"Darwinian Evolution," besides making things difficult
when everyone later claims that they're not "Darwinists,"
is just plain wrong.
Pro Plyd wrote:
https://phys.org/news/2024-03-life-evidence-rna-world.html
...
But how did all of this begin? In the origins of
life, long before cells and proteins and DNA,
could a similar sort of evolution have taken
place on a simpler scale? Scientists in the
1960s, including Salk Fellow Leslie Orgel,
proposed that life began with the "RNA World,"
a hypothetical era in which small, stringy RNA
molecules ruled the early Earth and established
the dynamics of Darwinian evolution.
"Darwinian Evolution," besides making things difficult
when everyone later claims that they're not "Darwinists,"
is just plain wrong. Darwin believed that if an animal
ran a lot, their leg muscles would grow and produce
"Bigger, running-around-a-lot" Gemmules which would
flow to the gonads and be passed on the the next
generation, who would be born with the bigger, running
around a lot muscles.
As i pointed out many times, and will point out many
more times because, let's face it, the last thing
anyone in this group ever wanted was science but...
Darwin REJECTED evolution. He didn't believe in it. Oh,
he did eventually use that word but this is the internet.
We're all quite accustomed to people misusing terms, and
Darwin was a pioneer. In fact, later, in the Communist
world, Stalin and then Mao banned evolution, and in it's
place promoted Darwin's ideas. Renamed, of course. But
they were all copying the exact same source material,
Lamarcksim...
Darwin was an idiot. And he certainly never invented or
discovered evolution. Evolution was already quite old
by the time that Darwin sabotaged science with his
inability to grasp it. No, sorry, evolution was always
part of "Common Descent," and if you do the Google
you'll find sources pushing THAT idea back into the
thousands of years..
Darwin's single biggest impact on science -- REAL
science, as opposed to the British aristocracy
glorifying itself -- was HOLDING BACK science in
the English speaking world for 20 years by becoming
the face of Naturalism and throwing aside Mendel.
Yes, it took that long -- 20 years -- for some Brit
with a stick up his ass to pretend that he made
Mendel's discoveries...
This is important. It's not a small error. When someone
spews an oxymoron like "Darwinian Evolution" it's not
because they're so meticulous in their work. No. It's
because they are hitting buckets. They're communicating.
They are invoking things that the layman will recognize
as familiar. They are, as the saying goes, "Putting
lipstick on a pig."
"I said DARWINIAN evolution! That's cus I is edu ma
kated. I know stuff."
Again, not a small error. It makes the piece as being
meant for "The un edu ma kated"... the only people who
might find "Darwinian" evolution sciency!
Demand accuracy.
Don't you think you're worth it?
Don't you think the promotion of science is worth it?
Demand accuracy. Don't tolerate being dummed down by
your efforts to learn and grow. It's not an unreasonable
request, demanding publications that are accurate.
On 3/11/24 12:24 PM, Richmond wrote:
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> writes:
Pro Plyd wrote:
https://phys.org/news/2024-03-life-evidence-rna-world.html ... But
how did all of this begin? In the origins of life, long before
cells and proteins and DNA, could a similar sort of evolution have
taken place on a simpler scale? Scientists in the 1960s, including
Salk Fellow Leslie Orgel, proposed that life began with the "RNA
World," a hypothetical era in which small, stringy RNA molecules
ruled the early Earth and established the dynamics of Darwinian
evolution.
"Darwinian Evolution," besides making things difficult when everyone
later claims that they're not "Darwinists," is just plain
wrong. Darwin believed that if an animal ran a lot, their leg
muscles would grow and produce "Bigger, running-around-a-lot"
Gemmules which would flow to the gonads and be passed on the the
next generation, who would be born with the bigger, running around a
lot muscles.
As i pointed out many times, and will point out many more times
because, let's face it, the last thing anyone in this group ever
wanted was science but...
Darwin REJECTED evolution. He didn't believe in it. Oh, he did
eventually use that word but this is the internet. We're all quite
accustomed to people misusing terms, and Darwin was a pioneer. In
fact, later, in the Communist world, Stalin and then Mao banned
evolution, and in it's place promoted Darwin's ideas. Renamed, of
course. But they were all copying the exact same source material,
Lamarcksim...
Darwin was an idiot. And he certainly never invented or discovered
evolution. Evolution was already quite old by the time that Darwin
sabotaged science with his inability to grasp it. No, sorry,
evolution was always part of "Common Descent," and if you do the
Google you'll find sources pushing THAT idea back into the thousands
of years..
