Religions > Atheism > Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
10 Apr 2004 12:08:33 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex |
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote in message news:<3gjl60t59aphs8n3bdffvq6p84t5h3vtrr@4ax.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc6jvvc.1vk.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 23:01:36 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
I invite you to critique the post in this thread I am labeling
historical background to rise and fall of modern synthesis; 1936 A.
Franklin Shull
^^^^
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403271329.1e569adf%40posting.google.com
Not that I actually want to discuss anything with you other than your return
to the thread you ran away from, but I thought I'd point out yet another
citation to something nearly as old as my grandparents.
Do you have anything to contribute to this thread?
Yes, he pointed out that the material you quoted is *obsolete* - it has
*zero* relevance to *modern* science.
Quoted material from which years is obsolete and lacks relevance to
modern science?
Quoted material from which years isn't obsolete and does possess
relevance to modern science?
.
|
|
| User: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex |
10 Apr 2004 08:28:42 PM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote:
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote in message news:<3gjl60t59aphs8n3bdffvq6p84t5h3vtrr@4ax.com>...
(david ford) wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc6jvvc.1vk.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 23:01:36 +0000 (UTC),
david ford < > wrote:
I invite you to critique the post in this thread I am labeling
historical background to rise and fall of modern synthesis; 1936 A.
Franklin Shull
^^^^
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403271329.1e569adf%40posting.google.com
Not that I actually want to discuss anything with you other than your return
to the thread you ran away from, but I thought I'd point out yet another
citation to something nearly as old as my grandparents.
Do you have anything to contribute to this thread?
Yes, he pointed out that the material you quoted is *obsolete* - it has
*zero* relevance to *modern* science.
Quoted material from which years is obsolete and lacks relevance to
modern science?
Any which has been superseded. In general, anything more than 30 or 40
years old is likely to be of little current utility, except as history.
And even material 15 to 20 years old is often seriously out of date.
A good example: when I studied embryology in college the existence of
morphogens was merely hypothesized based on the results of macroscopic
manipulations. Now the main morphogens in animal development have been
identified at the molecular level, and the actual *mechanism* of
operation is known for many of them. [E.g. we know the sequence and
mode of operation of the insect Dorsal gene, and we have identified the
mammalian homolog].
Quoted material from which years isn't obsolete and does possess
relevance to modern science?
For clear and definite relevance and utility, try material from the last
five years.
This isn't a all-or-nothing matter - there are gradations of current
applicability, from utterly obsolete stuff like the luminiferous aether,
to merely incomplete, like most stuff from 5 years ago.
To a first approximation, the older something is, the less relevant it
is to modern science.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex |
11 Apr 2004 12:18:14 PM |
|
|
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote in message news:<337h705n2t7j4jb7gsegpsht932c3i1if9@4ax.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote in message news:<3gjl60t59aphs8n3bdffvq6p84t5h3vtrr@4ax.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<slrnc6jvvc.1vk.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 23:01:36 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
I invite you to critique the post in this thread I am labeling
historical background to rise and fall of modern synthesis; 1936 A.
Franklin Shull
^^^^
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0403271329.1e569adf%40posting.google.com
Not that I actually want to discuss anything with you other than your return
to the thread you ran away from, but I thought I'd point out yet another
citation to something nearly as old as my grandparents.
Do you have anything to contribute to this thread?
Yes, he pointed out that the material you quoted is *obsolete* - it has
*zero* relevance to *modern* science.
Quoted material from which years is obsolete and lacks relevance to
modern science?
Any which has been superseded. In general, anything more than 30 or 40
years old is likely to be of little current utility, except as history.
And even material 15 to 20 years old is often seriously out of date.
I'm aware of material from the 1800s that isn't [SF]"out of date."
how has the theory of NS survived?:
Grasse, C. P. Martin, Berlinski, 1929 D. M. S. Watson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980608234718.51C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
A good example: when I studied embryology in college the existence of
morphogens was merely hypothesized based on the results of macroscopic
manipulations. Now the main morphogens in animal development have been
identified at the molecular level, and the actual *mechanism* of
operation is known for many of them. [E.g. we know the sequence and
mode of operation of the insect Dorsal gene, and we have identified the
mammalian homolog].
Quoted material from which years isn't obsolete and does possess
relevance to modern science?
