed movements2a :a process of change in a certain direction :unfolding
b :the action or an instance of forming and giving something off :emission
1
d :something evolved
:the process of working out or developing
4a :descent with modification from preexisting species :cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms :the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations
- Evolution is a process of continuous branching and diversification from common trunks. This pattern of irreversible separation gives life's history its basic directionality.
- —Stephen Jay Gould
- Since 1950, developments in molecular biology have had a growing influence on the theory of evolution.
- —Nature
- In Darwinian evolution, the basic mechanism is genetic mutation, followed by selection of the organisms most likely to survive.
- —Pamela Weintraub
:the extraction of a mathematical root
:a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena
Yes, storms evolve, as do societies, and many other things that change over time.
MarkDuffy
Diamond Member
Still laughing. He is in the corner with nothing to say.LOL. OK, Mr. Phd, here is the definition of evolution;
Good god but you're fucking stupid.
No wonder you're a leftist pile of shit.
Evolution of a storm has to do with the progression of a species to a more effective organism?
You have no idea what evolution means, you repeat at rote what you think the party wants you to say.
Definition of EVOLUTION
Definition of evolution
2a :a process of change in a certain direction :unfolding
b :the action or an instance of forming and giving something off :emission
1
d :something evolved
:the process of working out or developing
4a :descent with modification from preexisting species :cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms :the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations
; also :the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms (such as natural selection, genetic mutation or drift, and hybridization)
- Evolution is a process of continuous branching and diversification from common trunks. This pattern of irreversible separation gives life's history its basic directionality.
- —Stephen Jay Gould
- Since 1950, developments in molecular biology have had a growing influence on the theory of evolution.
- —Nature
b :the historical development of a biological group (such as a race or species) :phylogeny
- In Darwinian evolution, the basic mechanism is genetic mutation, followed by selection of the organisms most likely to survive.
- —Pamela Weintraub
:the extraction of a mathematical root
:a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena
Yes, storms evolve, as do societies, and many other things that change over time.
He could, however, qualify it to biological evolution, but he would have to admit evolution was biology.
LOL
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 110,368
- 99,440
- 3,645
Haha....I see we got us a reeeeeal expert, here...
BulletProof
Silver Member
- Jul 27, 2017
- 2,659
- 218
- 90
Math is logically true, whether useful or not. And, on one is obligated to believe math that hasn't been found useful. Evolution is useless. And, the embarrassingly pathetic posts in this thread defending Evolution demonstrate the inability of its believers to identify a use for it.
If Evolution predicted genetics, maybe it would have been useful. But, on the contrary, Mendel, who discovered genes, had his findings ignored by the Evolutionist community during his life because genes explained the variation Darwin observed without offering any potential, per se, for Evolution. Evolutionists rejected scientific findings because they wanted something that offered unlimited variation.
Why was Mendel's Work Ignored? on JSTOR
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 110,368
- 99,440
- 3,645
Oh my, what a laughable pile of shit that was
BulletProof
Silver Member
- Jul 27, 2017
- 2,659
- 218
- 90
If it were a pile of sh1t, you would feel right at home in it.
MarkDuffy
Diamond Member
Initial reception of Mendel's work
Mendel presented his paper, "Versuche über Pflanzenhybriden" ("Experiments on Plant Hybridization"), at two meetings of the Natural History Society of Brno in Moravia on 8 February and 8 March 1865.[22] It generated a few favorable reports in local newspapers,[23] but was ignored by the scientific community. When Mendel's paper was published in 1866 in Verhandlungen des naturforschenden Vereins Brünn,[24] it was seen as essentially about hybridization rather than inheritance, had little impact, and was only cited about three times over the next thirty-five years. His paper was criticized at the time, but is now considered a seminal work.[25] Notably, Charles Darwin was unaware of Mendel's paper, and it is envisaged that if he had, genetics as we know it now might have taken hold much earlier.[26][27] Mendel's scientific biography thus provides one more example of the failure of obscure, highly-original, innovators to receive the attention they deserve.[28]
Rediscovery of Mendel's work
It would appear that the forty odd scientists who listened to Mendel's two path-breaking lectures failed to understand his work. Later, he also carried a correspondence with Carl Naegeli, one of the leading biologists of the time, but Naegli too failed to appreciate Mendel's discoveries. At times, Mendel must have entertained doubts about his work, but not always: "My time will come," he reportedly told a friend.[8]
During Mendel's own lifetime, most biologists held the idea that all characteristics were passed to the next generation through blending inheritance, in which the traits from each parent are averaged. Instances of this phenomenon are now explained by the action of multiple genes with quantitative effects. Charles Darwin tried unsuccessfully to explain inheritance through a theory of pangenesis. It was not until the early twentieth century that the importance of Mendel's ideas was realized.