Darwin's single biggest impact on science -- REAL science, as
opposed to the British aristocracy glorifying itself -- was HOLDING
BACK science in the English speaking world for 20 years by becoming
the face of Naturalism and throwing aside Mendel.
Yes, it took that long -- 20 years -- for some Brit with a stick up
his ass to pretend that he made Mendel's discoveries...
This is important. It's not a small error. When someone spews an
oxymoron like "Darwinian Evolution" it's not because they're so
meticulous in their work. No. It's because they are hitting
buckets. They're communicating. They are invoking things that the
layman will recognize as familiar. They are, as the saying goes,
"Putting lipstick on a pig."
"I said DARWINIAN evolution! That's cus I is edu ma kated. I know
stuff."
Again, not a small error. It makes the piece as being meant for "The
un edu ma kated"... the only people who might find "Darwinian"
evolution sciency!
Demand accuracy.
Don't you think you're worth it?
Don't you think the promotion of science is worth it?
Demand accuracy. Don't tolerate being dummed down by your efforts to
learn and grow. It's not an unreasonable request, demanding
publications that are accurate. >> Darwin didn't know about genes,
but then his book was published >> before >> Mendel, so you can't
really blame him for that. As for rejecting >> evolution, well the
last line in 'The Origin of Species' is: >> ", from so simple a
beginning endless forms most beautiful and most >> wonderful have
been, and are being, evolved." >> I demand accuracy.
JTEM has for many years trolled many newsgroups. Whether he is a
genuine fool or just plays one on the net is probably impossible to
tell. Almost everything is this gem is rubbish.
On 3/11/24 2:46 PM, Richmond wrote:
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:Sometimes he just ticks people off. Thunderbird has a little trash can
On 3/11/24 12:24 PM, Richmond wrote:
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> writes:
Pro Plyd wrote:
https://phys.org/news/2024-03-life-evidence-rna-world.html ... But >>>>>> how did all of this begin? In the origins of life, long before
cells and proteins and DNA, could a similar sort of evolution have >>>>>> taken place on a simpler scale? Scientists in the 1960s, including >>>>>> Salk Fellow Leslie Orgel, proposed that life began with the "RNA
World," a hypothetical era in which small, stringy RNA molecules
ruled the early Earth and established the dynamics of Darwinian
evolution.
"Darwinian Evolution," besides making things difficult when everyone >>>>> later claims that they're not "Darwinists," is just plain
wrong. Darwin believed that if an animal ran a lot, their leg
muscles would grow and produce "Bigger, running-around-a-lot"
Gemmules which would flow to the gonads and be passed on the the
next generation, who would be born with the bigger, running around a >>>>> lot muscles.
As i pointed out many times, and will point out many more times
because, let's face it, the last thing anyone in this group ever
wanted was science but...
Darwin REJECTED evolution. He didn't believe in it. Oh, he did
eventually use that word but this is the internet. We're all quite
accustomed to people misusing terms, and Darwin was a pioneer. In
fact, later, in the Communist world, Stalin and then Mao banned
evolution, and in it's place promoted Darwin's ideas. Renamed, of
course. But they were all copying the exact same source material,
Lamarcksim...
Darwin was an idiot. And he certainly never invented or discovered
evolution. Evolution was already quite old by the time that Darwin
sabotaged science with his inability to grasp it. No, sorry,
evolution was always part of "Common Descent," and if you do the
Google you'll find sources pushing THAT idea back into the thousands >>>>> of years..
Darwin's single biggest impact on science -- REAL science, as
opposed to the British aristocracy glorifying itself -- was HOLDING
BACK science in the English speaking world for 20 years by becoming
the face of Naturalism and throwing aside Mendel.
Yes, it took that long -- 20 years -- for some Brit with a stick up
his ass to pretend that he made Mendel's discoveries...
This is important. It's not a small error. When someone spews an
oxymoron like "Darwinian Evolution" it's not because they're so
meticulous in their work. No. It's because they are hitting
buckets. They're communicating. They are invoking things that the
layman will recognize as familiar. They are, as the saying goes,
"Putting lipstick on a pig."
"I said DARWINIAN evolution! That's cus I is edu ma kated. I know
stuff."
Again, not a small error. It makes the piece as being meant for "The >>>>> un edu ma kated"... the only people who might find "Darwinian"
evolution sciency!
Demand accuracy.
Don't you think you're worth it?
Don't you think the promotion of science is worth it?