For clear and definite relevance and utility, try material from the last
five years.
This isn't a all-or-nothing matter - there are gradations of current
applicability, from utterly obsolete stuff like the luminiferous aether,
to merely incomplete, like most stuff from 5 years ago.
To a first approximation, the older something is, the less relevant it
is to modern science.
How relevant is Darwin's 1859 _Origin_ [SF]"to modern science"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex |
12 Apr 2004 08:52:13 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote:
Any which has been superseded. In general, anything more than 30 or 40
years old is likely to be of little current utility, except as history.
And even material 15 to 20 years old is often seriously out of date.
I'm aware of material from the 1800s that isn't [SF]"out of date."
Really, which?
how has the theory of NS survived?:
By remaining current. There are hundreds of experiments and studies
*every* *year* that examine it in greater detail. Darwin's writings are
in fact hopelessly put of date, qua science. They are only of
historical interest at present.
Note, out of date doesn't necessarily mean *wrong* - merely so
incomplete with regard to later research as to be effectively useless.
Grasse, C. P. Martin, Berlinski, 1929 D. M. S. Watson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980608234718.51C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Which is the situation here - none of those works are considered
*current* in the sense of being used *directly* in current research.
To a first approximation, the older something is, the less relevant it
is to modern science.
How relevant is Darwin's 1859 _Origin_ [SF]"to modern science"?
About 0. It is mentioned only in historical contexts, and read only in
history of science courses.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
| User: "MzBeauti21" |
|
| Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex |
12 Apr 2004 03:27:34 PM |
|
|
How to become a millionare
"I'm 19 and I make more money than my my parents and so can you"
Turn $6.00 into $60,000...read this to find out how!!!
READING THIS COULD CHANGE YOUR LIFE!!!
I found this on a bulletin board like this one and decided to try it.
A little while back, I was browsing through a newsgroup, just like you are now,
and came across an article similar to this that said you could make thousands
of dollars within weeks with only an initial investment of $6.00! So I thought,
"Yeah right, this must be a scam", but like most of us, I was curious, so I
kept reading.
Anyway, it said that you need to send $1.00 to each of the 6 names and address
stated in the article. You then place your own name and address in the bottom
of the list at #6, and post the article in at least 200 newsgroups. (There are
thousands) No catch, that was it. So after thinking it over, and talking to a
few people first, I thought about trying it. I figured "what have I got to lose
except 6 stamps and $6.00, right?"
Then I invested the measly $6.00 (I use the word "measly" because $6 really is
measly compared to the money I have made through the initial investment). Well
GUESS WHAT!!... within 7 days, I started getting money in the mail! I was
shocked! I figured it would end soon, but the money just kept coming in.
In my first week, I made about $25.00. By the end of the second week I had
made a total of over $1,000.00! In the third week I had over $10,000.00 and
it's still growing.
This is now my fourth week and I have made just over $42,000.00 and it's still
coming in rapidly. It's certainly worth $6.00, and 6 stamps, I have spent more
than that on the lottery!!
Let me tell you how this works and most importantly, why it works.... Also,
make sure you print a copy of this article NOW, so you can get the information
off of it as you need it.
I promise you that if you follow the directions exactly, that you will start
making more money than you thought possible by doing something so easy!
Suggestion:
Read this entire message carefully! (print it out or download it.)
Follow the simple directions and watch the money come in! It's easy. It's
legal. And, your investment is only $6.00 (Plus postage)
IMPORTANT:
This is not a rip-off; it is not indecent; it is not illegal; and it is
virtually no risk - it really works!!!! If all of the following instructions
are adhered to, you will receive extraordinary dividends.
PLEASE NOTE:
Please follow these directions EXACTLY, and $50,000 or more can be yours in 20
to 60 days.
This program remains successful because of the honesty and integrity of the
participants. Please continue it's success by carefully adhering to the
instructions.
You will now become part of the Mail Order business. In this business your
product is not solid and tangible, it's a service. You are in the business of
developing Mailing Lists.
Many large corporations are happy to pay big bucks for quality lists. However,
the money made from the mailing lists is secondary to the income which is made
from people like you and me asking to be included in that list.
Here are the 4 easy steps to success:
STEP 1:
Get 6 separate pieces of paper and write the following on each piece of paper
"PLEASE PUT ME ON YOUR MAILING LIST."
