| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Archimedes Plutonium" |
| Date: |
15 Jun 2004 04:11:28 AM |
| Object: |
flaw in Darwin Evolution Re: grafted rootstock |
14 Jun 2004 07:48:46 -0700 Christopher Green wrote:
(snipped)
No, it may have a much greater viability with a "bird gut dependency".
Seeds that require a pass through a digestive tract, or a fire, or a
freeze and thaw are generally also well protected and will survive
harsh conditions in dormancy. They will receive better dispersal or
germinate under better conditions, and so will end up with a greater
yield.
--
Chris Green
No, this is a flaw in Darwin Evolution theory. Your above is another example of "postdiction" of Darwin
Evolution. This particular flaw is that of "generalist" versus "specialist" and that when a plant or
animal becomes too specialist faces the quick road to extinction. If you look at the record of species
gone extinct it is replete with specialists, seldom any generalist.
Give you an example I recently encountered. I kept finding dug holes near a garage concrete slab and
determined to trap the culprit. Come to find out it was possums. Possums generally live in trees and
make their homes there, but in cold climates they have the habit of digging down deep under to survive
the winter. So they are generalists and have spread their domain. So by Darwin Evolution we can
understand that this generalizing of behaviour is a survival value and increases the range of the
species and the numbers of the species. But Darwin Evolution would be deaf dumb and silent and
postdiction as to why any animal or plant species (prunus tomentosa specializing to have its seed
germinate only if passed through bird gut). So no plant or animal would make a choice of going to be
specialized from that of generalized. So, Darwin Evolution is again a flawed theory which works okay in
large part but is flawed and frayed at all margins. It is an algorithm, a rule of thumb. The true
theory that replaces Darwin Evolution is what John Bell, the physicist called Superdeterminism. For you
cannot have a world where both Darwin Evolution and Superdeterminism co-exist.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.archimedesplutonium.com
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.
|
|
| User: "Christopher Green" |
|
| Title: Re: flaw in Darwin Evolution Re: grafted rootstock |
15 Jun 2004 10:33:27 AM |
|
|
Archimedes Plutonium <a_plutonium@iw.net> wrote in message news:<40CEBD42.8456A243@iw.net>...
14 Jun 2004 07:48:46 -0700 Christopher Green wrote:
(snipped)
No, it may have a much greater viability with a "bird gut dependency".
Seeds that require a pass through a digestive tract, or a fire, or a
freeze and thaw are generally also well protected and will survive
harsh conditions in dormancy. They will receive better dispersal or
germinate under better conditions, and so will end up with a greater
yield.
--
Chris Green
No, this is a flaw in Darwin Evolution theory. Your above is another example of "postdiction" of Darwin
Evolution. This particular flaw is that of "generalist" versus "specialist" and that when a plant or
animal becomes too specialist faces the quick road to extinction. If you look at the record of species
gone extinct it is replete with specialists, seldom any generalist.
That is merely silly. You know nothing of what you speak.
--
Chris Green
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cereus-validus" |
|
| Title: Re: flaw in Darwin Evolution Re: grafted rootstock |
15 Jun 2004 11:01:51 AM |
|
|
Are you just realizing that?
Archie has been posting crazy nonsense to this newsgroup for years. He is a
rather harmless kook and he makes an easy whipping boy because he is such a
misinformed delusional fool.
Archie is the poster boy for deviant de-evolution
"Are we not men? We are DEVO!"
"Christopher Green" <cj.green@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:c31fa7b1.0406150733.6997f62a@posting.google.com...
Archimedes Plutonium <a_plutonium@iw.net> wrote in message
news:<40CEBD42.8456A243@iw.net>...
14 Jun 2004 07:48:46 -0700 Christopher Green wrote:
(snipped)
No, it may have a much greater viability with a "bird gut dependency".
Seeds that require a pass through a digestive tract, or a fire, or a
freeze and thaw are generally also well protected and will survive
harsh conditions in dormancy. They will receive better dispersal or
germinate under better conditions, and so will end up with a greater
yield.
--
Chris Green
No, this is a flaw in Darwin Evolution theory. Your above is another
example of "postdiction" of Darwin
Evolution. This particular flaw is that of "generalist" versus
"specialist" and that when a plant or
animal becomes too specialist faces the quick road to extinction. If you
look at the record of species
gone extinct it is replete with specialists, seldom any generalist.
That is merely silly. You know nothing of what you speak.
--
Chris Green
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher Green" |
|
| Title: Re: flaw in Darwin Evolution Re: grafted rootstock |
15 Jun 2004 07:04:08 PM |
|
|
"Cereus-validus" <fashizzle.youself@spam.net> wrote in message news:<P3Fzc.1663$Pt.491@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>...
Are you just realizing that?
No, I know it full well...
--
Chris Green
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Stirling" |
|
| Title: Re: flaw in Darwin Evolution Re: grafted rootstock |
15 Jun 2004 10:56:21 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics Archimedes Plutonium <a_plutonium@iw.net> wrote:
14 Jun 2004 07:48:46 -0700 Christopher Green wrote:
(snipped)
No, it may have a much greater viability with a "bird gut dependency".
Seeds that require a pass through a digestive tract, or a fire, or a
freeze and thaw are generally also well protected and will survive
harsh conditions in dormancy. They will receive better dispersal or
germinate under better conditions, and so will end up with a greater
yield.
--
Chris Green
No, this is a flaw in Darwin Evolution theory. Your above is another example of "postdiction" of Darwin
Evolution. This particular flaw is that of "generalist" versus "specialist" and that when a plant or
animal becomes too specialist faces the quick road to extinction. If you look at the record of species
gone extinct it is replete with specialists, seldom any generalist.