Demand accuracy. Don't tolerate being dummed down by your efforts to >>>>> learn and grow. It's not an unreasonable request, demanding
publications that are accurate. >> Darwin didn't know about genes,
but then his book was published >> before >> Mendel, so you can't
really blame him for that. As for rejecting >> evolution, well the
last line in 'The Origin of Species' is: >> ", from so simple a
beginning endless forms most beautiful and most >> wonderful have
been, and are being, evolved." >> I demand accuracy.
JTEM has for many years trolled many newsgroups. Whether he is a
genuine fool or just plays one on the net is probably impossible to
tell. Almost everything is this gem is rubbish.
But what's the point in replying to it just to say it is rubbish? I
wouldn't have even noticed it if no one had replied to it.
icon that I use to reply to him.
On 3/11/24 3:33 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:08:01 -0700, the following appearedThunderbird also has filters that can eliminate obnoxious posters, but
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
On 3/11/24 2:46 PM, Richmond wrote:Even better to never see his posts at all; my "Special
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:Sometimes he just ticks people off. Thunderbird has a little trash can
On 3/11/24 12:24 PM, Richmond wrote:
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> writes:
Pro Plyd wrote:
https://phys.org/news/2024-03-life-evidence-rna-world.html ... But >>>>>>>> how did all of this begin? In the origins of life, long before >>>>>>>> cells and proteins and DNA, could a similar sort of evolution have >>>>>>>> taken place on a simpler scale? Scientists in the 1960s, including >>>>>>>> Salk Fellow Leslie Orgel, proposed that life began with the "RNA >>>>>>>> World," a hypothetical era in which small, stringy RNA molecules >>>>>>>> ruled the early Earth and established the dynamics of Darwinian >>>>>>>> evolution.
"Darwinian Evolution," besides making things difficult when everyone >>>>>>> later claims that they're not "Darwinists," is just plain
wrong. Darwin believed that if an animal ran a lot, their leg
muscles would grow and produce "Bigger, running-around-a-lot"
Gemmules which would flow to the gonads and be passed on the the >>>>>>> next generation, who would be born with the bigger, running around a >>>>>>> lot muscles.
As i pointed out many times, and will point out many more times
because, let's face it, the last thing anyone in this group ever >>>>>>> wanted was science but...
Darwin REJECTED evolution. He didn't believe in it. Oh, he did
eventually use that word but this is the internet. We're all quite >>>>>>> accustomed to people misusing terms, and Darwin was a pioneer. In >>>>>>> fact, later, in the Communist world, Stalin and then Mao banned
evolution, and in it's place promoted Darwin's ideas. Renamed, of >>>>>>> course. But they were all copying the exact same source material, >>>>>>> Lamarcksim...
Darwin was an idiot. And he certainly never invented or discovered >>>>>>> evolution. Evolution was already quite old by the time that Darwin >>>>>>> sabotaged science with his inability to grasp it. No, sorry,
evolution was always part of "Common Descent," and if you do the >>>>>>> Google you'll find sources pushing THAT idea back into the thousands >>>>>>> of years..
Darwin's single biggest impact on science -- REAL science, as
opposed to the British aristocracy glorifying itself -- was HOLDING >>>>>>> BACK science in the English speaking world for 20 years by becoming >>>>>>> the face of Naturalism and throwing aside Mendel.
Yes, it took that long -- 20 years -- for some Brit with a stick up >>>>>>> his ass to pretend that he made Mendel's discoveries...
This is important. It's not a small error. When someone spews an >>>>>>> oxymoron like "Darwinian Evolution" it's not because they're so
meticulous in their work. No. It's because they are hitting
buckets. They're communicating. They are invoking things that the >>>>>>> layman will recognize as familiar. They are, as the saying goes, >>>>>>> "Putting lipstick on a pig."
"I said DARWINIAN evolution! That's cus I is edu ma kated. I know >>>>>>> stuff."
Again, not a small error. It makes the piece as being meant for "The >>>>>>> un edu ma kated"... the only people who might find "Darwinian"
evolution sciency!
Demand accuracy.
Don't you think you're worth it?
Don't you think the promotion of science is worth it?
Demand accuracy. Don't tolerate being dummed down by your efforts to >>>>>>> learn and grow. It's not an unreasonable request, demanding
publications that are accurate. >> Darwin didn't know about genes, >>>>>>> but then his book was published >> before >> Mendel, so you can't >>>>>>> really blame him for that. As for rejecting >> evolution, well the >>>>>>> last line in 'The Origin of Species' is: >> ", from so simple a
beginning endless forms most beautiful and most >> wonderful have >>>>>>> been, and are being, evolved." >> I demand accuracy.