Now get 6 US $1.00 bills and place ONE inside EACH of the 6 pieces of paper so
the bill will not be seen through the envelope (to prevent thievery).
Next, place one paper in each of the 6 envelopes and seal them. You should now
have 6 sealed envelopes, each with a piece of paper stating the phrase "PLEASE
PUT ME ON YOUR MAILING LIST.", your name and address, and a $1.00 bill. What
you are doing is creating a service. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY LEGAL!
You are requesting a legitimate service and you are paying for it!
Like most of us I was a little skeptical and a little worried about the legal
aspects of it all. So I checked it out with the U.S. Post Office
(1-800-725-2161) and they confirmed that it is indeed legal!
Mail the 6 envelopes to the following addresses:
#1) Bryan Wax
1739 A Ave
Emerson, IA 51533
#2) Mike Peplow
3756 S. GoldRdige Dr.
Magna, UT 84044
#3) Joe Arenas
1600 Malibu
Carrollton, TX 75006
#4) Alfonso Gonzalez
727 E. San Ysidro Blvd. #714
San Ysidro, CA 92173
#5) Richonda Scott
CMR 402 BOX 274
APO, AE 09180
#6) Mil Benjamin
13701 Beachwood
Cleveland, OH 44105
STEP 2: Now take the #1 name off the list that you see above, move the other
names up (6 becomes 5, 5 becomes 4, etc...) and add YOUR Name as number 6 on
the list.
STEP 3: Change anything you need to, but try to keep this article as close to
original as possible. Now, post your amended article to at least 200
newsgroups. (I think there are close to 32,000+) All you need is 200, but
remember, the more you post, the more money you make!
This is perfectly legal! If you have any doubts, refer to Title 18 Sec. 1302 &
1341 of the Postal lottery laws. Keep a copy of these steps for yourself and,
whenever you need money, you can use it again, and again.
PLEASE REMEMBER that this program remains successful because of the honesty and
integrity of the participants and by their carefully adhering to the
directions.
Look at it this way. If you are of integrity, the program will continue and the
money that so many others have received will come your way.
NOTE:
You may want to retain every name and address sent to you, either on a computer
or hard copy and keep the notes people send you. This VERIFIES that you are
truly providing a service. (Also, it might be a good idea to wrap the $1 bill
in dark paper to reduce the risk of mail theft.)
So, as each post is downloaded and the directions carefully followed, six
members will be reimbursed for their participation as a List Developer with one
dollar each.
Your name will move up the list geometrically so that when your name reaches
the #1 position you will be receiving thousands of dollars in CASH!!!
What an opportunity for only $6.00 ($1.00 for each of the first six people
listed above)
Send it now, add your own name to the list and you're in business!
---DIRECTIONS ----- FOR HOW TO POST TO NEWSGROUPS------------
Step 1)
You do not need to re-type this entire letter to do your own posting.
Simply put your cursor at the beginning of this letter and drag your cursor to
the bottom of this document, and select 'copy' from the edit menu. This will
copy the
entire letter into the computer's memory.
Step 2)
Open a blank 'notepad' file and place your cursor at the top of the blank page.
From the 'edit' menu select 'paste'. This will paste a copy of the letter into
notepad so that you can add your name to the list. Step 3) Save your new
notepad file as a .txt file. If you want to do your postings in different
settings, you'll always have this file to go back to.
Step 4)
Use Netscape or Internet explorer and try searching for various newsgroups
(on-line forums, message boards, chat sites, discussions, etc.)
Step 5)
Visit these message boards and post this article as a new message by
highlighting the text of this letter and selecting paste from the edit menu.
Fill in the Subject, this
will be the header that everyone sees as they scroll through the list of
postings in a particular group, click the post message button. You're done with
your first one!
Congratulations...THAT'S IT!
All you have to do is jump to different newsgroups and post away, after you get
the hang of it, it will take about 30 seconds for each newsgroup!
**REMEMBER, THE MORE NEWSGROUPS YOU POST IN, THE MORE MONEY YOU WILL MAKE!! BUT
YOU HAVE TO POST A MINIMUM OF 200**
That's it! You will begin receiving money from around the world within days!
You may eventually want to rent a P.O.Box due to the large amount of mail you
will receive. If you wish to stay anonymous, you can invent a name to use, as
long as the postman will deliver it.