By 1900, research aimed at finding a successful theory of discontinuous inheritance rather than blending inheritance led to independent duplication of his work by Hugo de Vries and Carl Correns, and the rediscovery of Mendel's writings and laws. Both acknowledged Mendel's priority, and it is thought probable that de Vries did not understand the results he had found until after reading Mendel.[5] Though Erich von Tschermak was originally also credited with rediscovery, this is no longer accepted because he did not understand Mendel's laws.[37] Though de Vries later lost interest in Mendelism, other biologists started to establish modern genetics as a science.[5] All three of these researchers, each from a different country, published their rediscovery of Mendel's work within a two-month span in the Spring of 1900.[38]
Gregor Mendel - Wikipedia
The shortcomings of the blending inheritance model were not completely lost to every 19th century thinker, despite the predominance of this hypothesis at that time. In fact, these inadequacies made for an atmosphere in which many equally unconvincing 19th century "arm-chair" hypotheses were formulated and circulated in attempts to explain inheritance more adequately (see inheritance of acquired characters, maternal impression, telegony, preformationism, Geoffroyism, Lamarckism). Pangenesis was Charles Darwin's Lamarkian attempt to explain inheritance. But despite Darwin's misguided Lamarkian leanings, he rightly had strong doubts about the blending inheritance hypothesis, as evidenced in his private correspondence:
In a letter to T.H. Huxley, dated November 12, 1857, Darwin wrote:
"I have lately been inclined to speculate very crudely & indistinctly, that propagation by true fertilisation, will turn out to be a sort of mixture & not true fusion, of two distinct individuals, or rather of innumerable individuals, as each parent has its parents & ancestors:— I can understand on no other view the way in which crossed forms go back to so large an extent to ancestral forms."[2]
In a letter to Alfred Wallace, dated February 6, 1866, Darwin mentioned conducting hybridization experiments with pea plants that were not unlike those done by Gregor Mendel:
"... I do not think you understand what I mean by the non-blending of certain varieties. It does not refer to fertility; an instance I will explain. I crossed the Painted Lady and Purple sweetpeas, which are very differently coloured varieties, and got, even out of the same pod, both varieties perfect but not intermediate. Something of this kind I should think must occur at least with your butterflies & the three forms of Lythrum; tho’ those cases are in appearance so wonderful. I do not know that they are really more so than every female in the world producing distinct male and female offspring..."[3]
Blending inheritance leads to the averaging out of every characteristic, which as the engineer Fleeming Jenkinpointed out, makes evolution by natural selection impossible.
Moreover, Darwin's reservations regarding blending inheritance were further reinforced by the inherent conflict this hypothesis had with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, published in his seminal work On the Origin of Species (1859). This incompatibility was best summarized by Fleeming Jenkin in his critique entitled "Review of 'The origin of species'" published in The North British Review, June 1867.[4] As a staunch defender of blending inheritance, Fleming attempted to criticize Darwin's proposed process of natural selection, a very slow and gradual process, by noting that any favorable trait that might arise in a lineage would have "blended away" (via blending inheritance) long before natural selection had time to work.
Blending inheritance - Wikipedia
Mendel presented his paper, "Versuche über Pflanzenhybriden" ("Experiments on Plant Hybridization"), at two meetings of the Natural History Society of Brno in Moravia on 8 February and 8 March 1865.[22] It generated a few favorable reports in local newspapers,[23] but was ignored by the scientific community. When Mendel's paper was published in 1866 in Verhandlungen des naturforschenden Vereins Brünn,[24] it was seen as essentially about hybridization rather than inheritance, had little impact, and was only cited about three times over the next thirty-five years. His paper was criticized at the time, but is now considered a seminal work.[25] Notably, Charles Darwin was unaware of Mendel's paper, and it is envisaged that if he had, genetics as we know it now might have taken hold much earlier.[26][27] Mendel's scientific biography thus provides one more example of the failure of obscure, highly-original, innovators to receive the attention they deserve.[28]
Rediscovery of Mendel's work
It would appear that the forty odd scientists who listened to Mendel's two path-breaking lectures failed to understand his work. Later, he also carried a correspondence with Carl Naegeli, one of the leading biologists of the time, but Naegli too failed to appreciate Mendel's discoveries. At times, Mendel must have entertained doubts about his work, but not always: "My time will come," he reportedly told a friend.[8]
During Mendel's own lifetime, most biologists held the idea that all characteristics were passed to the next generation through blending inheritance, in which the traits from each parent are averaged. Instances of this phenomenon are now explained by the action of multiple genes with quantitative effects. Charles Darwin tried unsuccessfully to explain inheritance through a theory of pangenesis. It was not until the early twentieth century that the importance of Mendel's ideas was realized.