JTEM has for many years trolled many newsgroups. Whether he is a
genuine fool or just plays one on the net is probably impossible to
tell. Almost everything is this gem is rubbish.
But what's the point in replying to it just to say it is rubbish? I
wouldn't have even noticed it if no one had replied to it.
icon that I use to reply to him.
Childrens' File" sees to that quite nicely, so I only need
to ignore responses to him, which cuts the time I waste on
him by quite a bit.
I've found that sometimes it effectively clogs the pipe to the
newsgroup. If I delete the filters, lots of stuff shows up immediately.
Has anybody else observed this?
Richmond wrote:
Darwin didn't know about genes
Darwin was exposed to Mendel's work --THE Mendel, the
guy who worked out inheritance -- and he was exposed
to it BEFORE he completed his "Pangenesis" vomit.
but then his book was published before
Mendel
Again, "Pangenesis."
Mendel worked it all out, Darwin was exposed to it AND
THEN Darwin came out with the "Pangenesis" bullshit.
As for rejecting
evolution, well the last line in 'The Origin of Species' is:
Omg. I'll repeat it:
Stalin. Mao.
They banned evolution. They saw is as Capitalist
propaganda -- justification for everything from racism into
classism and onto economic exploitation. So they banned
evolution. And what they put in it's place was Darwin's ideas,
what Darwin believed it.
Yes, you're right, Darwin was a raging idiot who had no clue
what he meant, much less what he was talking about. That was
already established.
On 3/11/24 12:24 PM, Richmond wrote:
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> writes:
Pro Plyd wrote:
https://phys.org/news/2024-03-life-evidence-rna-world.html
...
But how did all of this begin? In the origins of
life, long before cells and proteins and DNA,
could a similar sort of evolution have taken
place on a simpler scale? Scientists in the
1960s, including Salk Fellow Leslie Orgel,
proposed that life began with the "RNA World,"
a hypothetical era in which small, stringy RNA
molecules ruled the early Earth and established
the dynamics of Darwinian evolution.
"Darwinian Evolution," besides making things difficult
when everyone later claims that they're not "Darwinists,"
is just plain wrong. Darwin believed that if an animal
ran a lot, their leg muscles would grow and produce
"Bigger, running-around-a-lot" Gemmules which would
flow to the gonads and be passed on the the next
generation, who would be born with the bigger, running
around a lot muscles.
As i pointed out many times, and will point out many
more times because, let's face it, the last thing
anyone in this group ever wanted was science but...
Darwin REJECTED evolution. He didn't believe in it. Oh,
he did eventually use that word but this is the internet.
We're all quite accustomed to people misusing terms, and
Darwin was a pioneer. In fact, later, in the Communist
world, Stalin and then Mao banned evolution, and in it's
place promoted Darwin's ideas. Renamed, of course. But
they were all copying the exact same source material,
Lamarcksim...
Darwin was an idiot. And he certainly never invented or
discovered evolution. Evolution was already quite old
by the time that Darwin sabotaged science with his
inability to grasp it. No, sorry, evolution was always
part of "Common Descent," and if you do the Google
you'll find sources pushing THAT idea back into the
thousands of years..
Darwin's single biggest impact on science -- REAL
science, as opposed to the British aristocracy
glorifying itself -- was HOLDING BACK science in
the English speaking world for 20 years by becoming
the face of Naturalism and throwing aside Mendel.
Yes, it took that long -- 20 years -- for some Brit
with a stick up his ass to pretend that he made
Mendel's discoveries...
This is important. It's not a small error. When someone
spews an oxymoron like "Darwinian Evolution" it's not
because they're so meticulous in their work. No. It's
because they are hitting buckets. They're communicating.
They are invoking things that the layman will recognize
as familiar. They are, as the saying goes, "Putting
lipstick on a pig."
"I said DARWINIAN evolution! That's cus I is edu ma
kated. I know stuff."
Again, not a small error. It makes the piece as being
meant for "The un edu ma kated"... the only people who
might find "Darwinian" evolution sciency!
Demand accuracy.
Don't you think you're worth it?
Don't you think the promotion of science is worth it?
Demand accuracy. Don't tolerate being dummed down by
your efforts to learn and grow. It's not an unreasonable
request, demanding publications that are accurate.
Darwin didn't know about genes, but then his book was published before
Mendel, so you can't really blame him for that. As for rejecting
evolution, well the last line in 'The Origin of Species' is:
", from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most
wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
I demand accuracy.
JTEM has for many years trolled many newsgroups. Whether he is a
genuine fool or just plays one on the net is probably impossible to
tell. Almost everything is this gem is rubbish.