**JUST MAKE SURE ALL THE ADDRESSES ARE CORRECT.**
Now the WHY part:
Out of 200 postings, say I receive only 5 replies (a very low example). So then
I made $5.00 with my name at #6 on the letter.
Now, each of the 5 persons who just sent me $1.00 make the MINIMUM 200
postings, each with my name at #5 and only 5 persons respond to each of the
original 5, that is another $25.00 for me, now those 25 each make 200 MINIMUM
posts with my name at #4 and only 5 replies each, I will bring in an additional
$125.00!
Now, those 125 persons turn around and post the MINIMUM 200 with my name at #3
and only receive 5 replies each, I will make an additional $626.00!
OK, now here is the fun part, each of those 625 persons post a MINIMUM 200
letters with my name at #2 and they each only receive 5 replies, that just made
me $3,125.00!!!
Those 3,125 persons will all deliver this message to 200 newsgroups with my
name at #1 and if still ONLY 5 persons per 200 newsgroups react I will receive
$15,625,00!
With an original investment of only $6.00! AMAZING! When your name is no longer
on the list, you just take the latest posting in the newsgroups, and send out
another $6.00 to names on the list, putting your name at number 6 again. And
start posting again.
The thing to remember is do you realize that thousands of people all over the
world are joining the internet and reading these articles everyday?, JUST LIKE
YOU are now!!
So, can you afford $6.00 and see if it really works?? I think so...
People have said, "what if the plan is played out and no one sends you the
money? So what! What are the chances of that happening when there are tons of
new honest users and new honest people who are joining the internet and
newsgroups everyday and are willing to give it a try?
Estimates are at 20,000 to 50,000 new users, every day, with thousands of those
joining the actual internet.
Remember, play FAIRLY and HONESTLY and this will really work!!!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex |
01 May 2004 09:59:29 PM |
|
|
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote in message news:<ef7l70pmvi22nghkm25g7ej5oisq4m95kv@4ax.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
Any which has been superseded. In general, anything more than 30 or 40
years old is likely to be of little current utility, except as history.
And even material 15 to 20 years old is often seriously out of date.
I'm aware of material from the 1800s that isn't [SF]"out of date."
Really, which?
See the URL below.
how has the theory of NS survived?:
By remaining current. There are hundreds of experiments and studies
*every* *year* that examine it in greater detail.
It's nice to see that you're aware of these [SF]"hundreds of
experiments and studies." Are you aware of any papers from the
peer-reviewed scientific literature that claim that the experiment or
study discussed provides confirmatory evidence for the theory of
natural selection?
Darwin's writings are
in fact hopelessly put of date, qua science. They are only of
historical interest at present.
I see.
Note, out of date doesn't necessarily mean *wrong* - merely so
incomplete with regard to later research as to be effectively useless.
I see.
Grasse, C. P. Martin, Berlinski, 1929 D. M. S. Watson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980608234718.51C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Which is the situation here - none of those works are considered
*current* in the sense of being used *directly* in current research.
They are current in the sense of currently believed to be correct/ not
[SF]"out of date."
To a first approximation, the older something is, the less relevant it
is to modern science.
How relevant is Darwin's 1859 _Origin_ [SF]"to modern science"?
About 0. It is mentioned only in historical contexts, and read only in
history of science courses.
I got the impression that some individuals consider _Origin_
practically equivalent to how the Koran is viewed by Muslims.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex |
02 May 2004 10:42:17 AM |
|
|
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0405011904.64505c43@posting.google.com...
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote in message
news:<ef7l70pmvi22nghkm25g7ej5oisq4m95kv@4ax.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
Any which has been superseded. In general, anything more than 30 or
40
years old is likely to be of little current utility, except as
history.
And even material 15 to 20 years old is often seriously out of date.
I'm aware of material from the 1800s that isn't [SF]"out of date."
Really, which?
See the URL below.
how has the theory of NS survived?:
By remaining current. There are hundreds of experiments and studies
*every* *year* that examine it in greater detail.
It's nice to see that you're aware of these [SF]"hundreds of
experiments and studies." Are you aware of any papers from the
peer-reviewed scientific literature that claim that the experiment or
study discussed provides confirmatory evidence for the theory of
natural selection?
Are you really that fucking ignorant??? Someone posted several good
references in this same thread. Why do you willfully ignore the obvious???