By 1900, research aimed at finding a successful theory of discontinuous inheritance rather than blending inheritance led to independent duplication of his work by Hugo de Vries and Carl Correns, and the rediscovery of Mendel's writings and laws. Both acknowledged Mendel's priority, and it is thought probable that de Vries did not understand the results he had found until after reading Mendel.[5] Though Erich von Tschermak was originally also credited with rediscovery, this is no longer accepted because he did not understand Mendel's laws.[37] Though de Vries later lost interest in Mendelism, other biologists started to establish modern genetics as a science.[5] All three of these researchers, each from a different country, published their rediscovery of Mendel's work within a two-month span in the Spring of 1900.[38]
Gregor Mendel - Wikipedia
The shortcomings of the blending inheritance model were not completely lost to every 19th century thinker, despite the predominance of this hypothesis at that time. In fact, these inadequacies made for an atmosphere in which many equally unconvincing 19th century "arm-chair" hypotheses were formulated and circulated in attempts to explain inheritance more adequately (see inheritance of acquired characters, maternal impression, telegony, preformationism, Geoffroyism, Lamarckism). Pangenesis was Charles Darwin's Lamarkian attempt to explain inheritance. But despite Darwin's misguided Lamarkian leanings, he rightly had strong doubts about the blending inheritance hypothesis, as evidenced in his private correspondence:
In a letter to T.H. Huxley, dated November 12, 1857, Darwin wrote:
"I have lately been inclined to speculate very crudely & indistinctly, that propagation by true fertilisation, will turn out to be a sort of mixture & not true fusion, of two distinct individuals, or rather of innumerable individuals, as each parent has its parents & ancestors:— I can understand on no other view the way in which crossed forms go back to so large an extent to ancestral forms."[2]
In a letter to Alfred Wallace, dated February 6, 1866, Darwin mentioned conducting hybridization experiments with pea plants that were not unlike those done by Gregor Mendel:
"... I do not think you understand what I mean by the non-blending of certain varieties. It does not refer to fertility; an instance I will explain. I crossed the Painted Lady and Purple sweetpeas, which are very differently coloured varieties, and got, even out of the same pod, both varieties perfect but not intermediate. Something of this kind I should think must occur at least with your butterflies & the three forms of Lythrum; tho’ those cases are in appearance so wonderful. I do not know that they are really more so than every female in the world producing distinct male and female offspring..."[3]
Blending inheritance leads to the averaging out of every characteristic, which as the engineer Fleeming Jenkinpointed out, makes evolution by natural selection impossible.
Moreover, Darwin's reservations regarding blending inheritance were further reinforced by the inherent conflict this hypothesis had with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, published in his seminal work On the Origin of Species (1859). This incompatibility was best summarized by Fleeming Jenkin in his critique entitled "Review of 'The origin of species'" published in The North British Review, June 1867.[4] As a staunch defender of blending inheritance, Fleming attempted to criticize Darwin's proposed process of natural selection, a very slow and gradual process, by noting that any favorable trait that might arise in a lineage would have "blended away" (via blending inheritance) long before natural selection had time to work.
Blending inheritance - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Genocidal Arab Gaza ("health") death ministry attacks humanitarian US/Israel, murders 5 workers- Started by Sayaras
- Replies: 0
-
-
Breaking: A mob of Mexican nationalists and leftist militants have surrounded the Double Tree Hotel in Whittier- Started by Deplorable Yankee
- Replies: 3
-
-
Pro-fakestinian Arab Islamists terrorize German women on the Berlin subway and make them cry in fear.
- Started by Sayaras
- Replies: 9