On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 21:46:02 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:
On 3/11/24 12:24 PM, Richmond wrote:
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> writes:
Pro Plyd wrote:
https://phys.org/news/2024-03-life-evidence-rna-world.html ... But >>>>>> how did all of this begin? In the origins of life, long before
cells and proteins and DNA, could a similar sort of evolution have >>>>>> taken place on a simpler scale? Scientists in the 1960s, including >>>>>> Salk Fellow Leslie Orgel, proposed that life began with the "RNA
World," a hypothetical era in which small, stringy RNA molecules
ruled the early Earth and established the dynamics of Darwinian
evolution.
"Darwinian Evolution," besides making things difficult when everyone >>>>> later claims that they're not "Darwinists," is just plain
wrong. Darwin believed that if an animal ran a lot, their leg
muscles would grow and produce "Bigger, running-around-a-lot"
Gemmules which would flow to the gonads and be passed on the the
next generation, who would be born with the bigger, running around a >>>>> lot muscles.
As i pointed out many times, and will point out many more times
because, let's face it, the last thing anyone in this group ever
wanted was science but...
Darwin REJECTED evolution. He didn't believe in it. Oh, he did
eventually use that word but this is the internet. We're all quite
accustomed to people misusing terms, and Darwin was a pioneer. In
fact, later, in the Communist world, Stalin and then Mao banned
evolution, and in it's place promoted Darwin's ideas. Renamed, of
course. But they were all copying the exact same source material,
Lamarcksim...
Darwin was an idiot. And he certainly never invented or discovered
evolution. Evolution was already quite old by the time that Darwin
sabotaged science with his inability to grasp it. No, sorry,
evolution was always part of "Common Descent," and if you do the
Google you'll find sources pushing THAT idea back into the thousands >>>>> of years..
Darwin's single biggest impact on science -- REAL science, as
opposed to the British aristocracy glorifying itself -- was HOLDING
BACK science in the English speaking world for 20 years by becoming
the face of Naturalism and throwing aside Mendel.
Yes, it took that long -- 20 years -- for some Brit with a stick up
his ass to pretend that he made Mendel's discoveries...
This is important. It's not a small error. When someone spews an
oxymoron like "Darwinian Evolution" it's not because they're so
meticulous in their work. No. It's because they are hitting
buckets. They're communicating. They are invoking things that the
layman will recognize as familiar. They are, as the saying goes,
"Putting lipstick on a pig."
"I said DARWINIAN evolution! That's cus I is edu ma kated. I know
stuff."
Again, not a small error. It makes the piece as being meant for "The >>>>> un edu ma kated"... the only people who might find "Darwinian"
evolution sciency!
Demand accuracy.
Don't you think you're worth it?
Don't you think the promotion of science is worth it?
Demand accuracy. Don't tolerate being dummed down by your efforts to >>>>> learn and grow. It's not an unreasonable request, demanding
publications that are accurate. >> Darwin didn't know about genes,
but then his book was published >> before >> Mendel, so you can't
really blame him for that. As for rejecting >> evolution, well the
last line in 'The Origin of Species' is: >> ", from so simple a
beginning endless forms most beautiful and most >> wonderful have
been, and are being, evolved." >> I demand accuracy.
JTEM has for many years trolled many newsgroups. Whether he is a
genuine fool or just plays one on the net is probably impossible to
tell. Almost everything is this gem is rubbish.
But what's the point in replying to it just to say it is rubbish? I >>wouldn't have even noticed it if no one had replied to it.
If all Erik said was just to say it is rubbish, you would have raised
a good question.
However, even if he had, that shouldn't stop you
from posting something more substantial.
For example, you could have
pointed out that just about any mechanism for passing on traits would
still lead to evolution. The fact that Darwin's speculations about
that mechanism are wrong doesn't inform that his actual theory of the
origin of species by means of natural selection remains valid.
On 3/11/24 3:33 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
Thunderbird also has filters that can eliminate obnoxious posters, but[...]Even better to never see his posts at all; my "Special
Childrens' File" sees to that quite nicely, so I only need
to ignore responses to him, which cuts the time I waste on
him by quite a bit.
I've found that sometimes it effectively clogs the pipe to the
newsgroup. If I delete the filters, lots of stuff shows up immediately.
Has anybody else observed this?
[...]Darwin didn't know about genes, but then his book was published before Mendel, so you can't really blame him for that. As for rejecting
evolution, well the last line in 'The Origin of Species' is:
", from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
I demand accuracy.