There are over 12,000 papers that come back from a search for "natural
selection" at PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex |
02 May 2004 09:34:25 PM |
|
|
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message news:<foqdnbWje-NDigjdRVn-vA@adelphia.com>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0405011904.64505c43@posting.google.com...
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote in message
news:<ef7l70pmvi22nghkm25g7ej5oisq4m95kv@4ax.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
Any which has been superseded. In general, anything more than 30 or
40
years old is likely to be of little current utility, except as
history.
And even material 15 to 20 years old is often seriously out of date.
I'm aware of material from the 1800s that isn't [SF]"out of date."
Really, which?
See the URL below.
how has the theory of NS survived?:
By remaining current. There are hundreds of experiments and studies
*every* *year* that examine it in greater detail.
It's nice to see that you're aware of these [SF]"hundreds of
experiments and studies." Are you aware of any papers from the
peer-reviewed scientific literature that claim that the experiment or
study discussed provides confirmatory evidence for the theory of
natural selection?
Are you really that fucking ignorant???
Yes.
Someone posted several good
references in this same thread.
You don't say. Have you looked at the papers associated with some of
these [EoE]"several good references"? If not, how do you know they
are [EoE]"good"?
Why do you willfully ignore the obvious???
There are over 12,000 papers that come back from a search for "natural
selection" at PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/
Is "natural selection" the same thing as "Darwin's theory of natural
selection"?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex |
04 May 2004 09:29:22 AM |
|
|
(david ford) wrote:
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote in message news:<ef7l70pmvi22nghkm25g7ej5oisq4m95kv@4ax.com>...
(david ford) wrote:
Any which has been superseded. In general, anything more than 30 or 40
years old is likely to be of little current utility, except as history.
And even material 15 to 20 years old is often seriously out of date.
I'm aware of material from the 1800s that isn't [SF]"out of date."
Really, which?
See the URL below.
A list of general principles still used is not the same as research that
is directly still relevant. Are *any* of the original papers on those
subjects still cited in current journal articles? I doubt it - because
they have no special relevance to any current research (beyond the
general background).
By remaining current. There are hundreds of experiments and studies
*every* *year* that examine it in greater detail.
It's nice to see that you're aware of these [SF]"hundreds of
experiments and studies." Are you aware of any papers from the
peer-reviewed scientific literature that claim that the experiment or
study discussed provides confirmatory evidence for the theory of
natural selection?
Yes. Try reading papers from the Linnaean Society journals, or from
Hennig (a journal), or Evolutionary Monographs, or Journal of Evolution,
or Journal of Biological Systematics, or American Midland Naturalist.
These journal are packed with papers testing various aspects of the
theory of evolution. And that is only a small fraction of the current
literature - the journals I could think of off the top of my head.
Darwin's writings are
in fact hopelessly out of date, qua science. They are only of
historical interest at present.
I see.
Do you? Do you understand that Darwin is *never* actually cited in
current journal articles? Do you understand why this is so?
Which is the situation here - none of those works are considered
*current* in the sense of being used *directly* in current research.
They are current in the sense of currently believed to be correct/ not
[SF]"out of date."
Let's see, I just got through saying "out of date" *doesn't* mean the
same as incorrect. Why use that misunderstanding *again*? The response
is the same this time - so what if they are correct, this doesn't change
the fact that they are out of date.
How relevant is Darwin's 1859 _Origin_ [SF]"to modern science"?
About 0. It is mentioned only in historical contexts, and read only in
history of science courses.
I got the impression that some individuals consider _Origin_
practically equivalent to how the Koran is viewed by Muslims.
Only non-scientists might think this way. Any impression you have to
the contrary is incorrect. Very few biologists have ever read Darwin's
books. I am unusual, as I am as interested in history as I am in
biology, so I have read _Origins_. But it was *never* assigned reading
in *any* of my biology classes, and was never mentioned outside of the
historical sections (it is traditional for textbooks to have one or two
historical chapters at the beginning, before getting down to the current
science).
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Harshman" |
|
| Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex |
04 May 2004 10:35:23 AM |
|
|
Stanley Friesen wrote:
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote in message news:<ef7l70pmvi22nghkm25g7ej5oisq4m95kv@4ax.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
Any which has been superseded. In general, anything more than 30 or 40
years old is likely to be of little current utility, except as history.