However, evolution does not work to long-term species survival, but
comparative advantage between offspring.
If in the past a certian behaviour or characteristic has benefited the
species to go into being a specialist, then the species may become very
specialist indeed, and sensitive to the loss of whatever they specialise
in.
Evolution cannot look ahead, and wonder what happens if the Goobly tree
becomes extinct due to Dutch Goobly disease, and there are no
Gooblyberries to eat.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Archimedes Plutonium" |
|
| Title: Re: flaw in Darwin Evolution Re: grafted rootstock |
16 Jun 2004 03:05:46 AM |
|
|
15 Jun 2004 15:56:21 GMT wrote:
However, evolution does not work to long-term species survival, but
comparative advantage between offspring.
If in the past a certian behaviour or characteristic has benefited the
species to go into being a specialist, then the species may become very
specialist indeed, and sensitive to the loss of whatever they specialise
in.
Evolution cannot look ahead, and wonder what happens if the Goobly tree
becomes extinct due to Dutch Goobly disease, and there are no
Gooblyberries to eat.
Same thing I told P van Rijckevorsel. The factor of "Environment" is missing in Darwin Evolution theory
which as a factor is probably more important than the other 4 factors of differential reproductive success,
geographical isolation, etc etc.
We do not expect Darwin Evolution to be hovering over ever species and moving its members along on the road
of greatest success.
But if a force of Environment is such that it moves a large number of species every year from becoming more
Specialist and losing its Generalist tendencies
(eg prunus tomentosa losing its ability of viable seeds unless passed through the gut of a bird).
Then, well, Darwin Evolution has a huge gap missing in that the Environment is shaping the future of species
more than the 4 factors espoused in Darwin Evolution.
And it is exactly a factor of Environment that the theory of Superdeterminism would say is more important
than the other 4 factors given by Darwin Evolution.
So why should any member of any species be seen as success or survival when the entire species is hurly
gurly burly roller coastering into extinction.
If Darwin Evolution is deaf dumb and silent about whether a species is becoming too specialist rather than
generalist, whilst Environment is dictating what species is made to be more specialist, well, obviously
there are huge holes and flaws and gaps in Darwin Evolution.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.archimedesplutonium.com
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Archimedes Plutonium" |
|
| Title: Re: flaw in Darwin Evolution Re: grafted rootstock |
17 Jun 2004 12:54:02 PM |
|
|
P van Rijckevorsel wrote:
Archimedes Plutonium <a_plutonium@iw.net> schreef
May I interject environment into the above.
+ + +
You can interject it, but that does not make it relevant
+ + +
It is the environment itself that is forcing and shaping plant and animal
species
+ + +
There is quite a bit of literature on adaptation
+ + +
to go down a path of becoming too specialist or too generalist.
+ + +
The question of "too" is a different matter entirely
+ + +
But then Darwin Evolution does not count the "factor of environment".
+ + +
You must have the wrong Evolution Theory then
+ + +
So Darwin Evolution is flawed on that account.
+ + +
? ? ?
+ + +
+ + +
As algorithms are something entirely different from rules of thumb, you
may want to choose which you mean?
+ + +
Well Ohms law is not a law of physics. It is a algorithm or rule of thumb.
A slide-ruler ( remember those old cumbersome instruments of the 1970s) is
an algorithm for finding a math answer but seldom gives you the precise and
accurate answer that a math computation gives.
+ + +
Perhaps you should get somebody to introduce you to the concept of
"dictionary" and help you look up words?
+ + +
Let us not be focused on semantics of words, theory, true, false when we
need to focus on Darwin Evolution.
+ + +
That sounds like good advice. Maybe you should take it?
PvR
It is sad to see people in science who become unable to question their beliefs,
their understanding of theories. Who go on and quip and quip.
How PvR embraces Darwin Evolution as an absolute truth reminds me of the people
who embraced the theories before Darwin Evolution as the truth and who quiped
and attacked and defended the prevailing theories of their day. Never able to
engage in a discussion of the cracks and holes of the theory.
For example, the species Homo sapiens alone contradicts Darwin Evolution. We
can biotech and engineer species that is in blatant contradiction to all the 4
tenets of Darwin Evolution. Where a single species is determining what other
species will go extinct and what species will be propagated. In fact, there is
a moment in history where the human species transcended the tenets of Darwin
Evolution theory. That alone should raise the minds of so called scientists to
question the gaps, the cracks and the flaws of Darwin Evolution theory. Darwin
Evolution theory no longer applies to humanity. But I need minds sharper and
better than those of a quiping quipper of PvR to debate such.
And in the long run, I know I am correct and PvR is incorrect because I have a
physics experiment already done and established. The John Bell Inequality with
the Aspect experimental results. Superdeterminism won. Darwin Evolution is fake
and only needs time before it is trashcanned into the dustbins of history along
with Lamarkianism along with Bible Creationism along with the thousands of
other fake theories of science where millions of PvR types so proudly quipped
and defended.
It is sad that rigidity of mind is not more of a deterrant to those that enter
science fields as a profession. This is also for Chris Green, and moreso,
because I am guessing PvR is far older than Chris. It goes to show that in
science, the people who stay in science are governed more by the psychology of
wanting to be a member of a "group" rather than the quality of wanting to be
"logical and rational in thought". Science favors its members who are logical
and not so worried about being a member of a countryclub of Darwin believers.
Countryclub believers never change or create science for it requires the
ability to notice and see gaps and cracks in the existing theories. If Chris is
younger then there is some hope that he can grow out of his present
groupie-ship of Darwin.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.archimedesplutonium.com
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