On 3/11/24 12:24 PM, Richmond wrote:
[...]Darwin didn't know about genes, but then his book was published before
Mendel, so you can't really blame him for that. As for rejecting
evolution, well the last line in 'The Origin of Species' is:
", from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most
wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
I demand accuracy.
As I recall, Darwin published _Origin of Species_ after Mendel's work
with genes, but well before Mendel's work became widely known.
On 3/11/24 3:33 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:08:01 -0700, the following appearedThunderbird also has filters that can eliminate obnoxious posters, but
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
On 3/11/24 2:46 PM, Richmond wrote:Even better to never see his posts at all; my "Special
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> writes:Sometimes he just ticks people off. Thunderbird has a little trash can >>> icon that I use to reply to him.
On 3/11/24 12:24 PM, Richmond wrote:
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> writes:
Pro Plyd wrote:
https://phys.org/news/2024-03-life-evidence-rna-world.html ... But >>>>>>>> how did all of this begin? In the origins of life, long before >>>>>>>> cells and proteins and DNA, could a similar sort of evolution have >>>>>>>> taken place on a simpler scale? Scientists in the 1960s, including >>>>>>>> Salk Fellow Leslie Orgel, proposed that life began with the "RNA >>>>>>>> World," a hypothetical era in which small, stringy RNA molecules >>>>>>>> ruled the early Earth and established the dynamics of Darwinian >>>>>>>> evolution.
"Darwinian Evolution," besides making things difficult when everyone >>>>>>> later claims that they're not "Darwinists," is just plain
wrong. Darwin believed that if an animal ran a lot, their leg
muscles would grow and produce "Bigger, running-around-a-lot"
Gemmules which would flow to the gonads and be passed on the the >>>>>>> next generation, who would be born with the bigger, running around a >>>>>>> lot muscles.
As i pointed out many times, and will point out many more times
because, let's face it, the last thing anyone in this group ever >>>>>>> wanted was science but...
Darwin REJECTED evolution. He didn't believe in it. Oh, he did
eventually use that word but this is the internet. We're all quite >>>>>>> accustomed to people misusing terms, and Darwin was a pioneer. In >>>>>>> fact, later, in the Communist world, Stalin and then Mao banned
evolution, and in it's place promoted Darwin's ideas. Renamed, of >>>>>>> course. But they were all copying the exact same source material, >>>>>>> Lamarcksim...
Darwin was an idiot. And he certainly never invented or discovered >>>>>>> evolution. Evolution was already quite old by the time that Darwin >>>>>>> sabotaged science with his inability to grasp it. No, sorry,
evolution was always part of "Common Descent," and if you do the >>>>>>> Google you'll find sources pushing THAT idea back into the thousands >>>>>>> of years..
Darwin's single biggest impact on science -- REAL science, as
opposed to the British aristocracy glorifying itself -- was HOLDING >>>>>>> BACK science in the English speaking world for 20 years by becoming >>>>>>> the face of Naturalism and throwing aside Mendel.
Yes, it took that long -- 20 years -- for some Brit with a stick up >>>>>>> his ass to pretend that he made Mendel's discoveries...
This is important. It's not a small error. When someone spews an >>>>>>> oxymoron like "Darwinian Evolution" it's not because they're so
meticulous in their work. No. It's because they are hitting
buckets. They're communicating. They are invoking things that the >>>>>>> layman will recognize as familiar. They are, as the saying goes, >>>>>>> "Putting lipstick on a pig."
"I said DARWINIAN evolution! That's cus I is edu ma kated. I know >>>>>>> stuff."
Again, not a small error. It makes the piece as being meant for "The >>>>>>> un edu ma kated"... the only people who might find "Darwinian"
evolution sciency!
Demand accuracy.
Don't you think you're worth it?
Don't you think the promotion of science is worth it?
Demand accuracy. Don't tolerate being dummed down by your efforts to >>>>>>> learn and grow. It's not an unreasonable request, demanding
publications that are accurate. >> Darwin didn't know about genes, >>>>>>> but then his book was published >> before >> Mendel, so you can't >>>>>>> really blame him for that. As for rejecting >> evolution, well the >>>>>>> last line in 'The Origin of Species' is: >> ", from so simple a
beginning endless forms most beautiful and most >> wonderful have >>>>>>> been, and are being, evolved." >> I demand accuracy.
JTEM has for many years trolled many newsgroups. Whether he is a
genuine fool or just plays one on the net is probably impossible to
tell. Almost everything is this gem is rubbish.
But what's the point in replying to it just to say it is rubbish? I
wouldn't have even noticed it if no one had replied to it.