And even material 15 to 20 years old is often seriously out of date.
I'm aware of material from the 1800s that isn't [SF]"out of date."
Really, which?
See the URL below.
A list of general principles still used is not the same as research that
is directly still relevant. Are *any* of the original papers on those
subjects still cited in current journal articles? I doubt it - because
they have no special relevance to any current research (beyond the
general background).
By remaining current. There are hundreds of experiments and studies
*every* *year* that examine it in greater detail.
It's nice to see that you're aware of these [SF]"hundreds of
experiments and studies." Are you aware of any papers from the
peer-reviewed scientific literature that claim that the experiment or
study discussed provides confirmatory evidence for the theory of
natural selection?
Yes. Try reading papers from the Linnaean Society journals, or from
Hennig (a journal),
Do you mean Cladistics or is there a journal I don't know about?
or Evolutionary Monographs, or Journal of Evolution,
You mean either Evolution or Journal of Evolutionary Biology?
or Journal of Biological Systematics,
Either Systematic Biology or Journal of Zoological Systematics and
Evolutionary Research?
or American Midland Naturalist.
I would pick American Naturalist before that.
These journal are packed with papers testing various aspects of the
theory of evolution. And that is only a small fraction of the current
literature - the journals I could think of off the top of my head.
No, David wants a paper that proves undirected processes are all that's
necessary to account for the entire history of life.
Darwin's writings are
in fact hopelessly out of date, qua science. They are only of
historical interest at present.
I see.
Do you? Do you understand that Darwin is *never* actually cited in
current journal articles? Do you understand why this is so?
Not true. He's cited all the time, but usually it's just name-dropping.
Which is the situation here - none of those works are considered
*current* in the sense of being used *directly* in current research.
They are current in the sense of currently believed to be correct/ not
[SF]"out of date."
Let's see, I just got through saying "out of date" *doesn't* mean the
same as incorrect. Why use that misunderstanding *again*? The response
is the same this time - so what if they are correct, this doesn't change
the fact that they are out of date.
How relevant is Darwin's 1859 _Origin_ [SF]"to modern science"?
About 0. It is mentioned only in historical contexts, and read only in
history of science courses.
I got the impression that some individuals consider _Origin_
practically equivalent to how the Koran is viewed by Muslims.
Only non-scientists might think this way. Any impression you have to
the contrary is incorrect. Very few biologists have ever read Darwin's
books.
I would think that most evolutionary biologists, at least, have read the
Origin, at least. It's on the required reading list in many programs.
I am unusual, as I am as interested in history as I am in
biology, so I have read _Origins_. But it was *never* assigned reading
in *any* of my biology classes, and was never mentioned outside of the
historical sections (it is traditional for textbooks to have one or two
historical chapters at the beginning, before getting down to the current
science).
This is just not true for most evolutionary biologists with advanced
degrees. But your point stands that Darwin is not at all considered
infallible or an ultimate authority to be appealed to.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex |
04 May 2004 09:49:57 PM |
|
|
John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote:
Do you mean Cladistics or is there a journal I don't know about?
Probably, I do not read it often.
or Evolutionary Monographs, or Journal of Evolution,
You mean either Evolution or Journal of Evolutionary Biology?
Well, how about both :-)
or Journal of Biological Systematics,
Either Systematic Biology
This one. I got its old name and its new name mixed together.
or American Midland Naturalist.
I would pick American Naturalist before that.
Tastes vary. I rather like AMN. But, hey, I'm a Kansas boy.
These journal are packed with papers testing various aspects of the
theory of evolution. And that is only a small fraction of the current
literature - the journals I could think of off the top of my head.
No, David wants a paper that proves undirected processes are all that's
necessary to account for the entire history of life.
Well, the total effect of all the papers is pretty much that. It is all
that is *necessary*.
Do you? Do you understand that Darwin is *never* actually cited in
current journal articles? Do you understand why this is so?
Not true. He's cited all the time, but usually it's just name-dropping.
Well, yes, there is that.
Only non-scientists might think this way. Any impression you have to
the contrary is incorrect. Very few biologists have ever read Darwin's
books.
I would think that most evolutionary biologists, at least, have read the
Origin, at least. It's on the required reading list in many programs.
It wasn't in mine - at least not in the undergraduate program.
And my graduate degree is a bit of an oddball, not directly concerned
with evolution.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Harshman" |
|
| Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex |
05 May 2004 09:51:07 AM |
|
|
Stanley Friesen wrote:
John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote:
[snips all over]
or Journal of Biological Systematics,
Either Systematic Biology
This one. I got its old name and its new name mixed together.
Nah, its old name was Systematic Zoology. And the old name of the other
journal I mentioned was a serious mouthful of German: Zeitschrift fur
Zoologischen Systematik und Evolutionsforschung. Or something like that;
I'm probably mangling it.
[snip]
These journal are packed with papers testing various aspects of the
theory of evolution. And that is only a small fraction of the current
literature - the journals I could think of off the top of my head.
No, David wants a paper that proves undirected processes are all that's
necessary to account for the entire history of life.
Well, the total effect of all the papers is pretty much that. It is all
that is *necessary*.
I'm not sure this is true. It's a rare paper that does this. I can think
of, for example, Nilsson, D., and S. Pelger. 1994. A pessimistic
estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proc. R. Soc. Lond.
B 256:53-58. But most papers are concerned with the small transitions if
they involve actual selection, and most papers concerned with large
transitions don't get into any real tests of selection. There is a bit
of a methodological gap. Not that you could drive ID into it, but it is
there.
[snip]
Only non-scientists might think this way. Any impression you have to
the contrary is incorrect. Very few biologists have ever read Darwin's
books.
I would think that most evolutionary biologists, at least, have read the
Origin, at least. It's on the required reading list in many programs.
It wasn't in mine - at least not in the undergraduate program.
And my graduate degree is a bit of an oddball, not directly concerned
with evolution.
Yes, I was talking about graduate programs in evolutionary biology. If
you get out of one of those without having read Darwin (and a few other
classics in the field), something was wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex |
06 May 2004 08:31:22 AM |
|
|
John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote:
Yes, I was talking about graduate programs in evolutionary biology. If
you get out of one of those without having read Darwin (and a few other
classics in the field), something was wrong.
That does explain why I missed it in school: strictly speaking my
graduate degree was from a health sciences department.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "howard hershey" |
|
| Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex |
03 May 2004 09:56:07 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote in message news:<ef7l70pmvi22nghkm25g7ej5oisq4m95kv@4ax.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
Any which has been superseded. In general, anything more than 30 or 40
years old is likely to be of little current utility, except as history.
And even material 15 to 20 years old is often seriously out of date.
I'm aware of material from the 1800s that isn't [SF]"out of date."
Really, which?
See the URL below.
how has the theory of NS survived?:
By remaining current. There are hundreds of experiments and studies
*every* *year* that examine it in greater detail.
It's nice to see that you're aware of these [SF]"hundreds of
experiments and studies." Are you aware of any papers from the
peer-reviewed scientific literature that claim that the experiment or
study discussed provides confirmatory evidence for the theory of
natural selection?
What, exactly do you mean by the "theory of natural selection", david?
I keep asking and you keep on waving your hands and say nothing. Is it
your considered opinion that natural selection does not happen in
nature? Is it your opinion that natural selection only can work to
choose variants that 'decrease' complexity? What exactly is it that you
have against natural selection? What exactly do you think is wrong with
the modern understanding of natural selection? Curious minds want to know.
Darwin's writings are
in fact hopelessly put of date, qua science. They are only of
historical interest at present.
I see.
Note, out of date doesn't necessarily mean *wrong* - merely so
incomplete with regard to later research as to be effectively useless.
I see.
Grasse, C. P. Martin, Berlinski, 1929 D. M. S. Watson
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980608234718.51C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
Which is the situation here - none of those works are considered
*current* in the sense of being used *directly* in current research.
They are current in the sense of currently believed to be correct/ not
[SF]"out of date."
To a first approximation, the older something is, the less relevant it
is to modern science.
How relevant is Darwin's 1859 _Origin_ [SF]"to modern science"?
About 0. It is mentioned only in historical contexts, and read only in
history of science courses.
I got the impression that some individuals consider _Origin_
practically equivalent to how the Koran is viewed by Muslims.