Childrens' File" sees to that quite nicely, so I only need
to ignore responses to him, which cuts the time I waste on
him by quite a bit.
I've found that sometimes it effectively clogs the pipe to the
newsgroup. If I delete the filters, lots of stuff shows up immediately.
Has anybody else observed this?
JTEM has his own vocabulary. By "evolution" he means the modern
synthesis, also called (which JTEM would detest) neoDarwinism. What he
seeks to attach Darwin's name to is Lysenkoism or neoLamarckism. If
you make all those switches what he says is more or less correct.
Not sure whether Mao or the CCP adopted Lysenkoism, but it doesn't
seem out of the question.
Richmond used his keyboard to write : > j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com
(LDagget) writes:
Richmond wrote:
John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> writes: > JTEM has his own >>>>vocabulary. By "evolution" he means the modern > synthesis, also
called (which JTEM would detest) neoDarwinism. What he > seeks to >>>>attach Darwin's name to is Lysenkoism or neoLamarckism. If > you
make all those switches what he says is more or less correct. > Not >>>>sure whether Mao or the CCP adopted Lysenkoism, but it > doesn't >
seem out of the question.
The phrase "survival of the fittest" has always seemed suspect to
me. We hear it repeated to justify capitalism. But there isn't any
requirement to be 'fit' as far as I can see. There is only a
requirement (for genes) to survive. For example the camel which
sits on the calf of its rival and crushes it to death, or the
chimpanzee which kills and eats the infant offspring of its
rivals. In what way is it 'fit'? A biologist would define it as
merely fit to survive, but then the phrase becomes redundant as
survival of the survivor. And we see the same results in captialism
with corporations swallowing up rivals rather than competing with
them. >>> You want to argue against a metaphor by considering it
literally.
It's not a metaphor.
It's a misquote, or rather a misattribution.
Richmond wrote:
John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> writes:
JTEM has his own vocabulary. By "evolution" he means the modern
synthesis, also called (which JTEM would detest) neoDarwinism. What he
seeks to attach Darwin's name to is Lysenkoism or neoLamarckism. If
you make all those switches what he says is more or less correct.
Not sure whether Mao or the CCP adopted Lysenkoism, but it doesn't
seem out of the question.
The phrase "survival of the fittest" has always seemed suspect to me. We
hear it repeated to justify capitalism. But there isn't any requirement
to be 'fit' as far as I can see. There is only a requirement (for genes)
to survive. For example the camel which sits on the calf of its rival
and crushes it to death, or the chimpanzee which kills and eats the
infant offspring of its rivals. In what way is it 'fit'? A biologist
would define it as merely fit to survive, but then the phrase becomes
redundant as survival of the survivor. And we see the same results in
captialism with corporations swallowing up rivals rather than competing
with them.
You want to argue against a metaphor by considering it literally.
That
is some mix of dishonest, foolish, and stupid.
j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:
Richmond wrote:
John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> writes:
JTEM has his own vocabulary. By "evolution" he means the modern
synthesis, also called (which JTEM would detest) neoDarwinism. What he >>>> seeks to attach Darwin's name to is Lysenkoism or neoLamarckism. If
you make all those switches what he says is more or less correct.
Not sure whether Mao or the CCP adopted Lysenkoism, but it doesn't
seem out of the question.
The phrase "survival of the fittest" has always seemed suspect to me. We >>> hear it repeated to justify capitalism. But there isn't any requirement
to be 'fit' as far as I can see. There is only a requirement (for genes) >>> to survive. For example the camel which sits on the calf of its rival
and crushes it to death, or the chimpanzee which kills and eats the
infant offspring of its rivals. In what way is it 'fit'? A biologist
would define it as merely fit to survive, but then the phrase becomes
redundant as survival of the survivor. And we see the same results in
captialism with corporations swallowing up rivals rather than competing
with them.
You want to argue against a metaphor by considering it literally.
It's not a metaphor.
That
is some mix of dishonest, foolish, and stupid.
Oh please fuck off.
On 16/03/2024 11:17, Richmond wrote:
j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:
Richmond wrote:It's not a metaphor.
John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> writes:
JTEM has his own vocabulary. By "evolution" he means the modern
synthesis, also called (which JTEM would detest)
neoDarwinism. What he seeks to attach Darwin's name to is
Lysenkoism or neoLamarckism. If you make all those switches what
he says is more or less correct.
Not sure whether Mao or the CCP adopted Lysenkoism, but it doesn't
seem out of the question.