Your impression, as usual, is wrong on several counts. Perhaps you
meant to say "equivalent to how fundamentalist Christians view the
Bible" or "how fundamentalist Islamicists view the Koran". Otherwise
your statement makes no sense. In either case, of course, any
intelligent observer notes that both groups really pick and choose which
parts of their sacred inviolate text to regard as important and to be
interpreted 'literally' but, importantly, claim emphatically that they
don't do so.
In contrast, scientists openly and publicly pick and choose between hose
aspects of Darwin's _Origin_ and the theories and explanations stated
therein that remain valid (descent with modification, natural selection)
and those that don't (gemule genetics, inheritance of acquired
characteristics) in light of 150+ years of further research with no
pretense that it all remains valid. That is because the _Origin_ is not
and never was, unlike the Koran and Bible to their respective
fundamentalists, considered a sacred text. It was and is regarded as
useful only to the extent that it is consistent with empirical
observation and test from the natural material world.
Darwin is honored because his explanations remain useful and fruitful
and were the foundations of a still vibrant and useful branch of
science, not because he was right about everything. It is the same
reason why Linneaus is honored.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Harshman" |
|
| Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex |
03 May 2004 10:38:15 AM |
|
|
howard hershey wrote:
david ford wrote:
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote in message news:<ef7l70pmvi22nghkm25g7ej5oisq4m95kv@4ax.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
Any which has been superseded. In general, anything more than 30 or 40
years old is likely to be of little current utility, except as history.
And even material 15 to 20 years old is often seriously out of date.
I'm aware of material from the 1800s that isn't [SF]"out of date."
Really, which?
See the URL below.
how has the theory of NS survived?:
By remaining current. There are hundreds of experiments and studies
*every* *year* that examine it in greater detail.
It's nice to see that you're aware of these [SF]"hundreds of
experiments and studies." Are you aware of any papers from the
peer-reviewed scientific literature that claim that the experiment or
study discussed provides confirmatory evidence for the theory of
natural selection?
What, exactly do you mean by the "theory of natural selection", david?
He probably won't answer. But what he means is the idea that natural
selection alone is responsible for all adaptations encountered in the
history of life. I imagine that he would also allow for some action by
other processes, such as drift -- the important feature of evolutionary
theories to him is that they are generally undirected by any
intelligence. So really, when he says "theory of natural selection" he's
talking about anything that's not ID. And when he asks for evidence of
this theory he's asking for evidence that all of evolution has been
accomplished solely by natural processes. Why he doesn't just say this
instead of confusingly using NS as shorthand is unclear to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex |
05 May 2004 08:45:29 AM |
|
|
John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:<409668C6.4010109@pacbell.net>...
howard hershey wrote:
david ford wrote:
Stanley Friesen <sarima@friesen.net> wrote in message news:<ef7l70pmvi22nghkm25g7ej5oisq4m95kv@4ax.com>...
dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
Any which has been superseded. In general, anything more than 30 or 40
years old is likely to be of little current utility, except as history.
And even material 15 to 20 years old is often seriously out of date.
I'm aware of material from the 1800s that isn't [SF]"out of date."
Really, which?
See the URL below.
how has the theory of NS survived?:
By remaining current. There are hundreds of experiments and studies
*every* *year* that examine it in greater detail.
It's nice to see that you're aware of these [SF]"hundreds of
experiments and studies." Are you aware of any papers from the
peer-reviewed scientific literature that claim that the experiment or
study discussed provides confirmatory evidence for the theory of
natural selection?
What, exactly do you mean by the "theory of natural selection", david?
He probably won't answer.
Agreed.
Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://tinyurl.com/y2gb
aka
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu
But what he means is the idea that natural
selection alone is responsible for all adaptations encountered in the
history of life. I imagine that he would also allow for some action by
other processes, such as drift -- the important feature of evolutionary
theories to him is that they are generally undirected by any
intelligence. So really, when he says "theory of natural selection" he's
talking about anything that's not ID. And when he asks for evidence of
this theory he's asking for evidence that all of evolution has been
accomplished solely by natural processes. Why he doesn't just say this
instead of confusingly using NS as shorthand is unclear to me.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex
Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex
Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex
Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex
Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex
Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex
Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex
Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex
| Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex
Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex
Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex
Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex
Re: Darlington on "violent discontinuity" in origin of meiosis, sex
Re: There is NO Valid Reason to Block Same-Sex Marriage. NONE, whatsoever.
OT: Cheney breaks with president to back same-sex marriages
|
|
|