The phrase "survival of the fittest" has always seemed suspect to
me. We hear it repeated to justify capitalism. But there isn't any
requirement to be 'fit' as far as I can see. There is only a
requirement (for genes) to survive. For example the camel which
sits on the calf of its rival and crushes it to death, or the
chimpanzee which kills and eats the infant offspring of its
rivals. In what way is it 'fit'? A biologist would define it as
merely fit to survive, but then the phrase becomes redundant as
survival of the survivor. And we see the same results in captialism
with corporations swallowing up rivals rather than competing with
them.
You want to argue against a metaphor by considering it literally.
Darwin's original phrase was Natural Selection - an analogy with
Artificial Selection. The phenomenon is differential reproductive
success causally correlated with hereditary traits. (As opposite to differential reproductive success not correlated with hereditary
traits, which is genetic drift.)
As I understand, Darwin was frustrated that people failed to
understand the concept of Natural Selection, and hoped that perhaps
people would find Spencer's Survival of the Fittest more
comprehensible. The issue perhaps is that fittest has shades of
meaning - Survival of the Best Adapted would seem to closer to how
Darwin understood it. See Selection in Relation to Sex.
I'm not sure what literary classification to place Survival of the
Fittest in. It's not obviously an analogy like Natural Selection. It's
not a definition. (Lawyer Daggett's complaint may be that you were
treating it as a definition.) Perhaps it's a catchphrase or a sound
bite. One could certainly make a case for it being a metaphor -
survival of the fittest for persistence of adaptive traits. (Now I
wonder how contemporaries interpreted the trait - modern understanding
has been modified by the rhetoric of Creationists and Social
Tennysonists (often the same people).
On 3/16/24 7:59 AM, Richmond wrote:
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> writes:The subject of "biological fitness" has a distinguished(?) history, and misconceptions abound. Here's a reference (with many included
On 16/03/2024 11:17, Richmond wrote:
j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:
Richmond wrote:It's not a metaphor.
John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> writes:
JTEM has his own vocabulary. By "evolution" he means the modern
synthesis, also called (which JTEM would detest)
neoDarwinism. What he seeks to attach Darwin's name to is
Lysenkoism or neoLamarckism. If you make all those switches what >>>>>>> he says is more or less correct.
Not sure whether Mao or the CCP adopted Lysenkoism, but it doesn't >>>>>>> seem out of the question.
The phrase "survival of the fittest" has always seemed suspect to
me. We hear it repeated to justify capitalism. But there isn't any >>>>>> requirement to be 'fit' as far as I can see. There is only a
requirement (for genes) to survive. For example the camel which
sits on the calf of its rival and crushes it to death, or the
chimpanzee which kills and eats the infant offspring of its
rivals. In what way is it 'fit'? A biologist would define it as
merely fit to survive, but then the phrase becomes redundant as
survival of the survivor. And we see the same results in captialism >>>>>> with corporations swallowing up rivals rather than competing with
them.
You want to argue against a metaphor by considering it literally.
Darwin's original phrase was Natural Selection - an analogy with
Artificial Selection. The phenomenon is differential reproductive
success causally correlated with hereditary traits. (As opposite to
differential reproductive success not correlated with hereditary
traits, which is genetic drift.)
As I understand, Darwin was frustrated that people failed to
understand the concept of Natural Selection, and hoped that perhaps
people would find Spencer's Survival of the Fittest more
comprehensible. The issue perhaps is that fittest has shades of
meaning - Survival of the Best Adapted would seem to closer to how
Darwin understood it. See Selection in Relation to Sex.
I'm not sure what literary classification to place Survival of the
Fittest in. It's not obviously an analogy like Natural Selection. It's
not a definition. (Lawyer Daggett's complaint may be that you were
treating it as a definition.) Perhaps it's a catchphrase or a sound
bite. One could certainly make a case for it being a metaphor -
survival of the fittest for persistence of adaptive traits. (Now I
wonder how contemporaries interpreted the trait - modern understanding
has been modified by the rhetoric of Creationists and Social
Tennysonists (often the same people).
I think it is only an analogy if you take it in the general meaning of
the word fit, as in fit as a fiddle or fit and healthy, but in the
biological sense it merely means able to survive, and that is quite
precise. But when it is used to justify economic policy it is used in
the more general sense in an attempt to link the two idea of natural
selection and free market competition. So we are led to believe it will
lead to lean and efficient, like a cheetah, but it doesn't necessarily.
references) to the subject. Not an easy read: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2753274/
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 01:49:38 |
| Calls: | 6,706 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 12,235 |
| Messages: | 5,349,932 |